A Fourth Question

126
2169
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Today is Independence Day, so it seems a good time to ask: How independent are we? Put another way: What are we free to do – and not do?

The dreary answer, of course, is . . . not very much.

Orwell wrote that freedom “… is the right to tell people what they don’t want to hear.” And also that two plus two equals four rather than five.

But there is a more foundational freedom and it comes in two co-equal parts. The first part is the right to say No. The second part – without which the freedom to say No is a functional non sequitur – is that your No be respected. In law. By law.

Americans have lost this freedom almost completely.

We are free to say, No of course – in the manner of a woman being raped … who is raped, regardless. The trouble is the rapist’s indifference to the woman’s protestations. The ineffectiveness of her No.

Americans used to be able to say No effectively.

They were once free to say No to health insurance, for instance. Which is a reasonable thing to say for many, such as the young and healthy – who can reasonably bet they won’t require expensive medical treatment and so prefer not to spend their limited resources on expensive insurance.

The fundamental thing being that their right, as individuals, to say No was respected.

Whether you – or others – agreed with their decision being functionally immaterial. Other people were required to mind their own business – and leave you free to mind yours.

That principle is now soundly rejected by perhaps a majority of Americans – who believe because they say Yes others must be punished for saying No.

This has its ideological basis in the doctrine of majority rule, which forms the basis of democracy – something America was never meant to be. Which is another thing Americans, in general, no longer understand.

The very word – democracy – was considered almost pejorative by most of the Founders, who loathed the practice. It is nowhere to be found in the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution, the latter allegedly the law of the land.

Or even, for that matter, the Pledge of Allegiance, which was written by a socialist.

It refers to the republic, not the democracy.

It is an important distinction. Republics respect the freedom to say No by accepting it without applying punishment or its threat – duress – for so saying. They acknowledge individual rights as not subject to a vote – no matter how many votes are taken.

Democracies – which is what the United States has become – require the subordination of the individual to the majority as a matter of principle. Which means the individual is only permitted to say No – without being punished – when the majority also says so.

Which means he has no meaningful freedom to say it.

There is a tepid form of No we are still allowed to say. It is the choice of alternatives presented by the majority – or those who claim to represent it but often don’t. It is a wicked irony of “democracy” that in practice, minorities rule.

For example, the choice at the ballot box between the overlord presented by Party A and the overlord presented by Party B. These are conjured by the minorities who control the inner workings of the allowed parties. The candidates of these minorities are then brought forth and a vote is taken, often with the winning candidate determined by a minority of the eligible-to-vote populace.

The chief overlord – aka the president – is determined by a vote of approximately half those eligible, that half cleaved very close to 50-50, with the winning overlord determined by – typically – something like 26 percent of the 50 percent.

We have no meaningful choice to say No to any of this – and have our No respected in the form of being left alone by all of them.

At almost every turn, our No is countermanded by you will – or else.

And Americans celebrate – to the degree they are allowed to – even on what is supposedly “their” property but isn’t since they’re not free to say No to taxes in perpetuity on their property in exchange for services they didn’t contract for and would decline . . .  if they were free to say No.

An appropriate analogy on this day of independence denied would be feed lot cattle clicking their heels and lowing in pleasure, not conscious of the absurdity – nor the next step in the their travels.

Got a question about cars – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos. 

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet (pictured below) in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a sticker – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)

My latest eBook is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here.  

 

 

 

 

 

Share Button

126 COMMENTS

  1. So, it was the suppression of the natural rights of a proportionately large group of human residents in their region by the honchos of the South that was their great sin, upsetting the balance among all de facto residents who were rightfully citizens of the region and whose votes, if cast and counted, would have correctly indicated a large majority for maintaining the union of states, which, under the Constitutiion, the President was sworn to “preserve and defend”, not abrogate. And preserve and defend he duly did! So there! (Unless you maintain that a large part of the working class of the South were not entitled somehow to their natural rights, including enfranchisement, as human beings and de facto residents).

    • Hi James,

      You are speaking in terms of collectives. Only individuals have rights. The fallacy in your reasoning is consent of the governed. Who consented, exactly? A handful of people – who presumed to “represent” everyone, or at least a majority. But majorities don’t have rights, either.

      In any case, no one now living has consented to be governed – by the Constitution or anything else. Their consent has been presumed – but that isn’t consent. If you disagree, try enforcing a contract in a court of law that hasn’t got the other party’s signature on the binding instrument. Tell the judge you have the other party’s implied consent.

      Of course, government does exactly that when it comes to itself – but that merely proves my point. The idea of consent not freely and explicitly given having any moral or legal force is as preposterous as a hairy turtle.

      And if you believe the American colonies had the moral right to separate from the British empire then you cannot deny the Southern states also had the same right. Certainly, the people who were alive in 1787 took political separation as a given right. Jefferson said so, explicitly – and his view was not controversial. The idea of an “indivisible” and “perpetual” union are both confections of later generations.

    • Hi James,

      Again, there is no oath to “maintain the union of states”. The oath was to uphold and defend the Constitution, which Lincoln violated extremely. As for suppressing the natural rights of citizens, all governments do that. On this count, the North is certainly as guilty as the South. The strong, anti-war sentiment among many in the North was violently suppressed by Lincoln, opposition newspapers were shut down, property was seized and editors and reporters were imprisoned. The “great sin” you speak of was heartily endorsed by Lincoln.

      Lincoln destroyed the union created by the Constitution, you know, the voluntary one of divided sovereignty where the Federal government was an agent of the States, whose authority was limited and strictly enumerated, and gave birth to the monolithic, unaccountable institution that exists today.

