This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Reflections On The 4th Of July

Tyler Durden's picture





 

Submitted by Brandon Smith from Alt Market

Reflections On The 4th Of July

You get what you pay for. Or, more precisely, you get what you work for. Over 230 years ago, a group of colonists on the edge of the new world realized that the freedom they traveled halfway across the planet searching for would never be, unless, that is, they finally confronted the iron fisted enemy they once ran from. Their Declaration of Independence was a struggle in itself. Most Americans at that time were not resolved to support revolution. Many were undecided even after the war was won. Ultimately, the most powerful and pervasive empire on earth at that time, the British Empire, was defeated by a mere portion of the American population; farmers, craftsmen, tradesmen, frontiersmen, who had fought with such force of will, with such passion, that they were able to convince other nations (like France) that such a thing could even be achieved. In that moment, they transformed the shape of the Earth forever. The impossible was now, indeed, possible. The great shadow of elitism and autocracy was not only vulnerable; it could be crushed by the likes of so called “peasants”. The common man could determine his own destiny, and shape his own government. No matter what had happened before, or what has happened since, no one, and nothing, could erase that moment from time, when the leviathan was cast down, and men tasted true freedom.

You get what you work for.

I and many others of my generation have in the past felt lost, as if we were born in the wrong time and faced with a society and a nation so warped and backwards we might never be able to assimilate. At first, you suspect that something must be wrong with you, but later, you begin to realize that you are simply honest, and that something instead is dearly wrong with the world. The question then is whether or not you risk yourself and your sanity by conforming, or risk even greater stakes, and attempt to right the wrongs that came before. Wrongs you were born into. Do you have the guts to clean up the mistakes of generations past and set things right, or do you leave these overwhelming problems for your children? On July 4th, 1776, a courageous organization of men and women offered themselves as a shield to those who would come after. They dared to say “no more”. And, on this day, in this age of renewed tyranny, we must consider if it is not our time to step forward and become the wall that holds fast against the storm.

Independence Day is not about blind nationalism, it is not about statism, it is not about collectivist subservience to a pervasive bureaucracy; it is about the rebirth of the individual in the face of overwhelming despotism, and the creation of a country whose fundamental focus was the nurturance of such individualism above the desires of government. Beyond the often irrational fears of the “majority”. A philosophy of decentralization that was meant to supercede elitist addictions to power and dominance. The 4th of July is a marker, an oasis in the annals of history, when the true potential of humanity could be glimpsed, even if only for a moment.

Ever since, men have longed for another opening in the veil. We have allowed ourselves to be manipulated, conned, conditioned, and enslaved. We have abandoned our self sufficiency, and become utterly dependent upon political and economic systems we no longer have any real influence over. America has lost itself, and the darkness grows ever more heavy. For those who have awakened to this reality, I can say only this; you are not the first. Others have come before you. Others have fought back. Others have been victorious. You have been given the most evocative foundation on which to stand; you have been given heritage. You know now what can be accomplished, if only we have the determination to move ahead. You also know what is required for success. You know what has been sacrificed in the past, and what must be sacrificed again. For every 4th of July for the past two centuries, we are reminded what it takes to be free.

It is important to celebrate the accomplishments of the past, and to learn from the struggles of our ancestry. It is enriching to our character to focus at least one day on that which is best in our natures, to embody and make tangible our principles. It is honorable to give thanks to those who gave so much, if only to prove what can be done. But this is not the end of our responsibilities. We are also tasked with ensuring the legacy carries on. Our very conscience demands that we not only maintain the structures of liberty, but that we build even further. We have much to do, and little time to do it.

You get what you work for. It is time to go to work…

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 07/04/2011 - 12:22 | Link to Comment GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

"Whither goest thou, America, in thy shiny car in the night? "-Jack Kerouac

(Damn hippies)

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 12:29 | Link to Comment Vint Slugs
Vint Slugs's picture

Actually, Jack was one of the "beats", not a hippy.  Quite a difference.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 12:36 | Link to Comment GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

My error. (I tried to amend it, but you were too quick on the draw.)

"Here comes a citizen! Let's light him up and piss him out!"-Gilbert Shelton

(Yippie?)

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 12:56 | Link to Comment Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture

GoinFawr

You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.

Abbie Hoffman

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 13:17 | Link to Comment Libertarian777
Libertarian777's picture

America wasn't founded as a democracy.

It' a constitutional republic. In fact that was the whole point of founding states. Each was independent from the federal government, and retained it's rights (so no other, larger state could vote away it's rights). This is one of the reasons why the senate was 2 senators from each state irrespective of the population in that state.

We are moving towards pure democracy. I.e. Mob rule. Soon there will be more people on welfare and social security than productive workers. Pure democracies devolve into socialism, since over time, people will vote for collective spreading of other people's wealth.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 13:23 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Propagandists are such a drain on resources. They will keep recanting their half lie, half truth until they come to realize that facts are not a matter of belief but admittance.

Attrition is useless for the matter.

There is no opposition between democracy and constitutional republic.

Democracy and ochlocracy are different things. People established that stuff two thousand years ago. Misrepresenting one for the other is just a waste of resources.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 13:29 | Link to Comment Hacked Economy
Hacked Economy's picture

AnAn,

Libertarian777 is correct.  A democracy and a republic are two very different entities.  There is MUCH opposition between them.

If you're referring to what we actually have today in the U.S. (an almost unrecognizable mix of mob rule, welfare state, egalitarianism, etc.), then comment as such.  But if you're commenting solely about definitions, then you got it wrong, and Libertarian got it right.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 13:48 | Link to Comment wanklord
wanklord's picture

The article in question is a genuine piece of crap (bullshit at its best). Besides that, Americans are a bunch of stupid animals easy to manipulate and subdue. These mules clearly fit in one of Leo Strauss'(*) categories of society: the Vulgar Many

"The vulgar many, are lovers of wealth and pleasure. They are selfish, slothful, and indolent. They can be inspired to rise above their brutish existence only by fear of impending death or catastrophe."

The sooner the US economy collapses, the better, so these brutes will finally learn NOT to live beyond their means.

* German Philosopher (1899-1973)

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 14:29 | Link to Comment Hacked Economy
Hacked Economy's picture

Hey Wanky,

You already cut-and-pasted this exact same comment this weekend (see #1421603).

Write something original and inspiring, please, to catch our attention.

Besides, doesn't "wank" mean "masturbate" in the UK???

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 14:45 | Link to Comment macholatte
macholatte's picture

and where you from Wanky that you have such hatred?

 

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 15:11 | Link to Comment unununium
unununium's picture

It occurs to this American that your viewpoint may be shared by more in Britain than I had imagined.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 15:35 | Link to Comment ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

And Wanky - Britain and the rest of Europe are not slaves to their neighbors and smashing windows for having to work more than 35 hours a week, get a month's paid vacation, and retire at 60?

Piss in your own pot.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 14:18 | Link to Comment SamuelMaverick
SamuelMaverick's picture

+1 Hacked Economy.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 15:37 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

There is MUCH opposition between them.

 

Republic is a form of goverment.

Democracy is a political ideology.

There is opposition between as there is opposition between a fruit and a car.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 19:53 | Link to Comment Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

You should really put down the Adam Smith and read Aristotle before making comments like that.  The differences between a republic and democracy have been well debated and documented for thousands of years. Hence, "republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms."  The larger issue is the difference between the proper and just rule by 1, rule by a few, and rule by all- and the degenerate rule by 1, rule by a few, and rule by all. The tyranny of the one, tyranny of the few and the tyranny of the majority all have drawbacks (they suck) and all are inferior to the republic.  To say that there is "no opposition" between democracy and republic implies that democracy and republic are the same (which would imply that good and bad are the same thing, when in fact they are polar opposites)- I don't think there is a single translation of Aristotle anywhere in the world that says democracy and republic are the same, unless the thought Nazis have been rewriting the classics recently.  And while democracy and oligarchy are slightly different, they share the common traits of both being shit forms of authoritarian government benefitting the undeserving special interests.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 14:22 | Link to Comment GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

"Pure democracies devolve into socialism, since over time, people will vote for collective spreading of other people's wealth."

Maggie, that's such a load of bullshit:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/may/27/debt-deficit-oecd-countries-data

Judging by 'standards of living' and fiscal prudence, it looks a lot more like an evolution rather than devolution.

Your assumption hinges on absolutely everything being a priori owned by private interests.

Your type get wood when I mention privatizing breathable air.

OTOH America has repeatedly squandered opportunities to elect to the oval office its only dyed in the wool constitutional republican: Ralph Nader. Which is really too bad because if the the US constitution wasn't merely a prop used for window dressing you would have one helluv an awesome republic to live in.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 14:22 | Link to Comment pcrs
pcrs's picture

If I am not allowed to steal from you, I can not delegate that right to a politician either. Het still does not have that right, even if a lot of people agree with his theft, or hope to benefit.

