[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
United States News Title: Washington + Jefferson = Soros & Gates? The Founders and what it means to be a nation We often (very often) hear the jingoism “take America back” by all and sundry on both sides of the political/social divide. Particularly on the conservative side we see the notion put forward that The America is somehow far adrift from her foundational roots, as laid down by the Founding Fathers. But is this really the case? Is modern Americanism fundamentally different from 18th century revolutionary Americanism? What would the Founding Fathers think of The America today? In addressing that, we must first consider what The America is and what The America is not. What The America is not, is a nation. What The America is, essentially, is a religion/empire, with much akin to a Marxist state. And one of the “gifts” which both Marxism and Americanism have bequeathed to the world is the ability to re-define words and even reality itself. One example of that is the definition of nation. Since the advent of Americanism/Marxism the definition has been completely re-written to the point that it now actually means the complete opposite of what it meant for thousands of years. As stated, The America is not a nation, which makes such linguistic concoctions as “a nation of immigrants” one of the more profound examples of an oxymoron and generally reflects the intellectual apathy found amongst the populace. A nation is NOT a place. A nation is NOT an ideology or creed or form of government or philosophy. What is a nation? In the simplest terms, nation is another word for ethnic Group. A nation is a race or stock of people. The English are a nation. The Irish are a nation. They need not be gathered in the same locale, share a common faith or reside under a similar form of government to be a nation. Let me say this again. Nation is another word for Ethnic Group. A nation is a biological unit, an extended family, aka a tribe. From the Etymology Dictionary: Nation c.1300, from O.Fr. nacion, from L. nationem (nom. natio) “nation, stock, race,” lit. “that which has been born,” from natus, pp. of nasci “be born” The origin of nations is ancient, and the knowledge of it should be embedded in our culture. Its lack leads to all kinds of problems and comedy, such as the (inherently American) Evangelical interpretation of “prophesy” in regard to Israel becoming a nation again in the 1940s and how that “sign” points to the end of days. The irony there is that if they believe modern jews are the Israel of the bible, then they didn’t “become a nation “again in 1948 as they never stopped being a nation (ie, an ethnic group) in the first place. Again, a nation need not have government, leaders or even a land of their own to be a nation. It is blood that makes a nation, not forms of government. Thus there is no American nation. Can nations mix to form a new one? No. Small admixtures from cousin-nations can be absorbed, such as Danish into English, but the former is inevitably lost into the latter. There are no new nations. So what The America is, is a proto-Marxist religion/empire. Nothing more. And in that, Americanism naturally shares more than a little in common with conventional Marxism. This is why The America and the former Soviet Union look so much alike. Both were artificially fabricated political constructs, rather than being natural, organic living-societies. (And, not surprisingly, both found themselves dominated by a nation who very much considers themselves a nation, separate from the empires they ruled.) Take for example this excerpt from a letterfrom Karl Marx to Abe Lincoln: We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery. From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp of the slave driver? When an oligarchy of 300,000 slaveholders dared to inscribe, for the first time in the annals of the world, “slavery” on the banner of Armed Revolt, when on the very spots where hardly a century ago *the idea of one great Democratic Republic* had first sprung up, whence the first Declaration of the Rights of Man was issued … And in ambassador Adams’ reply (at the same link), we find the following, Nations do not exist for themselves alone, but to promote the welfare and happiness of mankind by benevolent intercourse and example. Adams, in a round about way, agrees with Marx (see the full quote at the link). His father John Adams, a “Founding Father”, first vice-President and second President of the United States, wrote the following, concurring with the theme: If the empire of superstition and hypocrisy should be overthrown, happy indeed will it be for the world; but if all religion and all morality should be over-thrown with it, what advantage will be gained? The doctrine of human equality is founded entirely in the Christian doctrine that we are all children of the same Father, all accountable to Him for our conduct to one another, all equally bound to respect each other’s self love. -page 619, ‘John Adams’ by David McCullough Such is not the sentiments of a man residing (physically or otherwise) in the warring ghettos of the real world amongst his kin. No, that is the pompous affirmation of a man safely ensconced in an ivory tower, from whose lofty perch even Sao Paolo must look lovely at midnight when its dim and dirty lights glow luminously, masking the chaos, disease and death in the streets below. From such a distance joy and sorrow are indistinguishable and all peoples look alike … and they tend to look like ants. Such sentiments, as express by Marx and Adams are echoed in our own time by Bill Gates, George Soros and the like; Businessman, Mercenary Merchants, ‘Power to the People-preachers’, “Citizens of the World” and so on. CEO’s with a corporate management mindset that believes social engineering cannot only reap ever-increasing