      Jeremy

    • Those held in bondage in the southern states were not reason for the war until Abe Lincoln needed to make it the reason.

      If the southern states had been allowed to go their own way slavery would have collapsed under its own weight as it had or would everywhere else in the western world. Slavery is simply very inefficient in extracting productivity from the masses. By the 1860s the writing was on the wall for slavery, it was not economically sustainable.

      Was the cost of ending slavery forcibly some years earlier than it would have been worth it in the terms of lost life and capital? Was it worth it in how it changed the USA forever? Gave it a methods to go to war which it still uses today, diminished people’s freedom, etc and so on?

      • BrentP: But they were, in fact, inescapably the precipitating reason for the war. because the candidate of the (in the mind of the Southern firebrands, and not unreasonably seen as) the representative of the anti-slavery party being elected was what precipitated them to break their pledge in signing onto the Constitution, with its clearly laid out rules (having to do with needing to win the Electoral Vote) and refuse to live by the electoral vote. Did you think they were afraid he (Lincoln) would do something crazy with tariffs? Or what? And he simply (not so simply, actually) fulfilled his oath to protect the Constitution of the union of states – especially since the slave power of the South could only win a national election by denying the franchise to a good part of its working-class population, so didn’t really represent the whole Southern public will, anyway – by a long shot.

        • Hi James,

          Slavery was less the fundamental issue than aggrandizement of power by the North – which was dominating the federal government and thereby, the states. The Southern states felt they were being tyrannized by the North – which they were.

          Abe was elected by a minority and thus could not even claim to represent the majority. Southerners saw him – rightly – as the tool of Northern industrial interests.

          Abe himself was more than willing to countenance slavery – and offered to support an amendment to the Constitution to that effect.

          What he cared about – above all – was “saving the union.”

          At bayonet point.

          By negating the very idea of “consent of the governed.”

          And – as Jeremy has already pointed out – Abe shat all over the Constitution he “swore” to defend.

          • Lincoln to Horace Greeley, 1862: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”

            Four Union states — Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware — remained slave states until the war was over and slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment in 1865.

            Slavery was the post hoc rationalization given by the North for using the government to kill other Americans.

            • To break it down to it’s simplest terms: The war about DC not wanting to lose the lucrative taxes it collected from The South; and the profit which the North had started making from cotton after regulation mandated that the government purchase cotton from The South- for a paltry ten to twenty cents a pound, and then ship it to NY where it was sold for $1.89 a pound to northern mills and Britain.

              The South had been selling it directly to Britain and other countries for $1.89, formerly. (At the time, 77% of the cotton in the world came from the US South!)

              Has there ever been a time when Uncle has not practiced theft and plunder? Has anything changed?- for it is so today, that if one does not consent to the theft of the product of their labor or the theft of their products through the interference of Uncle on the once-free market, one is still summarily destroyed by mercenaries.

              I guess we could say the war was about slavery: DC wanting to keep it’s slaves, when those slaves had decided to crawl out from under Wurshington’s tyranny.

              • Thanks, Nunzio. Even I didn’t know about Federal mandates that prevented the Southern cotton growers from DIRECTLY profiting from their crop. And, of course, if the captured markup was THAT profitable, did the North have every incentive to keep slavery going in the South! I suspected that once mechanization had taken over, sentiment to “free” the slaves and let them migrate NORTHWARD” would have come out of the SOUTH itself! Or, rather than something like Marcus Garvey’s “Back to Africa” movement, something on the order of a FORCIBLE expulsion out of the USA, even to Africa, like Liberia, might have come forth, as Lincoln proposed. IMO, this would have been a domestic tragedy far worse than the “Trail of Tears” experienced by the Cherokee.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears

                • I’m guessing the Cherokee my differ with you. One of the things I think that made Sam Houston such a great man was his ability to not only get along with native Americans but live with them and become an accepted member of their tribe.

                • And thank you, Doug, for the reminder of the Trail of Tears!

                  How can ANY American ever dare salute a flag or pledge allegiance or be proud, after all we’ve done to the Indians?!

                  Slavery still gets all of the publicity, 150 years after it ended, but the Indians are all but forgotten- except when Fauxcahantas/Nutsacagawea Warren tries to use them to buy an office.

                  And we never learn! Look what we did to our poor Jap citizens during WW2.

                  Government is just a bunch of men united in purpose, whose crimes are legitimized and participated in by the majority, who somehow believe that such a group of men have the ability to make wrong right.

                  Keep in mind too, that slavery wasn’t all it was cracked-up to be. Slaves were not cheap; and 50% of their labor went for their own upkeep. They already had a lot of regular paid labor on the plantations by Bastard Lincoln’s time.

                  I often fantasize though, how much better off this country would have been had they sent ’em, back to Africa. Hell, I’d personally buy any of their descendants who want to go back a one-way ticket! 🙂

          • Brevity is the soul of wit, Eric, and you showed more “soul” (train) than I on the subject.