Thus politicians are nothing but organised criminals with a flag and an anthem. They command you to obey their laws in the name of the majority, like a priest wants your obedience in the name of god. As soon as you are lured in by them to take a little bit from your neighbor to give part of it to you, a mad scramble for the spoils begins and it always has to end with you being robbed for enormous amounts to hand over to the elites. You only have yourself to blame, you agreed in principle with theft and threats of murder, now it turns against you, you can not make objections.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 14:32 | Link to Comment Hacked Economy
Hacked Economy's picture

That's an overly-generalized statement, but I will agree that we need to vote out the politicians and vote in true statesmen.  Term limits of some sort for all legislative positions at all levels.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 14:37 | Link to Comment pcrs
pcrs's picture

I don't agree with that and history has proven in thousands of cases worldwide that it does not work either. But you can keep trying to employ a thieve in a contract to steal for you and share the proceeds with you.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 15:01 | Link to Comment GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

I can and do make objections, all the time. Sure they might not be heeded, but I certainly have the opportunity to make them.

I'm being realistic: 'Anarcho Capitalism' is as much a pipe dream as pure Communism (same thing really) because power vacuums never last, and human nature can be selfish. Absolutely free from civil oversight the cleverer sociopath is favoured and subsequently will endeavour to do nothing but take, which is why there must be a modicum of coercion. While my neighbour may be taking a bit from me today, tomorrow I might need a bit of what he has; give and take is the basis of all functioning societies.

You are conflating your experience with politicians with politicians overall. The criminals do not succeed in states where the rule of law actually applies across the broadest demographic.

Unless you plan on living alone on an island, incommunicado with the rest of the planet, one way or another you rely on someone else every moment of your existence, like it or not. IE It is not 'theft' if you owe it.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 17:45 | Link to Comment goldsaver
goldsaver's picture

Ah, but here is the bright epic failure of your theory. My neighbor can only take a bit from me either by my consent or by the use of physical force. Governments are legalized use of physical force.

So my neighbor could trade fairly with me, face me in battle and expect to die by my hands or employ the government to do by proxy what he can not do himself.

Give and take is the basis of all societies, yes, but only when it is done by voluntary trade and while providing value for value, not by the gang warfare of democracy and political groups. The fact that you might need a little from your neighbor today and he might need a little tomorrow does not give you the right to take it by force with the full expectation that he will also.

Anarcho capitalism is as far removed from communism as a good and evil are removed from each other. The purpose of government is limited to the protection of citizens from physical violence and to settle contractual disagreements. That is why they are given, by its citizens, a monopoly on the use of force.

Any government that endeavors beyond this degrades into totalitarian fascism, socialism or monarchy. It is tribalism vs individualism. All other -isms derive from here.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 19:23 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

"The purpose of government is limited to the protection of citizens from physical violence and to settle contractual disagreements. That is why they are given, by its citizens, a monopoly on the use of force.

Any government that endeavors beyond this degrades into totalitarian fascism, socialism or monarchy. It is tribalism vs individualism. All other -isms derive from here."

Thank God I'm not alone.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 21:03 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

Love Carlin.  

Government is there to protect the citizen from the oligarchs, not to join them in the plundering of us.

It begins with accepting personal responsibility for yourself and flows from there. If you ask the government for economic or social intercession on your behalf you are admitting failure individually and as a result you let us all down collectively.

As has been remarked on here by others, governments prime directive is the protection of the whole from aggression from outside and to mitigate contractual disputes within.

When it is asked to do more, it requires more sustenance (taxes). The producers are objecting to the continuing theft of the oligarchs, both within the revolving doors of government and without.

In a nutshell ;-)

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 20:29 | Link to Comment goldsaver
goldsaver's picture

My virtuous friend you are not alone. The idea of America, and yes she is an idea not a place or a series of seemingly connected events and geographically located men, may have gone into hiding within her borders and may have to be revived elsewhere, but she is not dead for as long as men retain the ability to think.

Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea, Mr. Creedy, and ideas are bulletproof.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 22:36 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

"The idea of America, and yes she is an idea not a place or a series of seemingly connected events and geographically located men, may have gone into hiding within her borders and may have to be revived elsewhere, but she is not dead for as long as men retain the ability to think."

Indeed my brother.

It is all beneath the mask, the idea is bulletproof, it can never be slain, it can never be conquered.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 20:05 | Link to Comment GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

 "The purpose of government is limited to the protection of citizens from physical violence and to settle contractual disagreements"

"modicum of coercion"

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 21:08 | Link to Comment goldsaver
goldsaver's picture

There is no modicum to their coercion. An no moderation to the State's force. States are formed and restrained by men or ruled by it. States have the ultimate form of coercion over the individual, a gun. Any argument against the government always degenerates into force. This has always been and will always be. But like nuclear power, the dangerous creature that is the State can be restrained and used for good or unleashed to its own desires of evil. Who restrains the beast? Its victims. Please allow me to explain.

All transactions with the government presume two inviolable facts. The victims acceptance of the power of the State, and the conformance of the victim to its dictates. When you and I file our 1040 return, we do so because we agree with the IRS that it has the authority to demand it of us and we have grown to accept the implication beneath that demand. That we are servants of the State, or more rightfully the bankers who are the State. That we must serve a portion of our lives to its benefit and that we hold no absolute claim to our production since the State has first call on our surplus. We do so, in some cases because we have been trained to believe so and in other cases because we are afraid of the consequences to disobedience to the State. And it is agreement. You do file the form and you do accept as inevitable the confiscation of your wealth.

In exchange the State not only allows you a modicum of freedom and comfort, at a reduced rate based on the success of your efforts, the more you earn the more you pay, but allows you to play their illusory game.

But what if you did not consent? What if the servants rose up as men and whitdrew their consent. What if the victims no longer accepted the rules of the game and the conditions for their "freedom and comfort"? Chaos. You see, the pieces of linen with ink or digital entries in a bank hard drive that you exchange your service and production for are not what the State needs. They can create more out of thin air, why should they care about them? What they truly need is your voluntary production. What they depend on is on the host to continue eating, drinking and providing them with effortless blood.

They depend on your labor under their terms. They need you to work. They need you to create. They need you to buy a new house and pay your mortgage on time. They need you to buy that new union worker made car every three years and to spend "money" in the latest iCrap. They need you to produce. Voluntarily.

What would happen if you stopped paying your taxes? They would use guns against you to force, at best your compliance, and at worst your neighbors out of fear.

But what would happen if you stopped thinking? Stopped producing? Stopped buying? Stopped the machine?

Can they force you to work to your ability? Can they force you to buy a new car? Can they force you to make as much from your production as your mind and your hands permit you?

No my friend. That is the flaw in their system. They are bound by the rules they set up and limited by your voluntary cooperation. They expect some will defy them, but within the rules of their game. They expect tax protesters. So don't protest the tax.

They expect you to cheat within their laws (and they are not yours or mine anymore). So don't cheat.

They expect you to play the game. Don't play.

Ask yourself, who am I working for? My family? Myself? Really?

Do you want to defeat the beast? Do you want to destroy the banksters? Do you want to take away their power?

Withdraw your consent!

 

Strange Game. The only winning move is not to play.

Tue, 07/05/2011 - 04:22 | Link to Comment GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

"I know: You think you're going to be six forever..."-Bill Watterson

Seriously, you're talking about something transitory. Short-term game at best.

"They expect you to cheat within their laws (and they are not yours or mine anymore). So don't cheat."

In Efrafa everybody is guilty of breaking some rule or another, the laws say so. All you need to do is put a microscope far enough up their... noses and have a good look around to find out which one it was.

"Anarcho capitalism is as far removed from communism as a good and evil are removed from each other."

Only if you were to make the tedious mistake of equating capitalism with fascism or communism with Stalinism. (Not to mention the transparent value judgment, the associative attempt to 'brand'.)

"Oh I get it alright; it's very clever...How's that working out for you, being clever?... Well, keep it up then. Now, a question of etiquette..."-TD

Tue, 07/05/2011 - 10:07 | Link to Comment goldsaver
goldsaver's picture

Only if you were to make the tedious mistake of equating capitalism with fascism or communism with Stalinism. (Not to mention the transparent value judgment, the associative attempt to 'brand'.)

The complete opposite. I am not equating capitalism with fascism, quite the opposite. My apologies, I clearly failed to be sufficiently clear.

Fascism, Communism, Marxisim, Stalinism, Socialism, Maoism and progressivism are all different rugby teams in the same league. Same game, same rules, same goals. They might call themselves  by different names and have their own unique plays in their play books, but is all the same game.

Capitalism is golf. Different game. Different rules. Different goals.

 

You must brand. Not because you choose to do so but, because the nature of the thing is inherent in the existance of the thing. Reality is real. You brand everyday. food or poison, water or oil, beautiful or ugly. To brand is to exist, identify, define and understand.

 

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 13:35 | Link to Comment zaknick
zaknick's picture

I've got no problem with confiscating all the banksters ill-gotten wealth.

Whatever a majority of a country wants, through informed debate not MSM psyops garbage, is what's best for it. Mob rule? Hardly.