profits but “better-off” the little people as well. A man-made rearranging of the elements to better suit the perceived “greater good”. Thus Marxism and Americanism consummate their relationship through their shared denouncement of family, tradition and identity. Their offspring is the atomized consumeristic blank-slate. For tradition is the enemy of America. And so we have, from our beginning, a hypocritical elite who bemoans the existence of an elite. A Merchant-Pirate class who bemoans piracy and class, and the rich and powerful piously denouncing riches and power. And with one voice they ask of the masses, “will you not give up your pursuit of power, riches and identity for the greater good?” (We can see this today with rich and influential celebrities using the soap box their multi-million dollar lifestyles afforded them to denounce both the bigotry of the people they openly and collectively loathe and the “greedy excesses” of people who earn less than $50,000 a year.) Powerless people cannot give up power anymore than poor people can “enter a life of poverty”. Thus it is rare (if ever) that “people’s revolutions” occur from the bottom up. Marxist-minded social engineers are either of the elite or end up as the elite. And for them all things are malleable….for and by them. “We the people” were neither consulted nor present when “They the rulers” applied our consent to their overthrow of history. So what the Founding Fathers instituted was the notion that nations are man-made creatures (akin to Frankenstein’s patched-together-monster) rather than natural outgrowths of the family/tribe. And that is a critical point, considering trends today. For if the family is the bedrock of a nation, then how we define a nation will effect how we think of the family. If a nation is merely an agreed upon social arrangement, voluntarily entered into and agreed by individuals (as in a creed), then so is the family. We should not then be surprised at the existence of the Franken-family, wherein are found every conceivable arrangement (from two “mommies” raising donated sperm to single parents and their revolving-door one night stands to the adopted multi-rainbow mockery) redefined into constituting a legitimate family. Indeed, the Founding Fathers’ action in creating The America was akin to a vacationing wife who writes back to her husband to inform him she is leaving him, taking the kids and moving into a commune where everybody is husband and wife to everybody else, and the kids now have 27 dads and as many moms. A “melting pot”, in other words. In point of fact The Declaration of Independence was a divorce paper, wherein George and Tom and Benjamin and the rest announced their intention of severing ties with kith and kin. Their actions in creating The America was not only the breaking up of a home, it was a direct assault upon the sacred nature of the family in and of itself. So in answer to the question, no, the Founding Fathers would not be surprised or upset at The America’s present state. They would be pleased with the progress. After a (well, very) little soul searching they would embrace a Marxist colored president, if not outright bow down before him, and promptly denounce any who oppose him as un-American. Even Jefferson, who wrote about the perpetually low mental and spiritual qualities of the negro would come around quickly. After all, a democratically elected Marxist Negro is the final embodiment of everything the “founding fathers” strived for in their rejection of an un-elected White Monarch. Again, tradition is the enemy of America. Besides, it should be rather telling, that as The America ascended to world supremacy post-WWII the world has become increasingly radically liberal and leftist in outlook and ideology. And debauched culturally and racially. Europe is a good example of that. Western Europe has been under the American dominion for 60+ years, and in that time has rapidly slid into the gutter culturally, socially and demographically. It is frequently described today as a dying continent. The America is a multi-headed Beast, seeking out whom it may devour. Americanism is a trumped up religion to sell a poisoned product. In times past that religion was euphemistically called Babylon. Through democracy and universalism via assimilation it has created an image of Global Governance, wherein people from all tribes reside under one government, with “justice for all” at the point of a PC litigated riffle. And it calls upon the whole world to bow down before that image. Those who do not bow down can neither buy nor sell on the world stage. They are derided, attacked and denied the right to the preservation of their distinct nations (peoples) and ways. Just look at the White nations residing in The America ... What’s left of them.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
#1. To: continental op (#0)
Pure excrement. This article confuses an out-of-control government with the people. BIG mistake. More excrement. The current state of the USA, is why the 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights. Said Thomas Jefferson, "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Your article attacks the idea of the USA being a nation, thus attacking the patriotism of those who are willing to fight- and perhaps die- to rein in this out-of-control government. Your reasoning, essentially, is that there's no REASON to fight. Patriotism is to stand for your country, for your NATION. Go back to DU(h). Tell them you failed.
#2. To: Capitalist Eric (#1)
Eric, I have borne with you, throughout the day. But you seem like a dimwitted guy. you're weakling, coward and fool who'd never take up arms to defend his country or his Constitution. people like you are the problem. you are a cowardly, tax-paying serf, prating about freedoms.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|