            That’s the tragic irony of “Dishonest Abe”. Even ASSuming that he was personally a moral man (his politics would belie that, but methinks fellow Mormon Mitt Romney, whose toothy smile raises the hackles of my “Inner Klingon”, who knows better than to trust men whom SMILE TOO MUCH, is a Lattery-Day (Saint) example of someone who builds the road to Hades with his ‘good intentions’ with a $1M paving machine), he sought to CRUSH the nascent Confederacy by FORCE. That’s why even naming the conflict the “Civil” War is a terrific LIE, as it wasn’t terribly “civil” to the Southerners that had to suffer Yankee depredations, Suh, as are cynical assertions of Lincoln’s “honesty”.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbFty9nZUac

            The Confederates weren’t trying to take over the rest of the country, they wanted to form THEIR OWN. What’s interesting is how crucial Virginia’s role was in making Confederate secession viable in the first place! What’s not commonly understood today is that by no means was sentiment for secession unanimous in the Confederacy, the part of what’s now West Virginia, long themselves having little in common with the planter-dominated majority that lived east of the “Fall Line”, being quite pro-Union, and after the vote in the Assembly to secede, formed their own Unionist government at the Wheeling Convention of 1861 and petitioned the Federal government to form the state of Kanawah. This was held up until Lincoln’s so-called “Emancipation Proclamation”, which proclaimed freedom for the slaves by Executive Order (sound familiar?), but NOT in the “border states” of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware, which had remained in the Union.

            This is why I insist on not referring to that war of Federal aggression as any “Civil” War, but rather, the War of Confederate Secession. It had much in common with the War of Independence fought by the combatant’s grandfathers and great-grandfathers, and that decisive victory was achieved, in all IRONY, largely by Southern militias and cemented at Yorktown, VIRGINIA in October 1781. The obvious difference is that the original “Thirteen” (actually fourteen, but Vermont found a way to largely sit it out and form the Bennington Republic in 1777, and remained for 14 years) SUCCEEDED in secession, while the Confederacy failed.

            I assume you’re familiar with Harry Turtledove’s alternate history novels that postulated a successful Confederate secession. Part of it is a resumption of the conflict, as the USA, with its higher portion of ethnic German, becomes part of the “Quadruple Alliance” in 1882 (as opposed to OTL’s “Triple Alliance” of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy), while the CSA, having formed stronger bonds with the UK, lines up with the Allies (never mind that the “Texas Deutsche” would dissent). This results in WWI also being fought in North America, with trench warfare in Northern Virginia and Kentucky.

            • Hi Doug,

              I harp on this a lot – but I do because it’s important: Definitions matter. Accept your opponent’s definition in a debate and you have already lost the debate. Or at least, you’ve already not challenged the fundamental thing.

              As you have pointed out, it’s propaganda to characterize the conflict of 1861-5 as a “civil war.” It is of a piece with referring to “contributions” made to Social Security. In both cases, the verbiage is calculated to establish a false premise.

              The English had a civil war. What took place on this continent was the attempt of “… one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them.”

              Put more concisely if less elegantly: The Southern states attempted to put into practice the idea of government by consent, without which every contract – including the one in the glass case in DC – is morally and legally void.

              • Yep, there was certainly no civility to be found. And historians speak of so many men killed….but the truth is much worse.

                The “scorched earth” policy didn’t discriminate and killed blacks, whites, children and women and native Americans indiscriminately.

                And “some” yankees still don’t get the south isn’t over it. It’s gone, it’s done I’ve heard countless times. But as long as there are one generation to tell the next it won’t ever be over. I’ve even had some say to me “get over it”…..although never face to face.

                I had kin that vehemently opposed armed conflict and for the most part, were buried in their uniforms. They actually were “civil” people who only wanted to sell their wares and till a bit of dirt for food.

                My “group” got to know and be friends with some air farce guys our age who were flight controllers and all from somewhere in NYC including one from Harlem. I believe he was the only one to not try to live in Tx. post military.

                They were different from us in a very real way, no connection to the earth. They liked to think they were somehow superior…..all but one who hung around and lived out his life in Texas. I recall one laughing “at” me when he was the one that didn’t get the joke.

                The one who stayed tried to make a good hand and did everything we did. I recall his first dove hunt. He wasn’t doing much hitting and little killing but nobody is born shooting on the wing. But one thing stands out in my mind because it was so funny. He had wounded a dove and didn’t know what to do with it. My best friend, who died last week, told him “pull the head off”. He was mortified so my friend told him to bring it to him. So he walks over with it in his hand and my friend jerks its head off. Well, the fluttering that started up made Steve scream and drop it. We all just fell out laughing. He ended up being a good hunter and a great friend. The others back in Queens and the Bronx did their own thing, such as become the manager of a McDonald’s. They just look at life differently….only way to explain it.

                • You got that right,8!

                  These people living from birth in places where they rarely even see a blade of grass- much less walk on it; whose feet never leave concrete; who live their lives warehoused in some 600 sq.ft. apartment with a couple of windows, which only face one direction; and their view is of the brick building across the street; and whose parents and parent’s parents lived the same way, are totally unnatural creatures.

                  They exist in the infrastructure which man and his governments have created; not the one God created. They are cogs in a machine…not thinking, feeling human beings. The real world is foreign to them.

                  When confronted with the reality of the real world, they become confused and disoriented. They don’t knoiw what to do.

                  80% of Americans now live in big cities or metro areas. They vote, for gods to maintain the machinery of which they are a part, and which they depend on to protect them from from the real world.

                  My mother- born and raised in the heart of NYC, is freaked out by my guns. Every time she hears of some shooting in the news, or some communist gun-control politician ranting, she says “You’d better take the bullets out of that gun [Which one? :D] and put it away somewhere safe!”.

                  They live in fantasy-land where the elected god-men and talking heads of the media protect them. Hmmm…how’s that working out for them? And yet she speaks about “All that crime in NY”

                  I’ve given up. We can’t save these people whose minds have been so infected.

          • Eric, It is obvious that James and those like him are victims of the propaganda/ cartoon history of America, pounded into the minds of young people in what can only be described as brainwashing and indoctrination centers otherwise known as public education.
            These are the ones who cling to those notions even when factual evidence to the contrary is presented. It is called cognitive dissonance.
            There is so much more information on the war between the states and who and what Lincoln really was as opposed to the cartoon versions taught in public schools.
            The war crimes committed by Sheridan and Sherman. The imprisonment of journalists and the exile of a congressman from Ohio to Canada are only a couple of the tyrannical actions of Lincoln the tyrant.