I would even prefer true ucked in the head tribal
socialism (as opposed to grassroots Austrian economics) with TRANSPARENCY and one (wo)man one vote over "representative democracy"(sick joke) any day.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 20:23 | Link to Comment Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

"Whatever a majority of a country wants ... is what's best for it"

So your impotence makes you jealous of those in power?  You don't mind tyranny of the majority because you don't think you measure up and will be a target, and you can't stand tyranny of the one or tyranny of the few, because you aren't one of them. 

Or you don't mind if the majority comes for you and your family in the middle of the night (white sheets and torches and all) and you get to swing from the tree and with your last breath on this earth watch them have their fun with your loved ones? 

After all, if there is "informed debate" it's hardly "mob rule"  

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 13:57 | Link to Comment Abitdodgie
Abitdodgie's picture

But if you become a member of the real Republic, and not a sold out slave to the 14 amendment, a federal citizen, and I spit in your general direction , then America would be strong again ,you only have yourselves to blame

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 14:14 | Link to Comment JR
JR's picture

Excellent comment, Libertarian777.

The proponents of mob rule on this site today are supporters of the popular Communist program sometimes called land reform.  IOW, anyone who has worked for a living to establish a home or a farm or a business needs to get out of the way and let the mob fight over everything he has built…because in their minds the establishment of America means every American, even the new illegals, owns a share of all the property, not by providing any contribution but by vote.

The oligarchs greatly favor mobs at the voting booth continually voting circuses, entertainment and diversion of private property into their idle hands. That’s because mobs are pawns in the hands of the tyrants.

The men who founded America made no apologies for being land owners and businessmen because those were the marks of responsibility; property rights is a key concept in the establishment of a society that has permanence and can provide for the general welfare of the citizens.

And, by the way, for those commenters who miss the point on this site today, the establishment of this government for the first time in history set in motion a society that would protect the individual from the majority or the combined efforts of the minorities.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 17:07 | Link to Comment GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

"The proponents of mob rule on this site today are supporters of the popular Communist program sometimes called land reform."

Junk because it simple isn't true. The 'mob rulers' I see on this site mostly promote the entirely justified desire to see the that rule of law applies to everyone, not just those with a net worth less than that of the top 1%. IE They are trying to protect what they have earned.

OTOH, nationalizing a major industry to develop a sovereign wealth fund has been incredibly successful for some countries. Who 'owns' a nation's natural resources, anyway?

"IOW, anyone who has worked for a living to establish a home or a farm or a business needs to get out of the way and let the mob fight over everything he has built…because in their minds the establishment of America means every American, even the new illegals, owns a share of all the property, not by providing any contribution but by vote."

Junk because it evades acknowledging that accumulating wealth by inheritance or theft can hardly be labelled as 'earned'.

"The men who founded America made no apologies for being land owners and businessmen because those were the marks of responsibility; property rights is a key concept in the establishment of a society that has permanence and can provide for the general welfare of the citizens"

Junk because of the inherent irony of using imported hubris to rationalize 'sharing' what the First Nations of NA had already established for hundreds if not thousands of years: IE 'permanence'. Also ignoring that the same folks offered no apologies for the genocide committed in order to procure their wealth.

"And, by the way, for those commenters who miss the point on this site today, the establishment of this government for the first time in history set in motion a society that would protect the individual from the majority or the combined efforts of the minorities."

This last part is not junk, but it is a glaring omission to fail to note that this creed was actually taken from the first nations, and then applied to everyone but them.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 18:09 | Link to Comment JR
JR's picture

Thanks for your responses.

But I’m worried that America, just now, does not need any infusion of Marxist theory: private property is theft or privilege, capitalism is exploitation, and the proletarian movement is the “independent movement of the immense majority in the interests of the immense majority.”

I guess this phrase from Engels is what reminds me of how Stalin and now our own new ruling cartel, use the idle mob to help them override the middle class.  As for the allusion to an established ownership of the entire North American continent by a few American Indian tribes, I guess Marx would have covered that in the Manifesto as well if he had thought of it.


Revisionist history  and the influx into America of racial groups who refuse to assimilate to America’s founding principles are displacing, perhaps forever, the descendants, and thus the influence, of the early settlers, by populations no longer like-minded to the fathers who created our Constitution.

As John Adams said: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

The Pilgrim Fathers whose influences molded our New England institutions sought these shores not simply as refugees, but also as missionaries.

 “A great hope and inward zeal they had of laying some good foundation (or, at least, to make some way thereunto) for propagating and advancing the Gospel of the Kingdom of Christ in those remote parts of the world.”  As Rev. Josiah Strong, D.D., wrote in “Our County” in 1885:

“They came not for gold; but for conscience’ sake and soul’s sake.  The early settlers of New England were sufficiently homogeneous to enable them to labor harmoniously and successfully to make religion, learning, liberty and law the four corner-stones of their civilization.  New England ideas gave form to the national government, and shaped the institutions of the Middle States; but does anyone suppose they are dominant to-day in the great territories of the West? Is there no danger that an alien and materialistic civilization will spring up in the Rocky Mountains and beyond…?”

The Mexican population of the U.S. soon will equal the Mexican population of Mexico; multinational corporations unlawfully having destroyed America’s borders to usher in a low-wage labor force to replace American citizens and their self-created standard of living.  Already, 40 percent of Black males have been displaced in the workplace, as have many Whites.  Even the celebration of Christmas has been neutralized by the celebration of a Jewish holiday whose religion denies Christ.

 

 

Tue, 07/05/2011 - 04:59 | Link to Comment GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Theocracies suck, of any denomination.

Mixed economies aren't 'Marxist', but the most successful are indeed secular.

Ever hear of 'separation of church and state'? It goes hand in glove with a republic's mandate to "protect the individual from the majority or the combined efforts of the minorities".

Tue, 07/05/2011 - 03:58 | Link to Comment Janestool
Janestool's picture

They were looking for gold, silver, copper, and tin all of which were contractual attachments to their Crown granted Charters so the state could share in the bounty. They brought with them a democracy and a religion from Europe which at the time was centrally authoritative and hierachichal in structure. For them democracy could only be imagined in messianic glories or the Republican verbage of Aristotle. In doing so they displaced functioning indigenous democracies that were consensual in practice and heterarchical in structure not understanding the dark age they had been emerging from. The romantic ideal individualism of the Revolution had as much to with a group of land speculators (George Washington practicing land surveyor and member of several land companies) as anything else after King George's Proclamation of 1763 which forbid further settler expansion into the interior of Trans-Appallachia. Those Viriginia tobacco farmers were only wealthy on paper owing their assets to the banks in London. By participating in state endorsed land speculation (Pre and Post Revolution Aims) those planters sought to enrich themselves and free themselves from their own financial trappings. And become self made kings at the expense of displacing an indigenous population with planned immigration to whom they would sell and rent land to. What responsiblity did the founders take for creating a democracy? In this process of Western expansion indigneous nations were either displaced or had their nation status co-opted and integrated into the domestic authority of a foreign state, by which their own decision making structures were transformed and replace with Aristotle's and the Messiah's langauge and practice. In the end, the indigenous nations became feudal in practice and structure while the race to the Pacific continued without much debate to secure an empire, and fortunes, maybe a lot less than securing a democracy.....You cannnot reinvent the wheel by using the same wheel.....and Idealistic romanticism about the individualism of the founders is a misnomer....We have many problems today, but reciting romantic visions of individualism is not the answer....There are traditions of individualism in America that predate Columbus....and maybe the solutions we need today are a robust individualism in which the individualism is based on measures of self reliance, personal responsibility and community responsibility....The corporations today that exploit the American land scape have their origins in Crown charters during the colonial era.....the elites and self made kings (founders) of America were a lot less concerned with the destiny of humanity than gaining the privilege to exploit rather than the gaining the responsibility to be free  and individual men.........ARx

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 18:14 | Link to Comment goldsaver
goldsaver's picture

The 'mob rulers' I see on this site mostly promote the entirely justified desire to see the that rule of law applies to everyone, not just those with a net worth less than that of the top 1%. IE They are trying to protect what they have earned.

So those who promote the idea of confiscating the private property of others are just "protecting what they have earned"? What difference does it makes if the rule of law applies only to the bottom 51% or the top 51%, either way it is no longer the rule of law. Whether it is based no the monarchy of the privileged or the guillotine of the masses, it is still rule of men over other men.

OTOH, nationalizing a major industry to develop a sovereign wealth fund has been incredibly successful for some countries.

Yes, nationalizing a major industry worked so well for Zimbabwe, The USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia just to name a few. Nationalization always fails because those who legally steal the property of others were unable to create the wealth to start with.; How could they possibly expect to keep a factory they can not create running or an oil field they could not explore producing, or a farm they could not build providing? It is their hubris and basic ignorance that drives them to believe that stealing a man's wealth and property will continue to provide them with wealth. Without the mind of the man who built it, it fails.

  Who 'owns' a nation's natural resources, anyway?

It belongs to whomever provides it to the market as value. What is the value of a natural resource that is three miles under the surface of the ocean until it is brought to the surface? What is the value of a seed until a farmer plants it and cultivates it as wheat? What is the value of a patch of timber if no one makes lumber from it? The value its zero. Natural resources have no value until some one's mind and hands have made them valuable. Air is a natural resource. Have you seen many retailer selling breathable air? Of course not. There is no value needed to be added, therefore it is a natural resource. But oil, lumber, gold, grain, fruit are all valuable only because someone gave them value by their actions. The ones who gave them value are the ones who own them.

Junk because it evades acknowledging that accumulating wealth by inheritance or theft can hardly be labelled as 'earned'.

Epic fail. Are you not advocating the theft of another man's property as justified by law? If a man acquires his property by theft, then by all means, the purpose of the law is to retrieve it to the rightful owners. And no, society in general is not the rightful owner. The direct victims of the theft are. If a man inherits wealth he did not earn it, true. But the man who bestows the inheritance on him did. And it is his choice as to how to dispose of his wealth. Whether he hands it over to his children or donates it to his favorite charity, it is still not yours and you have no claim to it.

This last part is not junk, but it is a glaring omission to fail to note that this creed was actually taken from the first nations, and then applied to everyone but them.

Which first nations? The Indian Nations that inhabited the continent? The ones that lived by subsistence nomadic tribal warfare? Which of those nations are innocent of the same crimes committed against them? And they were in many cases crimes, no doubt. Of course, you can not call the purchase of Manhattan a crime. Nor the Louisiana purchase. Nor the trade of debt for land of the South West.

None of that diminishes the fact that this country was founded on the principle that a man's mind and the product of his hands are his property and that the mob nor the king may dispose of it as they wish. That we have completely abrogated our founding, does not negate our founding.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 19:15 | Link to Comment JR
JR's picture

Powerful commentary and rebuttal! goldsaver.  A fitting addendum to Brandon Smith’s 4th of July reflections.  Thank you.  Really well done.

Tue, 07/05/2011 - 04:35 | Link to Comment GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

So those who promote the idea of confiscating the private property of others are just "protecting what they have earned"?

No, those who don't contribute their fair share are stealing from those trying to protect their private property.

"Yes, nationalizing a major industry worked so well for Zimbabwe, The USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia just to name a few...Nationalization always fails because those who legally steal the property of others..." hallelujahgobble, fume, rant, hiss.

Ahem, and exactly how could they have been stealing what had always been theirs? Because some foreign installed dictator 'sold' it to some immoral multinational for some green bits of paper? Hunh. And then there's the leader on the following (one of my favourite tables): http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/may/27/debt-deficit-oecd-countries-data which slaps your whole ridiculous argument full in the face.

 

It belongs to whomever provides it to the market as value. What is the value of a natural resource that is three miles under the surface of the ocean until it is brought to the surface? What is the value of a seed until a farmer plants it and cultivates it as wheat? What is the value of a patch of timber if no one makes lumber from it?"

What is the value of this blather? Oh, nm, answered:

"The value its zero. Natural resources have no value until some one's mind and hands have made them valuable. Air is a natural resource. Have you seen many retailer selling breathable air?"

I've seen it. That and many other thin edges of wedges...Not valuable? Heh, try making it four minutes without breathable air, head.

 

"Are you not advocating the theft of another man's property as justified by law?"

No, definitely not. Fair share is owed; not stealing.

"If a man acquires his property by theft, then by all means, the purpose of the law is to retrieve it to the rightful owners. And no, society in general is not the rightful owner. The direct victims of the theft are."

So, if rights can be considered wealth (try to stay with me here for a minute if you can), say you inherited certain rights, rights that were stolen...

"If a man inherits wealth he did not earn it, true...." (Now we're getting somewhere)

"...But the man who bestows the inheritance on him did. " Not if he stole it, by your own line of reasoning. This dovetails nicely with your misunderstanding of the cultures that once inhabited, or now border your country.

"And it is his choice as to how to dispose of his wealth. Whether he hands it over to his children or donates it to his favorite charity, it is still not yours and you have no claim to it."

Unless it was stolen from me: IE I paid my fair share and he didn't.

"Which first nations? The Indian Nations that inhabited the continent? The ones that lived by subsistence nomadic tribal warfare? Which of those nations are innocent of the same crimes committed against them? And they were in many cases crimes, no doubt. Of course, you can not call the purchase of Manhattan a crime. Nor the Louisiana purchase. Nor the trade of debt for land of the South West."

No doubt there were many many many crimes indeud. Genocide aplenty! Drunken swindles (I believe you mentioned some)<Cough!> Andrew Jackson <Cough!> 'Sharp Knife' <Cough!> Tanner<Cough!>Human skin for a bridle<retch.>Manifest Destiny might have been 'legal' by the standards in those days...errrr, do you see what I did just there?

"None of that diminishes..." 

Well now, that would be entirely a matter of opinion, no?

"...the fact that this country was founded on the principle that a man's mind and the product of his hands are his property and that the mob nor the king may dispose of it as they wish. That we have completely abrogated our founding, does not negate our founding."

It sounds good though, doesn't it? Too bad it's patently false. You can't 'abrogate' what you've never had from a time that never was in the never never land of Max the 2000 Year Old Mouse.

Tue, 07/05/2011 - 11:11 | Link to Comment goldsaver
goldsaver's picture

My apologies. Now I understand your stance. You are a tribal member. Any tribe, from the smallest to the monarchy has the same basic rules. That production is the inherent property of the tribe and that all members of the tribe must contribute their fair share to the benefit of the tribe. Now I understand your point of view.

No, those who don't contribute their fair share are stealing from those trying to protect their private property.

How? If I do not contribute my fair share, how am I stealing your private property? Unless, of course, I go back to the State and demand your property be plundered for my benefit. Only in a communal tribe can that be true. Yes, if my private property is subject to your plunder, it is true that your lack of contribution would result in my loss of property. But then, it was never my private property in that case.

Ahem, and exactly how could they have been stealing what had always been theirs? Because some foreign installed dictator 'sold' it to some immoral multinational for some green bits of paper?

If a man builds a factory in a barren piece of land and the state claims the land as its original property, was the factory originally the States? How can a thing be originally any one's before it exists? Is it not originally the property of he who built it? If I build a farm in a barren piece of land, is the farm not mine? So, lets assume that an evil dictator, Mr X, sold a piece of land to an evil foreign corporation, Umbrella Corporation. Now, lets assume that Umbrella Corporation brings in billions of dollars worth of mining equipment and extracts billions of dollars worth of diamonds. Who is the owner of the diamonds? The State? The State had no diamonds before Umbrella Corporation spent billions digging for them. The People? Which people? Who are the people? Those who sat watching the digging? The ones who received a salary from the mining company for their labor? A salary who would have not existed without the corporation?

Unless it was stolen from me: IE I paid my fair share and he didn't.

How can he have stolen it from you? Please explain the mechanism. Do you believe that the fact that you exist gives you fair share to the production and property of all others?

I want to thank you for an enlightening conversation. I always suspected that the basic premise of the other side was a tribal collective mentality. Now I fully understand.

Please understand that you and I define things differently and are looking at reality thru different premises.

You believe that all is communal and everything belongs to the collective. Therefore if I produce, you have claim to my production. If I do not allow you to plunder, I am clearly stealing from you, since you have claim to my life and mind. It makes perfect sense. If a man drills an oil well and extracts oil from the ground, under your system the oil belongs to you, or at least your fare share of it.

I am sorry, but I don't believe in cannibalism. I am not and will never be your sacrificial animal.

I understand that production comes from the mind, hands and efforts of those who give something value. A resource lacks value until someone works at providing it with value. Such is nature. Water is a valuable resource. You are free to collect it as rain for free. But if you expect someone else to collect it, transport it and provide it to you, you must pay for it. That is the value to you. Not the water, but the actions by the man who provided it to you.

I understand that my production is mine to dispose of as I wish. I am willing to trade for it. I also know that your production is yours. I am willing to provide you value for your value. I will not plunder your production and will not allow you to plunder mine.

So, if rights can be considered wealth (try to stay with me here for a minute if you can), say you inherited certain rights, rights that were stolen...

Rights are not wealth. Wealth is wealth. An apple can not be a rock. The nature of the object is unique to that object or it would not exist. You can not inherit rights. Only what can be bought, produced or given can be inherited. Your rights are yours because you exist! Your rights do not come as a privilege from the State. Your rights are yours because you are. In order for you to live, you have a right to be alive. In order for you to subsist, you have a right to eat. No, you do not have the right to demand others feed you anymore that others have the right to forbid you to grow, buy or trade for food.

Unless it was stolen from me: IE I paid my fair share and he didn't.

How did you pay your fair share for my wealth? If I buy a house and upon my death bestow it to my son, how did I steal it from you? Is it because your great-great grandfather once erected a TeePee at this location? Did he build my house? Did he bring in plumbing, and floors and walls and a roof? Did he turn a piece of dirt into a house? How can you have claim over my production? And if I did not pay my fair share, how did I steal it? By what mechanism? BTW, who determines what is a fair share? The State?