            • Indeed, John…

              Abe is presented in an almost avuncular manner… like another “Uncle” of Georgian (not American Georgian) extraction.

        • Hi James,

          The fact that the Southern political and landholding elite were very concerned with maintaining the legality of slavery has no bearing on whether Lincoln launched a war to abolish that institution. Lincoln’s obsession was maintaining the Union, not ending slavery. As proven by the fact, as Eric and others have noted, that he supported the Corwin amendment which would have barred the Federal government from interfering with that institution where it was currently legal. Even by the standards of his day, Lincoln was an open and unapologetic racist. I believe that his moral opposition to slavery was sincere, but that belief was clearly subordinate to his political agenda. Also, like Lincoln, opposition to slavery in the North was largely based on political and economic self interest concerns for most citizens. Finally your dismissal of the tariff as a significant concern is false. Both “sides” were concerned about tariffs.

          “…to break their pledge in signing onto the Constitution…”

          Again, please cite anything in the Constitution or the contemporaneous literature that supports the idea the that signatories were pledging fealty to a perpetual union, or that empowered the Federal government to forcibly prevent a State from withdrawing from it. The “oath” you speak of that Lincoln “upheld” does not exist. However, Lincoln repeatedly and egregiously violated his actual oath of office. Does this concern you? Do you deny it? Or, was all his violations of the Constitution justified in the name of preserving the mystical, perpetual union of which Lincoln spoke?

          Jeremy

          • Jeremy, Lincoln had no truck with the abolitionists. It was a scant 2 months before the election that his handlers told him he wouldn’t win without the endorsement of the abolitionists.

            He held his nose and embraced them and eeked out a win. But his writings are not hard to find and easily read. He didn’t give a shit about slavery but did have the opinion that whites and blacks would never “live together”.

            At the time of his death, he was working with Charles Du Bois on a black back to Africa deal and how to accomplish it. Of course the “wining” side dared not write the historical truth so we have more lies to add to his already bad reputation.

            • Hey Eight,

              Yep, his supposed abandonment of colonization of all the blacks as the “final solution” to the “black” problem is another myth perpetrated by the Lincoln cult. He supported this until he died. Some time ago, the loathsome Newt G (sounds like a bad rap name), in an attempt to prove that Lincoln wasn’t a racist, noted the Lincoln was the first president to meet personally with a black man in the White House, which is true. However, he failed to note the purpose of the meeting which was discussing how to best remove all the “darkies” from the country.

              Cheers,
              Jeremy

          • Slavery’s 3/5ths rule was mutually beneficial to everyone in Washington. Instead of counting everyone, freeman or slave, which would advantage the slave states, by only counting slaves as 3/5ths of a human and not allowing them to vote meant the southern voter had more sway in Washington.

            Most anything that was settled by a political compromise would upset the status quo’s balance of power in DC, so no way they’re going to allow any change.

            • Hit Post too soon. And by only counting the slaves as 3/5ths it meant more representatives for the non-slave states.

              • I don’t think the 3/5th’s applied when determining the number of representatives…I believe they didn’t count at all, ’cause they couldn’t vote. So the South got even a rawer deal.

                • They most certainly did count toward the number of representatives, that’s the point. The northern states didn’t want slaves counted at all, which would have given them carte blanche to do whatever they wanted just because of their larger population of freemen. If the slaves counted as 1 man it would have tipped the balance toward the south (although the north still had the majority of the population and was still overly represented in the house). The 3/5th compromise was politically expedient because it helped balance things out.

                  But like most political solutions it meant no one left the table completely happy and screwed the people it was designed to help.

        • The idea that Lincoln was a threat to slavery is an invention of the Lincoln cult. And being schooled here in Illinois I’ve been immersed in the traditions of the Lincoln cult. I suppose they were always fairy tale like to me so finding them to be such didn’t shock me.

          The road to secession was well underway before the crony railroad lawyer got elected president. The southern state were guilty of hanging on to an obsolete economy and the northern states guilty of plundering it.

          I suspect if the southern states had been allowed to go, slavery would have collapsed and they would rejoin the union. Peacefully. It might have taken 10 or 20 years but Abe got it done in a bloody, violent, and destructive four years.

          • Had the Confederate commander, P.T. Beauregard, been allowed to overtake the retreating Union forces, which were hampered by the roads being clogging with fleeing sight-seers, many whom journeyed out from Washington with boxed lunches to witness what they’d thought would be a swift end to the “Rebellion”, he would have been able to take the Yankee capital and force the USA government to flee! With such a terrific humiliation, Lincoln would have been unable to forcibly prevent Maryland from seceding as well, and who is to say that Kentucky, Missouri, and Delaware wouldn’t have followed suit! At least the body count would have been limited to about a thousand, instead of 600-fold as the tragic (un)”Civil” war resulted over the next four years.

        • James, the “Working Class” did NOT typically vote in the North EITHER prior to the mis-named “Civil” War (more properly term the War of Confederate Secession). Many have rightly decried poll taxes and literacy tests, as well as only males voting, but it should be recalled that by no means were our Founding Fathers establishing any egalitarian “Democracy”. As Ben Franklin put it at the end of the 1787, in answering what had the convention, originally chartered to AMEND the Articles of Confederation, established, “A REPUBLIC, Sir, IF you can KEEP it!”.

          True, the slave-holding states insisting on the Three-Fifths compromise was cynical, and not necessarily some racist assertion that a negro’s life was valued only at sixty percent of a white man’s, it was to persuade the slave-holding state to ratify the Constitution at all! This did give VA virtual hegemony in US politics for its first forty years, even electing four of its first five Presidents.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_dynasty

          Anyway, most states had requirements that a MAN (as female suffrage didn’t happen until in the Wyoming and Utah territories in 1872, not, as many think, the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920) be sufficiently “literate”, be able to pay a poll tax (as much of your cherished “working” class were indeed dirt-poor, a huge expense for them) and at least own SOME real property, however humble it might be. This not only to ensure that only’responsible’ men voted, but also to prevent what would often occur later…political machines that sprang forth in mostly NORTHERN cities (though that of New Orleans would have made Boss Tweed of Tamanny Hall blush!) used the dregs of society to employ the phrase, “Vote early and OFTEN!”. So, among white men, voting wasn’t necessarily universal, and certainly even the hundreds of thousands of free black men wouldn’t have been granted the franchise ANYWHERE in the ante-bellum USA. However your contemporary sense of political correctness is offended, it simply the ways things WERE.

          • You call it a war of Southern Secession while I call it the War of Northern Aggression. The blockade of southern ports, the taking prisoner and killing of simple seamen who were simply working for merchants certainly would agree with me I think.

            The owners of those ships being razed and sunk and having the crews put in chains to work for the Union certainly would agree it was the North and not the South that started the war.

            Everywhere on earth, at any time in at least the last several hundred years and even before, a naval blockade has always been an “act of war”. The US is still big on this…..OK, the evil one who run the US govt. are still big on this. The sheeple don’t know and the rest of us certainly do.

            • “War of Northern (or Federal) Aggression would be appropriate. The Confederacy would have left the USA alone in peace had they been afforded the same consideration, and were willing to negotiate the eventual withdrawl of USA fortresses in Confederate ports.

              And let’s not even go into Sherman’s “March to the Sea”. It was “scorched earth” tactics, which the Germans practiced widely as they were driven out of the Soviet Union in late 1943 and through 1944. German generals that oversaw these operations were, if not already in Soviet captivity, handed over to them, to either be given a show trial and then hanged, or left to rot in the Lubyanka. Yet no one calls William Tecumseh Sherman a “war criminal”, hell, the M4 tank was named after him!

      • It was the actions of Lincoln the tyrant that has brought us to this very situation. He began the long slow descent into an out of control government tyrant.
        It was of course hastened by the events of 9/11 which were all scripted and falsely presented to a gullible American public.
        Since then America has taken on the persona of a police security state with a government controlled apparatus controlled by the Department of Homeland Security.
        The illusion of freedom is just that, an illusion.
        ” Experience hath shewn that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” Thomas Jefferson.

        • Hi John,

          This is a good time to mention – and recommend – HL Mencken’s observations in re the Gettysburg Address. If you haven’t read them, you are in for a treat. I read them as a kid – and it was transformative for me. At a stroke, Mencken demolished by simple, careful dissection, the effrontery of Lincoln (of all people!) speaking of “government of the people, by the people” (i.e., of government by consent).

        • I posit George Washington started the govt. down the road to robbery with building an army and going after tax dissenters(Whiskey Rebellion). You can’t even legally distill for your own use, something that fairly much only exists in this country.

    • If you’re referring to the Confederate State of America, which attempted to secede and almost pulled it off, from the United States of America, much as the original country had done likewise against their then-sovereign, King George III of the United Kingdom, then you’re way the hell off-base.

      First off, like it or not, most blacks were slaves, and therefore PROPERTY, period! Today such a status seems abhorrent, but it was the way things WERE. Furthermore, slavery was still LEGAL in most of the states not typically considered “slave” states, just simply not commonly practiced, as the large plantations that made slaveholding economically viable weren’t present in the North. And in ALL states, free men of color did NOT vote nor serve on juries, there were at best, grudgingly tolerated.

      The Confederates didn’t secede over fear of abolition of slavery; indeed, not only were the abolitionists considered a fringe element of the REPUBLICAN party, they even backed what would have been the Thirteenth Amendment, the Corwin Act, instead of the one ratified in December 1865 that outlawed slavery; which, in irony, last took place in Delaware, which remained in the Union. They seceded due to the their loss of political power, even with the 3/5ths rule (meaning their slaves, whom didn’t vote, were counted 60 percent towards House seats and Electoral votes), as they couldn’t stop tariffs and other Federal taxes which hit them at the expense of the South. Indeed, Lincoln’s primary objection to letting the Confederacy go was that the Federal Government would lose the bulk of its revenue! And Lincoln’s own attitudes towards race and what to do with freed slaves would paint him today as a virulent racist.

      Indeed, what you “Damned Yankees” deem the “Civil” War, which wasn’t terribly “civil”, Suh, as anyone that survived the seige of Vicksburg, MS, or Sherman’s “March to the Sea” through Georgia could have attested, was the death of the voluntary compact with the Federal Government, known as the “United” States, with a national, despotic National Government, and the literal conquest of the 11 states of the CSA along with the de facto conquest of the rest.

  2. The criminal ‘government’ has a major flaw in their ‘voting’ charade – they cannot prove in a court of law, according to the rules of evidence, that ANYONE was ever elected. Blackbox voting – hidden secret voting – eliminates the possibility of any ‘government agent’ actually has a principal that assigned them to the ‘office’. The only thing they could possibly attempt to use in a court of law to defend any claim they were actually elected is to present the certification from the elections commission but that by definition is hearsay, unassimable in a court of law as evidence to defend their claim and wouldn’t matter anyway because the principal liable for an agent’s actions IF the agent did not breach their duty. The proper way for a law abiding people to vote is to submit an affadavit of the vote recorded in a court of law. That way the voters (principals of the agents) can be held liable for their actions of directing the agent to act unlawfully.