In my planet, fairness is determined by those making the trade. I offer you a value and you offer me a value. If we come into agreement, we make a fair eschange. If we dont, we part friends and find someone else who may wish to trade.

 

Tue, 07/05/2011 - 14:32 | Link to Comment GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

I'm 'Tribal'? I guess, if by that you mean I am a human being, and not a sociopath with a deliberately over developed sense of self worth. I'd like to think 'pragmatic' would be closer to the truth.

Bah, either your reading comprehension is nonexistent, or you're a blinkered zealot; a propagator and product of indoctrinated rote composed of swiss cheesy syllogisms. I've answered all your inane questions already, and you have yet to address the most basic of my points; wilfully and long-windedly evading them, more like.  I'm not about to start chasing you in circles.

Good luck with your "I'm all right so fuck all the rest" ethos, Mr.Island-unto-Myself.

Regards

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 15:26 | Link to Comment IQ 145
IQ 145's picture

 I feel like apologizing for your "junk". I wish there was an "un-junk" button. What you say is simply true, of course. All democracys fail because the mob discovers it can vote itself funds from the treasury, (eg. vote buying). We are far along that path.

Tue, 07/05/2011 - 01:51 | Link to Comment GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

FWIW:

I didn't junk you.  But I should have.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 18:08 | Link to Comment Manthong
Manthong's picture

The 17th Amendment was the beginning of the end of states sovereignty and the beginning of Senators for sale to the highest (donor) bidder.

Under Woodrow Wilson, the 17th Amendment, along with the 16th Amendment (income tax) and the establishment of the Federal Reserve banking system, ushered in domineering federalism.

It’s taken 100 years, but the devolution from United States to Federalized Districts of America is about complete.

Next step; socialism, fascism or despotism.. pick your poison.

Tue, 07/05/2011 - 03:21 | Link to Comment GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

I choose none of your isms. I choose 'mixed economy with secularly oriented and democratically elected municipal/'state'/national governments all protected by a constitution, and a healthy, well-educated, politically active population'. So: a 'Republic'.

<Stands tall and sticks out chin>

Anyone wanna go toe-to-toe on the semantics?

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 23:44 | Link to Comment malek
malek's picture

Effectively the republic ended in the Civil War.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 15:10 | Link to Comment G-R-U-N-T
G-R-U-N-T's picture

"The 4th of July is a marker, an oasis in the annals of history, when the true potential of humanity could be glimpsed, even if only for a moment."

I'm with you Brandon, however I was hoping America would NOT be an anomaly in the anals of world history.

I am proud, honored, deeply patriotic and proud to be an American even though many in the world are American haters. Those haven't a clue even though in it's brevity in history America did indeed "transformed the shape of the Earth forever. The impossible was now, indeed, possible. The great shadow of elitism and autocracy was not only vulnerable; it could be crushed by the likes of so called “peasants”."

Thank you brother for your impressions! Happy Independence Day my friend!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whmVGRSgAe8

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 12:57 | Link to Comment Ahmeexnal
Ahmeexnal's picture

Major riots breaking out in Belarus.
Internet has been taken down and there's a media blackout.

The collapse of civilization has begun.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 13:22 | Link to Comment Votewithabullet
Votewithabullet's picture

"the collapse of civilization has begun"...in fucking BelaRUS? Useless Slavics were never civilized. Antisemite slippery cossack scum. THe author B.S. seems to be making numerous attempts to incite violence against the established order. Good luck with that. Step right up and let the offspring of the shooters at Kent state remind you resistance will not work to YOUR benefit. Who wants to go first?

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 13:48 | Link to Comment zaknick
zaknick's picture

I'm your huckleberry, dirty joo.

Anti-semite? Everybody knows it's the hofjuden banksters behind the juden-fetzen which allowed this country to run rampant. You think those "laws" in Europe prohibiting discussion of the holohoax are gonna get you anywhere? Your ilk has been thieving countries, their resources, and destinies for centuries. Just like your client state, true modern day Hessian mercenaries: Amerikkka!

Everything hidden shall be known, "joo", "kahzar" or whatever yhe fuck you huge beaked creatures really are.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 13:53 | Link to Comment Hugh G Rection
Hugh G Rection's picture

+1 Zak

 

A priest and a rabbi walk by a playground, the priest says to the rabbi

"you see that boy, lets go fuck him"

the rabbi says,

"Great! But out of what?"

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 14:19 | Link to Comment zaknick
zaknick's picture

Thanks for the laugh.

Know how copper wire was invented? Two Jews fighting over the real copper in a penny.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 14:20 | Link to Comment Votewithabullet
Votewithabullet's picture

You two pussies took the bait and ran mit it. Ich bin ein Nazi. That cossack scum is a line from my favorite movie "snatch". Mine is just to stir it up. Your 5th grade hatred will serve me well. If your my huckleberry I'm sure you use more than words you do understand actions speak louder? Attack at will, it will give me somthing to laugh about.

 

Actung trailer trash. 

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 14:32 | Link to Comment Redneck Makin-tosh
Redneck Makin-tosh's picture

Joo god commands two things: love U'r self, love U'r neighbour. How about U'r's?

Hope U'r a computer but hae mae doots!

Tue, 07/05/2011 - 00:13 | Link to Comment RichardP
RichardP's picture

Um ... Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself.  On these hang all the law and the prophets.  Nowhere does the Bible command us to love ourselves.

Tue, 07/05/2011 - 13:38 | Link to Comment Redneck Makin-tosh
Redneck Makin-tosh's picture

Thanks Richard.

Love yourself, respect yourself, liberate yourself, whatever. The point is sure life puts a little efil into all of us, but imagine we can overcome that, then try commandments 1 thru' 5 and see where they take us!

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 15:36 | Link to Comment Caviar Emptor
Caviar Emptor's picture

Look it up: a well-kept secret: The Sons of Liberty had a Jewish member. He was arrested twice by the Brits, almost executed but escaped. He was a friend of George Washington and the key financial backer of the Revolutionary War, raising the money for the final defeat of Cornwallis at Yorktown when Washington had run out of funds. His name was Haym Solomon. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haym_Solomon

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 20:13 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

Its almost not worth commenting on.

"The Sons of Liberty had a Jewish member."

Gasp!...only one?...LOL!!!

Look it up, Judah Benjamin, so what?

Jews are a part of the tapestry, threads combined with others that make up the whole of the fabric. Same as Catholics, stop being ridiculous.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 21:26 | Link to Comment New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

Actually, there are JEWS who are PLAYAZ in the US interest, who knew?

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio.asp?bioID=249

Why I've had a single malt with the lad--of course that was before he assumed his Admiral-hood.

- Ned

{he was standing on the podium with the shuttle memorium crowd, back when.)

Gotta' think about RI and their tolerance (compare/contrast v. now) and the Generals in the Revolution.

 

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 23:17 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

"Actually, there are JEWS who are PLAYAZ in the US interest, who knew?"

Certainly, as well as those who are not in our best interest.

"Gotta' think about RI and their tolerance (compare/contrast v. now) and the Generals in the Revolution."

I knew you, of all people would.

You and I are brothers in the present, this is not broken. It won't be. Exploring the past brings us together, here and now. It was a difference of opinion settled at a price. What that price was is the question.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 14:36 | Link to Comment chunga
chunga's picture

Here's a beauty for "Independence Day"...

Remember the ghastly story about Sunny Sheu?

I think Naked Capitalism did the best summary.

Sunny Sheu: Murdered for Investigating NY Foreclosure Judge Joseph Golia?

Below is a youtube deal with a recording of the author's conversation with a "detective" after he reported the incident that ensued after taking pictures of the police van. Gross...real gross. It get's particularly bad around the seven minute mark...have a barf bag handy.

 

Conversation of Will Galison with NYPD Internal Affairs Detective Hinton

Independence Day my ass...

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 12:59 | Link to Comment Hacked Economy
Hacked Economy's picture

Fawr!  You changed your avatar!

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 14:40 | Link to Comment macholatte
macholatte's picture

Whoever controls the media, the images, controls the culture.
Allen Ginsberg

Capitalism is a stupid system, a backward system.
Stokely Carmichael

 

Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery.
Malcolm X

I am involved in a freedom ride protesting the loss of the minority rights belonging to the few remaining earthbound stars. All we demanded was our right to twinkle.
Marilyn Monroe

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 12:54 | Link to Comment Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture

Vint Slugs

Neal Cassady was a living legend to both.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 13:20 | Link to Comment yabyum
yabyum's picture

Cowboy Neal at the wheel on the bus to never never land.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 14:13 | Link to Comment TheMerryPrankster
TheMerryPrankster's picture

Best damn driver we ever had. Destination Further.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 12:47 | Link to Comment Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture

Independence Day has always been about the ILLUSION of the US.

The reality is everyone but rich white males were and still are treated like shit.

Only the naive, foolish, and those with something to gain present the US and it's faux freedoms in any other light.

Even the movie of the same name was shitty.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 12:59 | Link to Comment GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

So "...the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air, gave (give) proof through the night, that (y)our flag was (is) still there..."?

Trust me, if you have brown skin and crude that ain't no freakin' illusion. Otherwise: spot on.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 13:05 | Link to Comment Hacked Economy
Hacked Economy's picture

Gully,

You're back...and with the same crappy attitude as always.  In a world of change, some things stay the same.

So what happened to you as a kid?  You are easily one of the top five most angry and cynical commenters I've ever run across...on ANY forum.  Did someone with a "USA" shirt smack you on the playground and ruin your perception of our society or something?

You muttered something yesterday about the lack of intellectual conversation.  Here's your chance.  Dazzle us with a truly philosophical and inspiring piece, instead of your usual diatribe.  Give us something to chew on and contemplate, instead of your typical hate-filled spew.

 

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 13:28 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

 Give us something to chew on and contemplate, instead of your typical hate-filled spew.

 

It is not going to be easy. The jury is still in but it is known that the jury is going to be extremelly demanding and probably biased, flaming for the sake of flaming.

That the 4 th of July has only been about the illusion of the US is already something to contemplate. Hey, a guy made a whole story about a cave and the shadows that slip in. Did not have to face a vindicative jury though.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 13:49 | Link to Comment Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture

Hacked Economy

Still attempting to deflect my on the mark observations.

Still trying to pawn off that weak ass shit.

“When you resort to attacking the messenger and not the message, you have lost the debate.”

 

 

 

 

Tue, 07/05/2011 - 22:38 | Link to Comment Hacked Economy
Hacked Economy's picture

Yeah, but Gully...

First you have to actually deliver a message before you can declare yourself as a messenger.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 13:52 | Link to Comment Moe Howard
Moe Howard's picture

So the only exception to being treated like shit is to be:

Rich

White

Male

Now, do you treat everyone who doesn't fit into all three of those groups like shit? If so, then you are part of the problem. If not, then you are wrong on your premise.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 18:32 | Link to Comment goldsaver
goldsaver's picture

So, when do we get to treat our black muslim president like shit?

Tue, 07/05/2011 - 00:17 | Link to Comment RichardP
RichardP's picture

Whenever we get one.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 12:23 | Link to Comment Hugh G Rection
Hugh G Rection's picture

The 4th of Jew Lies is about the sheep getting together and pretending we still have a constitutional republic, while hammering down mixed drinks to patriotic music, bright lights, and loud noises.  The 4th of July is a sad day for anyone sans head up ass.

 

 

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 12:39 | Link to Comment augie
augie's picture

Where can i get a copy of the complete Jew lie compilation? 

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 12:48 | Link to Comment Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture

augie

Google Eric Cartman.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 12:51 | Link to Comment Hugh G Rection
Hugh G Rection's picture

That would be a very long dvd set. One things for sure, the documentary would have to start on Jekyll Island in 1910.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 12:29 | Link to Comment Xibalba
Xibalba's picture

patriotism is the last bastion of ignorance....

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 12:42 | Link to Comment GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

"Patriotism doesn't necessarily mean going along with what your gov't says, it means supporting the principles for which your country is supposed to stand."-Howard Zinn

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 13:32 | Link to Comment Hacked Economy
Hacked Economy's picture

+1

Excellent reply, Fawr.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 14:39 | Link to Comment Xibalba
Xibalba's picture

"principles for which your country is supposed to stand" - Life (not for fetuses), Liberty (for the rich), and Pursuit of property (greed).  Sounds like America is doing it well.  

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 14:41 | Link to Comment Hacked Economy
Hacked Economy's picture

Uh...read Fawr's quote in full again.  Obviously this country has its problems such as the legitimate ones you stated yourself, but Fawr was directing our attention to the "principles for which your [our] country is supposed to stand". 

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 14:47 | Link to Comment Xibalba
Xibalba's picture

The word 'supposed' makes Mr. Zinn's quote relative instead of absolute.  I.e. If only life worked out the way it's 'supposed' to...then we'd all be ok. But still, I agree with both you and Fawr.  Our country is no longer what it's "supposed" to be.  Let's focus on that.  

Tue, 07/05/2011 - 04:46 | Link to Comment GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Zinn meant that dissent can be patriotic if, as you say, a "country is no longer what it is supposed to be."

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 13:44 | Link to Comment Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

I think that should be altered to read Jingoism is the last bastion of ignorance.
ORI

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 15:17 | Link to Comment Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

No patriotisim and jingoism are both pretty vacuous, and calling on God, probably why all US presidents use them between spewing lies to start the next illegal false war

"We will defend our Apple Pie, we are a nation of Apple Pie, God Bless Apple Pie" ..always a winning speech because whilst most Americans sit there thinking "I'm sure this guy is spinning complete bullshit between mentions of Apple Pie" nobody in America is allowed to ever question the lies between the mentions of Apple Pie for fear they are seen to be criticising Apple Pie itself (PC hed fuk for the military industrial complex to get away with murder complete)

Tue, 07/05/2011 - 03:25 | Link to Comment GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

No, you're doing it wrong; conflating patriotism with jingoism...

"My country, right or wrong"  now that is vacuous 'swhat I'm sayin'.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 12:30 | Link to Comment lindaamick
lindaamick's picture

good grief.  what drivel. 

The US aristocracy wanted free of the British aristocracy.  The plebes had to be beaten

into submission to fight that rich man's war. 

 

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 12:44 | Link to Comment DavidPierre
DavidPierre's picture

In a magical inversion of reality, U.S. histories repeatedly refer to assemblies, governors and presidents as being elected by “popular” vote. In truth, however, in the United States, popular votes are strictly verboten. Blacks in the new “democracy” are items of property who cannot vote or hold office. Indentured whites, are simply slaves of another name and another color and who can not vote or hold office. Indians, upon whose stolen land the new nation stands, and who were described in the racist Declaration of Independence as “merciless Indian savages”, cannot vote or hold office. In most states in this brave new homeland of “religious freedom”, Catholics and Jews cannot vote or hold office. Women, regardless of race, creed, color or religion, are chattels who cannot vote or hold office. White men, even those most sacred of all God's creatures; white, Protestant, non-indentured men, cannot vote or hold office unless they meet a further qualification for membership in the ruling class; they must be very, very rich.

Although it varied from state to state, the property qualification which opened the doors to participation in the new demockracy was as much as $4000, an astronomical sum in the eighteenth century, equal to millions of dollars today.

The right to vote and hold office and all political and economic power in the new demockracy was, of course, held by a tiny handful of what would later come to be known as fascists, a small fraction of one percent of the population, the ultra-wealthy, white, male, Protestant, slave-owning, land speculating, terrorist, thoroughly unscrupulous elite; a self-appointed aristocracy of hypocrisy which looked down in open contempt upon most of their fellow human beings including ordinary Americans of all races.

Depend upon it, sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation, as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters. There will be no end of it. New claims will arise. Women will demand a vote. Lads from twelve to twenty one will think their rights not enough attended to, and every man, who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks, to one common level. John Adams.

Imagine that, equality in the land of the free! Can't be havin' none of that.

Those who refused to swear allegiance to the newly installed dictatorship of the ultra-wealthy were denied virtually all civil liberties, were jailed, murdered or forced into exile and their property stolen.

The “three-fifths” clause of the Constitution counted each slave owned as three-fifths of a person for the sake of apportionment of electoral districts although the slaves themselves were not, of course, allowed to vote. The effect was to give slave-owners a hugely disproportionate share of political power amongst the tiny minority of Americans who had any at all. The slave-owners had about a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than they would otherwise have had.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 13:25 | Link to Comment IQ 145
IQ 145's picture

 Reality is a bitch, isn't it.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 14:05 | Link to Comment zaknick
zaknick's picture

They're still doing that electoral vote fraud except now it's those millions of "drug offenders"(95% black and hispanic www.leap.cc ) who have been stripped by law of the right to vote for life for being a "drug offender" and yet are counted for political reasons in these redneck plantations. More blacks are in prison now (working for pennies just like the slaves they really are) than existed under slavery.

The new Jim Crow indeed!

What this country is headed for is a huge bloodbath when that fake dollar runs out ...

As to the author's appeals for revolt: your society has joined in the bankster slaughter and theft of worldwide people and resources; why complain now that the shoe is so poetically on the other foot? Where were you when black neighborhoods were turned into ghetto war zones with the black market the banksters created and then supplied in order to criminalize a population? Where were you during this ethnic cleansing?

AmeriKKKa, AneriKKKa, the banksters shat on thee!

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 13:31 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

In a magical inversion of reality,

 

The US know a lot about inversion of reality.

They aggress, it means they are aggressed etc...

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 14:00 | Link to Comment Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Awesome DP. your words?