    The whole voting thing is a sham because it does not comport with the rule of law, it has been intentionally made black box voting because it is actually fraud, the ‘votes’ are not lawful votes, are not counted, and is complete lawless exercise from top to bottom. The ‘voting’ is just one piece of evidence amongst the mountain range of evidence that the government has actually been overthrown by criminals and the people generally are too lawless to even comprehend this fact in law.

    • Hi Nobody,

      You raise an excellent point in re voting anonymously. Which also eggs on immoral voting (my own view here is that rights aren’t subject to a vote, open or anonymous). Imagine if – 200 years ago – when most Americans still felt moral qualms about theft – they were required to publicly state that they wished to use the power of government to steal from their neighbors. Things might be very different today.

      • In CA, the Dummycrats practice “vote harvesting”, which is ILLEGAL in most of the other states, as even with all the libtards and illegals, they still can’t otherwise win!

        • Morning, Doug!

          2020 is going to be interesting. It could go any of several ways, but one possible way is an Orange Man repeat of Reagan vs. Mondale, with OM in the role of RR. This – pray it happens – will drive the SJW Left to circuit-frying psychosis. It will be enjoyable to watch!

          • The only persons that can prevent DJT’s re-election in 2020 are, in order:

            1) The Good Lord, whom may decide “time’s up”. Happens to us all, eventually.
            2) “The Donald” himself – he has a tendency to open mouth, and insert foot, or otherwise be his own worst enemy.
            3) An assassin. Of course, I was predicting four years ago that if DJT got the GOP nomination, he was a “dead man”, and three years ago, with the nomination locked up, that if elected POTUS, he wouldn’t make it to inauguration, and so on.

            Please keep in mind that I didn’t actually vote for him, though I wasn’t unhappy with the results…better him than the “Witch” any day! I cast my vote for Gary Johnson, and though he QUADRUPLED his 2012 nationwide tally, in the stat that really counts, he got “zilcho” for electoral votes, not even a runner-up in his home state of New Mexico! So when morning dawn the following day, and at least pleased I wouldn’t be hearing “Madam President” the following Jan 20th, I thought….OH SHIT…what have we done? Happy to say that “The Donald” has well exceeded my expectations, though on some things I do have a “Bone to Pick” with him!

            • Doug,

              If DJT doesn’t get handle on immigration; if he doesn’t even make an HONEST EFFORT to do so; he could be in trouble. That’s the main reason I renewed my voter registration and voted for him-the immigration issue. Suffice it to say, I’m disappointed with his lack of RESULTS. Yes, the Dems have dragged their feet, but so did the GOP when they controlled Congress. He could-gasp-have the Army DO something (like REPELLING the invaders) vs. painting the walls, for example. Anyway, if DJT doesn’t get crackin’ on the border, many of us who voted for him will stay home next time.

              • MarkyMark – repeat after me: President Kamala Harris.

                YEEECH. At least the President would be GIVING the “happy endings”!!

                She succeeded another dishonest, dingbat female called Barbara Boxer, whom embarrassed the once- Golden State, which now may as well be termed “Calipornia”, through FOUR terms. At least age and dementia was finally claiming the Hebrew Hag. When she was in the Senate, I kept saying, “ANYONE but her”…be CAREFUL what you wish for!

                • I understand what you’re saying, but, WRT the border, what DIFFERENCE would it make if Kamala Harris were POTUS? The invasion is worse than it was under Obama, for cryin’ out loud!

                  • And the invasion is not going to stop, because the powers that be need slaves in order to have that power and wealth which they do.

                    Nothing has really changed throughout human history- it’s still all about labor. Ultimately, those who profit wildly and who control societies, do so only through the labor of others.

                    The prosperity of Western economies, and the rejection of traditional morality for hedonism, has caused the birthrate to plummet in the developed world to the point where it can not replace those who die- thus the importation of the lowest cretins who are fit mainkly for manual labor, and who breed like guppies. (Subsidizing oiur own to have babies by giving them welfare for doing so, hasn’t worked out so well- as those so spawned tend to kill each other, or die from drug overdoses; and if they live…are too lazy to do any real work)

                    This is also why the red herring of a “depopulation agenda” has become mainstream. Doublespeak, to hide the real intent, which is the very opposite.

                    If there were really a secret plan to depopulate the earth, WE wouldn’t know about it; there wouldn’t be videos on Youtube about it!

                    They no more want to kill off 95% of the population than a plantation owner would want to kill his slaves!

                    Europe and America are being invaded by millions- the door being held open for them, and the red carpet laid out- regardless of who the figurehead is, because THAT is what the powers that be want.

                    Funny too that this invasion has only become an issue lately- I guess because we are now so full of invaders that it can’t help but to be noticed- but it has been going on for 40 years now, in places like NY and CA. -Those places are full…so now much of the rest of the country is getting the overflow.

                    • Nunzio,

                      I knew that we were being invaded back in the early 1980s when I was stationed in San Diego. Even then, there were parts of town where English was NOT the first language, and where gringos shouldn’t go. I knew it was an issue then, because I was in close proximity to it.

                      However, if I tell my retired senior VP brother that we’re being invaded, he scoffs at the notion and says that my contention that America should-gasp-put AMERICANS FIRST is racist. Of course he can afford a 4,000-5,000 sq. ft. home in the nice part of town, so he never rubs elbows with anyone but fellow SWPLs like himself. Hell, I live in a more diverse neighborhood than he does, yet he says I’m a racist?! GTFO of here!