ORI

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 15:08 | Link to Comment Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Yep DP details very nicely America went from one elite tyranny (British) to another (American) ...and the Tea Party of yesteryore fought to remove one great tyranny to replace with another tyranny and so will todays band of sheepie TP's. They don't want to bin the parasitical (monoply) institution that is Govt, they just want a slimmed and trimmed down parasitical (monopoly) institution

...cannot see any difference, it's certainly not 'Change You Can Believe In' because it's no change at all and certainly not stupid enough to fight for this re-arranging of the deckchairs on HMS Tyranic

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 15:35 | Link to Comment unununium
unununium's picture

David Pierre,

You, sir, are a well-armed and dangerous agent of we know not whom.  Clearly you revile and fear what was accomplished by America's founding fathers.  Your tool is not lies, but selective truth, a tool which requires a great deal more resources to wield.  One wonders where those resources come from.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 16:01 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Without diminishing the effort of that poster, those are well known facts.

This guy is simply a guy who sticks his neck enough to see above the sea level of propaganda poured by the US.

That the US,  this freedom loving nation, started as a slaver nation is no secret. Etc

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 20:30 | Link to Comment DavidPierre
DavidPierre's picture


“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Words ringing with freedom. A glorious revolution, we are told, led by high-minded lovers of liberty who fought to bring the miracle of democracy to a valiant, enterprising and freedom-loving people oppressed by an evil colonial power.

Unfortunately, like just about everything else we have all been carefully trained to believe, it's just a great big load of red, white and blue bullshit.

With more than two centuries of propaganda, brainwashing and masturbatory invention on the subject of the American Revolution, it is all but impossible to find reference in the United States, outside scholarly works, to the fact that throughout the 1760s and 1770s, there was a growing movement to abolish slavery throughout the British Empire, including the Thirteen Colonies. The abolition campaign reached a climactic point on June 22, 1772 when Lord Mansfield, Lord Chief Justice of Britain, handed down an epoch-making decision in the case of the "Negro slave known as James Somerset", against the man who purported to own him, Charles Steuart of Virginia.

In his decision, Lord Mansfield declared that “slavery is not allowed nor approved by the law of England” and that Somerset must therefore be set free. Upon hearing the decision, blacks in the audience stood up and bowed to the Court. The Court also recognized that the legal principle of habeas corpus was applicable to black people, a terrifying prospect for slaveowners. The Somerset decision, and another similar one from the Scottish justices shortly thereafter, were stunning victories for the abolitionists and catastrophic defeats for slaveowners throughout the British Empire. These pivotal legal decisions would ultimately lead to the abolition of slavery in all British colonies and possessions throughout the world.

The Somerset case was followed avidly in the Thirteen Colonies with extensive press coverage. It was only too clear to the ruling class in the Thirteen Colonies that, under British rule, freedom for the slaves they owned was inevitable and that the basis of their wealth and power, slavery, would end if the Colonies remained under British rule.

The only way to retain their wealth and power was to retain slavery and the only way to retain slavery was to break away from Britain. Contrary to popular belief, every one of the Thirteen Colonies including New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Delaware practiced slavery.
Shortly after word of the Somerset decision reached Virginia, slaveowner Thomas Jefferson and four other Virginia politicians began to meet in private. They proposed the formation of a "committee of correspondence" of the colonies which was a first step to breaking away from Great Britain. They persuaded their cronies in the Virginia House of Burgesses to present a resolution for the formation of the committees of correspondence. The resolution included a list of committee members, Peyton Randolph, Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson and several others. Every single one a slaveowner.

Also missing from the fantasyland version of the American Revolution sold to the American public is the central fact that, in 1768, the British had entered into treaties with the American Indian nations, prohibiting further theft of their land by speculators including George Washington and Benjamin Franklin. The Treaty of Fort Stanwix with the Iroquois, the Treaty of Hard Labor with the Cherokee and the Treaty of Pensacola with the Cree effectively confirmed the establishment of the frontier by the Royal Proclamation of 1763.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 16:56 | Link to Comment Strike Back
Strike Back's picture

DP, all good facts.  Orwell said the eternal struggle has been between the middle and the high, with the middle using lofty concepts such as liberty and equality to achieve the high position by fooling the lower into fighting for the middle's cause and abandoning the low thereafter. 

On the other hand, what is criticism without an alternate solution but just another complaint?  The post-modernists, relatavists, statists and socialists all use these exact factoids to proclaim that a heavily centralized state that will provide for the needs of the low is most desirable.  One need only take a cursory glance at history (or North Korea) to rebut such claims.

Is your claim that liberty is a pipe dream?  That social discourse, violent or otherwise is so hopelessly dominated by the middle and the high that no real revolution will ever be possible?

Yet humanity progresses.  Standards of living and life expectancies rise.  Monarchies fall and are replaced by representative democracies.  The trend is towards greater human freedom despite the machinations of the power brokers. 

So I will offer an alternative.  Honest discourse is essential, and I am wary of blind allegiance to centuries old documents and ideologies myself.  Despite this, those documents, i.e. the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, reflect ideas and systems that to me make sense.  Limited government, separation of powers, restricted government interference with the economy, property, the right to bear arms.  There is no harm of allowing these ideas to be a rallying point for others.  There is harm, in your approach, in providing a blanket denigration (albeit well thought-out) of everything American without offering so much as a way out.  Despair and nihilism never achieved anything.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 17:59 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Yet humanity progresses.  Standards of living and life expectancies rise.  Monarchies fall and are replaced by representative democracies.  The trend is towards greater human freedom despite the machinations of the power brokers. 

 

That is the result of prosperity, which was the result of expansion scheme. Way too early to proclaim something as you did.

 

And people do not have to provide an alternative or the right answer to make the factual observation that something is false.

To tell that 2 plus 2 is not 5, you dont need to tell that it is 4.

Telling that 2 plus 2 is not 5 without providing the right answer is still better than claiming as you did a false result from wrong causes.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 21:17 | Link to Comment Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

AnAnonymous

Life expectency is indeed linked to prosperity, or comfort of living and medical advances. There is no link between life expectency and how you are governed (if we need such a thing as nannying but other adults)  

Tue, 07/05/2011 - 03:57 | Link to Comment GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Despite all the 'medical innovation' I always hear is pouring out of ginormous vats from the US, the average american has the same life expectancy as the average Chilean, at seven times the cost/capita.

@StrikeBack

"There is harm, in your approach, in providing a blanket denigration (albeit well thought-out) of everything American without offering so much as a way out.  Despair and nihilism never achieved anything."

Truth hurts, hey? Still, it's always the best place to start if you really want a way out. I think you might be projecting the 'despair' and the 'nihilism', though.

Either that or he's 'sweet talking' ya DP.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 21:35 | Link to Comment Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Strike Back  -  "..is liberty a pipe dream.."

Stop paying your taxes, the dream will shoot down the pipe quicker than you think

"..social discourse, violent or otherwise is so hopelessly dominated by the middle and the high that no real revolution will ever be possible?"

Revolution is so simple and so easy, just stop paying your taxes

"..Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, reflect ideas and systems that to me make sense."

Action always speaks louder than words on pieces of paper.. stop paying tax and freedom is just a few weeks bankruptcy of Govt away

"Despair and nihilism never achieved anything."

Not paying your taxes achieves everything

"Orwell said the eternal struggle has been between the middle and the high.."

The human struggle has always between productive people and unproductive people (parasites). The struggle of class, race, status and age are window dressings and mere distractions. We have always struggled to rid ourselves of parasites, be they Royalty or now the political class and its corporate sponsors (also parasites). Understand this fight and history slots into place, perspective bolts out at you, all planets align and your mission is crystalised: stop feeding the parasites, stop paying them taxes

Tue, 07/05/2011 - 01:57 | Link to Comment GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

DP, you're an effing gem.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 12:31 | Link to Comment GeneMarchbanks
GeneMarchbanks's picture

Wow! Dude! You're going to have tone down on the hopium. Work... Remember work? Actual work...

No one is doing anything any time soon.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 12:31 | Link to Comment Tense INDIAN
Tense INDIAN's picture

4th of JUly ....its all about the star SIRIUS...astrology

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 12:37 | Link to Comment Xibalba
Xibalba's picture

Astronomically, on July 4th the Sun conjoins the star Sirius, whose longitude is 13 degrees in Cancer. Sirius(the sun behind the sun) is the star that rules all African/melanated people. It is on July 3-5 that Sirius is aligned directly with the Sun and Earth. This astronomical positioning of the planets, Sun and this star at the center of the universe is a time of special spiritual force that affects all events on Earth.This was a special spiritual time period in the Ancient egyptians(Ta Moor-ai). Is it coincidental that America was founded on this date July 4th 1776? If so,how were they aware of the ancient science of life that deals with the ‘Sirius Mysteries’ that was reestablished by the moors of the 18th Dynasty of Egypt?

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 12:39 | Link to Comment Tense INDIAN
Tense INDIAN's picture

i have some very interesting info ...not just right now ...i will paste some of them tomorrow in some POST

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 12:52 | Link to Comment Gully Foyle
Tue, 07/05/2011 - 04:03 | Link to Comment GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

About 200 countries, each with their own 'Independence' day.

OMFG! What are the odds...?

Hmmm.

It must be magic! Should we ask David Copperfield?

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 12:40 | Link to Comment Atomizer
Atomizer's picture

I just touched people in my life by emailing this.

John Adams - God Save The American States

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7Y1ougODMo&feature=player_embedded

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 13:22 | Link to Comment IQ 145
IQ 145's picture

 To paraphrase Napoleon, "How many divisions does God have?". He better get busy, because the enemy of the States, in the District of Columbia has a lot of military hardware and a lot of enforcers to whip'em right back into their "un-saved" status.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 15:37 | Link to Comment Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

no need for throwing handbags in the street and take on State Police to bring down a Govt, just stop paying your taxes... easy, peaceful, fast and effective

Taxation (robbery of society) is the major power of Govt and probably what the elite US parasites fought 'Independence' over (i don't know US history enough to confirm this).

Taxing its people is Govts No.1 power, and also its No.1 Achilles Heal 

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 16:40 | Link to Comment Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

Taxation is not robbery
It's confiscation
It's the law

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 21:47 | Link to Comment Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

no taxation is just plain robbery (theft)

remember Robin Hood "stole from the rich to give to the poor". His favourite target was the Sheriff of Nottingham (the taxman). The Boston Tea Party was kicked off not by oppression but by an increase in taxation. The American Revolution was also sparked by rises in taxes. 

In fact if you roll through history much revolution and rioting was set off not by moral outrage, but pocket outrage at rising tax (theft by State or Royalty). Give people a choice between fighting for a moral high ground and stopping a rise in taxation and it's a no contest, taxes get us in a tizzy more than any other lighter fluid

now prepare to stop paying your tax when the call comes and stop feeding these fuking State parasites. You get a bonus prize, down comes Govt and you get all your freedom back too. It couldn't be easier or simpler or for a greater cause

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 12:49 | Link to Comment Rainman
Rainman's picture

The Amerikan kleptocracy encourages unwavering reverence for victories and sacrifices long past. Some type of user's manual must outline the annual events necessary to reinforce the shaky bond between the commoner and his gubmint masters.

July 4, 1776 celebrated independence. July 4, 2011 marks another year of perseverance despite unsustainable debt slavery. Same holiday...two entirely different sets of national conditions for the common folk.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 12:53 | Link to Comment Cynthia
Cynthia's picture

This comment from Common Dreams pretty much sums up why I've come to detest Independence Day:

Every year 4th of July parades feature more military hardware and more people who look like Walmart greeters handing out flags.

All I can think of as I watch these parades is John Prine singing "YOUR FLAG DECAL WON"T GET YOU IN TO HEAVEN ANY MORE..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgRVNjsuycQ

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 12:57 | Link to Comment Kokulakai
Kokulakai's picture

200,000 Greek citizens were within 100 yards of freedom last week, but retreated from teargas into the arms of modern day slavers.

Our day is coming.

Given the opportunity are there those among us who will put forth the necessary effort when called upon to do so?

Perhaps someone will do it for us.

 

 

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 13:05 | Link to Comment Long-John-Silver
Long-John-Silver's picture

2nd amendment Bitchez!

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 13:24 | Link to Comment Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

What's that? The right to scratch where it itches?

 

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 13:54 | Link to Comment Long-John-Silver
Long-John-Silver's picture

The right to pop a cap in some thieving bitch.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 14:13 | Link to Comment snowball777
snowball777's picture

Yeah, just leave out that whole well-regulated militia clause, dunce.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 18:45 | Link to Comment goldsaver
goldsaver's picture

Only if you agree to ignore the "people" verbiage in every other clause in the constitution.

I always get a laugh at those who use the partial argument of that amendment.

A well regulated militia been necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

 So, according to you, the first half of the sentence define the conditions of the second. As in:

I need to go downtown tomorrow morning, the first bus comes by at seven A.M.

 

According to your logic, the purpose of the seven A.M. bus is only to take you downtown tomorrow and would not exist otherwise. Such a statement is laughable at best. Providing one of the reasons for the amendment does not negate all other reasons for the amendment. Considering that the amendments were added based on the demand of the States which constituted the Federal Government, the mention of the freedom of the State been mentioned makes perfect sense. It is not a limiting statement but an inclusive one.

Dunce.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 20:47 | Link to Comment Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

Play the same game with the thirteenth ammendment-  solve the US budget deficit and high incarceration issues in a single step by simply selling convicted US prisoners as slaves to the Chinese so that they make more shit for WalMart at a cheaper price...  

 

Or you can go read the founder's writings that preceded July 4, 1776 and put the clause in a proper historical context.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 12:57 | Link to Comment White.Star.Line
White.Star.Line's picture

This country ceased being free once the white man set foot on it's shores.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 13:05 | Link to Comment A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

Sounds like somebody forgot to cuddle up in their smallpox infested blanket.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 13:09 | Link to Comment Long-John-Silver
Long-John-Silver's picture

And all the Indians were peace loving environmentalists that never went on raiding parties for women and children killing all the men in the process, or burned vast areas of forests to  flush out game, or stampeded thousands of Buffaloes over cliffs.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 13:36 | Link to Comment Hacked Economy
Hacked Economy's picture

Exactly, Long John.

I'm part Cherokee, and I can tell you that every race has played its part in being hostile to its own people.  The white man introduced the horse, certain fuits and vegetables, and even some new diseases to the North American continent, but he certainly didn't teach the idea of war as a new concept.  That was already well known amongst the quibbling Indian tribes.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 14:15 | Link to Comment Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

As was slavery.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 15:44 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

And all the Indians were peace loving environmentalists that never went on raiding parties for women and children killing all the men in the process, or burned vast areas of forests to  flush out game, or stampeded thousands of Buffaloes over cliffs.

 

Certainly not. The big difference for Indians is they did not misrepresent what they did by claiming their fight for liberty, justice and freedom.

They were not duplicitous like US citizens.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 12:58 | Link to Comment Frankie Carbone
Frankie Carbone's picture

How to we organize without an new and improved COININTELPRO cutting us to shreds and tossing us into prisons for trumped up thought crimes? 

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 13:28 | Link to Comment Cthonic
Cthonic's picture

Presciently, and, precisely.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 12:58 | Link to Comment Steroid
Steroid's picture

On the other hand, this is the birthday of the US government, too. Learn to appreciate all the imperial pomp.

Meanwhile, we, the individuals celebrate America, the idea, whatever left of it.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 13:40 | Link to Comment CH1
CH1's picture

No, it's not. That happened some 14 years later, and on a different date.

Do not mistake the Declaration and the Constitution - they are VERY different documents.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 13:04 | Link to Comment Silver Shield
Mon, 07/04/2011 - 13:01 | Link to Comment Long-John-Silver
Long-John-Silver's picture

Now it's time for a second revolution where we must take our government back from the elitists and banksters that have corrupted it and frosted tyranny on us. Today we have a powerless congress with a Kenyan at the helm operating the levers of power with unelected  czars running unconstitutional agencies that are killing freedom and the economy.  They are purposely spending US into oblivion. It's time to party like it's Paris 1789.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 13:43 | Link to Comment CH1
CH1's picture

Am 100% in favor of ditching the banksters and elitists, but I have ZERO interest in setting up a new government, or reforming the present government.

The state is THE problem. Not a specific state, but the very idea and the institution of the state.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 14:54 | Link to Comment Hacked Economy
Hacked Economy's picture

Agreed.  The Founding Fathers set up a constitutional republic framework that works...but it's been corrupted while we and those before us did nothing to stop it.

But I do think this country needs a thorough washing (reform of a sort).  Get rid of the Fed.  Revise the banking system and bring the Fractional Reserve Requirement back to a relatively sane percentage (40% or higher instead of the absolutely insane 3%-10% we have today per Federal guidelines).  End fiat and return to sound money.  Return power to the States and reduce the Federal Gov't to its original constitutional responsibilities only.  Term limits for Congressmen.  Etc, etc.

Oh...and get rid of all those spying cameras on every intersection.  :)

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 13:03 | Link to Comment A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

I'm just glad that so many have pledged their lives and fortunes so there could be McDonalds in China. God bless America.......and yes you CAN get fries with that.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 13:09 | Link to Comment Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

the British Empire, was defeated by a mere portion of the American population

 

3%

Tue, 07/05/2011 - 04:06 | Link to Comment GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Heh what was the percentage of the British Empire that burned down the Whitehouse?

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 13:18 | Link to Comment buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

Today we celebrate the declaration of independence signing. It was written by land “owning”, “Indian” killing, slave driving male chauvinist invaders who broke free from the “tyranny” of king george 3. It’s laughable. Down a twelve pack of “light” beer for me.

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 13:51 | Link to Comment CH1
CH1's picture

Horseshit.With a few exceptions, these were good men, and sometimes great men.

The truth, if you want it: http://www.ascolibooks.com/vera-verba/words_of_the_founders.html

 

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 14:39 | Link to Comment buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

Did you press and starch your fascist flag this a.m.?

Mon, 07/04/2011 - 19:29 | Link to Comment CH1
CH1's picture

LOL... of course! Everyone who doesn't line up with you is a fascist!

Racist, sexist, bigot, homophiobe... line up all the bombs and throw them to detroy any possibilities of outside thought.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!