                      I’m not envious of my brother; he earned everything he has, and he made sacrifices that I simply wasn’t willing to make. We were each rewarded accordingly. I have no issue with that. What I do have an issue with is that, because of his rise to prominence, has forgotten where he comes from. Since he doesn’t rub elbows with immigrants where he lives, it’s not a problem as far as he’s concerned.

                      I’m not talking about a lack of willingness to work hard, because I did my share of that through the years. I’m talking about the GAMES one has to play to reach the executive suite. Yeah, he worked hard (50+ hours a week for many years), but it takes more than simple hard work to make it to the executive suite. I didn’t do the little things to ingratiate myself with my superiors, while he was. Seeing others do that always bothered me, so I never did it myself.

                      But yeah, I knew we had an immigration problem back in the early 1980s. Anyone in San Diego back then was literally F2F with it, especially if you lived between downtown and the border. It was literally in your face, and there was no escaping the fact that even back then, we were being overrun.

                    • Nunzio,

                      While there’s truth to what you say WRT morality being exchanged for hedonism, I think that there’s more to the story when it comes people of white, European descent not reproducing.

                      I think a BIG part of the problem is the wide availability of easy divorce. Any productive guy with brains will THINK TWICE about marrying and having kids. Why? Because if Wifey gets bored, she can divorce him, get the house, get the kids, and a good chunk of his paycheck. I know that’s the story with me.

                      At one time I wanted to marry and have a family. I was immature though, so it took a while to improve myself enough to where I could be a husband and father. Along the way, I learned some things though, one of which is that marriage offers no benefits to men; the risk is too great, while the rewards are too low.

                      Paul McCartney, who’s worth hundreds of millions now, can afford to lose half of what he has and he’ll still live very, very well. OTOH, if I lose half of what I have, it means I not only HAVE to go back to work; it means I’ll have to do it till I drop dead! Sorry, I don’t want to go back to that.

                      Anyway, I think that another facet of the problem of demographic replacement amongst whites is the fact that marriage is simply too RISKY for men. I know I won’t do it, and neither will many other American men.

                      Those are my thoughts…

                    • Very true, Mark!

                      Stuff like that is exactly what I meant by exchanging morality for hedonism- as it is one of the consequences of the Sexual Revolution, Feminism; the entertainment culture; and trading of tradesmanship/farming for corporate jobs and city life; and of women prefering to work outside of the home instead of raising kids and keeping house.

                      People are still getting married (or shacking up) in droves…they’re just not having as many kids in these developed countries, because the effort they put into their careers (men and women) doesn’t leave them with as much time, and kids are just a drag to them in the pursuit of their leisure interests, and a drain upon the money to fund such things (It’s primarily the prosperous who are having less kids)- and that they don’t need kids, as opposed to when people lived on farms, and the kids could help out.

                      But the divorce and government interference thing is certainly true- one of the reasons I never married- as is the rarity of being able to find a good woman or visa-versa, today, when mass popular culture (The media and gubmint skools) have caused people to reject the traditional values, attitudes and behaviors that are necessary to create strong families.

                      The majority have accepted all of these things, because their former culture and God. They no longer feel any moral obligation to things like vows of commitment; to even being married before procreating; to even raising their own kids; etc. Now, it’s all about self-fulfillment and “realizing one’s full potential”; “education” and career. Then they must dull the senses via partying or materialism, to convince themselves that they are happy, and that the enormous price they are paying by just working, commuting, and paying taxes, is somehow worth it.

                    • Yeah, it’s funny, Mark- your brother is a perfect example. People live in their own little world- and don’t really see what’s going on unless they: a)See it on the tee-vee; or b) encounter it in their own sphere of life.

                      Same thing with a friend of mine back in NY. NYC started being heavily invaded in the late 70’s. Long Island, where my friend lived, didn’t start getting the overflow till the 90’s.

                      My friend knew NYC well, being born and raised in Brooklyn- so he knew what was going on there- His own parents (Themselves Italian immigrants) had moved away to get away from the non-European multiculturalism.

                      When I told my frind the invasion was well underway on Long Island, he denied it. “Yeah, so you see a Turk or Pakistani in every 7-11 or gas station…so what?”.

                      Fast forward a few years, the neighborhood he lived in has now become Little Mexico/El Salvador/Somalia; his home lost over $100K in value (He was the last English-speaker left on the street); LI is a now 2 sanctuary counties in a sanctuary state…and my friend has moved to FL!

                      They don’t see the obvious until it is too late; till it is all around them. Nevermind the finer details; such as the consequences of the things we often speak of!

          • I don’t envision myself voting in the next election. The only one I support at all is Tulsi Gabbard and she’ll get the same treatment Dr. Ron Paul received at the hands of the Rethugnican party.
            So I expect the Democraps to do the very same to Tulsi.
            Besides I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain.

                • I feel the same way John. And that fatass daughter is a real piece of work. And you know how you can tell if she’s spouting bullshit, that ahole in her face is moving.

            • They started ignoring Tulsi Gabbard that very night! Look at how much less speaking time she got after her anti-war comment vs. the other candidates that night. Notice also how her name has been conspicuously ABSENT from the news as of late. We hear all about Beta Male, Booker, Harris, et al, but we never hear about Gabbard; it’s as if she dropped off the face of the Earth…

  3. Every year on the 4th of July the Boston Globe prints the entirety of the “Declaration of Independence”. Pretty much every grievance the colonists had with King George is visited upon us today, on steroids. I can’t even read through to the end without a dangerous spike in my blood pressure so I just anesthetize myself with a few beers and hope I live long enough to see it all come crashing down. As the late great George Carlin once said “you’ve got a front row seat to the end of the world”.

    • Hi Mike,

      It’s astounding, isn’t it? Cognitive dissonance on steroids, Red Bull and a pot of coffee. How can anyone with his lights on upstairs read the Declaration and not be outraged – as well as disgusted – by the absurdity of celebrating what we most obviously no longer possess?

      • That is why, of all the so-called ‘holidays’, I loathe the 4th the most; it’s even more absurd that non-Catholics observing ‘Christ’s Mass’ on Dec. 25th. Total hypocrisy, and the very embracing of the total opposite of everything that one claims to be celebrating.

        • Are you insane? What kind of dickwad asks for someone’s legal name online when there is tyranny going on?

          No one should use their legal name online. All online activity should be anonymous as possible so that tactics can be shared openly on how we are going to arrest and bring to justice the criminals who overthrew government.

          The criminals who overthrew the government are targeting awake people with imprisonment, murdering them, framing them, shutting down bank accounts, going to people’s employers to get them fired, bringing tax issues against their businesses, ‘suiciding’, claiming mental health issues and institutionalizing people, force drugging and even lobotomizing them, using advanced directed energy weapons on them, torturing them and in some documented cases boiling people alive.

          Are you a total idiot? Do you know what TYRANNY IS? We are in a full blown tyranny – everyone is in danger until the criminals in ‘government are arrested prosecuted, convicted and permanently imprisoned or executed.

          Tyranny is the total overthrow of the rule of law and its only target are those who are awake to its criminality – why attack subordinate slaves who make you wealthy? Go watch the Matrix, that should give a decent idea of what happens to people who awaken to what’s really going on. James, you are dangerously ignorant with a comment like that.

          • eric, You know, you’re right. Ridiculous aliases are used all the time, just as in Washington’s day (“Publius”, etc.). I am that dicwad, I guess. Being a serious (in my mind) activist, I always post under my own name to encourage others to stand up to oppressing authority fearlessly and not let them intimidate you. But maybe to conceal and cringe is better? To my mind, moral courage requires courage.

            • The courage is for dealing with them. Things like I have done – sent an affadavit to the irs notifying them that the government has been overthrown, notify judges to their face that that they are committing over 1000 felonies every week and that they are the criminals who have overthrown the government and notifying them that I am their accuser facing them with my elements of valid cause, going to the ‘court’ house to access the grand jury to have all judges and prosecutors indicted, sought the bailiffs to arrest the criminals fraudulently claiming to be judges and showing them the statutes that explicitly “anyone” who knows a felony is occurring inside a structure can forcibly enter the structure and subdue the assailants with force. The list is endless. I have fully notified them in every way necessary, US state and district attorneys, all levels of local, state and federal law enforcement all by my own hand AND face to face even on record in their bogus ‘courts’.

              The courage has its place and online forums aint it.

              • Hi Nobody,

                We each do what we can. I see no purpose in impugning people who have the right ideas – and are defending them. Every now and then, I get chastised by someone for not rushing to the ramparts. But where are these ramparts? At the moment, they are right here – in places where ideas are being discussed. What good would it have done in 1770 to shoot a British AGW? It would have resulted in a short drop – and a pointlessly ended life.

                There is a time and place for everything.

            • Hi James,

              My name is no secret. It’s all over this site – and all over the Internet. It’s EPautos. Eric Peters. The system on this site bylines the articles with my first name, that’s all. You’re new here so perhaps you didn’t notice!

              • Replying to such a blindingly stupid request takes the patience of Hey Zeus. However , there are folks who are paid to try and run you around in circles doing dumb shit and less time doing not dumb shit. You being a rebel and all , I’m probably preaching to the choir but always appreciate the enemy is governed by sick fucks with unlimited resources. The more important you are , the more resources you get.

            • James, I could just see you in Nazi Germany: “Go on, Izzy, wear that yarmulke! Put that menorah in your window! Say ‘Oy!” a lot! That’ll show ’em! What’re ya, yeller?”

                • Well put by the first Klingon counterpart that Captain James Tiberius Kirk, of the United Federation of Planets “Starfleet” (or was that the so-called “United Earth Space Probe Agency”, as he’d cited not long before when the Enterprise inadvertently nabbed that USAF pilot Capt John Christopher from his F-104?), one “Commander” Kor (in the Klingon military, more a functional expression, as his rank is clearly higher than the equivalent O-5), as he tells Kirk, in his guise as a local, “Baroner”….”it’s too bad you don’t know the difference between ‘bravery’ and FOOLHARDINESS”.

              • Well, Nunzie, maybe what would be appropriate for 1940 Germany wouldn’t be appropriate for the here & now, ya suppose? I think they know who I am, who you are, anyway, don’t you? Cringing and playing hide n seek isn’t going to do you much good if they come after you. I think to be on the safe side, maybe you should just pack it in and try hard not to displease them! THAT would be the safe thing for you!

                • Hi James,

                  I’m by no means a “tough guy” – and I’m not looking for a fight. But I don’t hide who I am or what I defend. I am very explicit about both, actually.

                  They may come for me, one day. So be it.

                  It will have been worth it.

                • James, they could find out who I am- but I’m not going to make it easy for them, ’cause I’d imagine since my “crimes” are only in the realm of dissent and evangelism, I doubt they pay much attention to me.

                  I’m more concerned with the average civilian weirdo- who can not find out who I am, unless I give it to them on a plate. Why make it easy for people who may cause you much trouble, when THEY can be anonymous?

                  If your enemy knows everything about you, but you know nothing about them, you lose.

                  Why is today different than 1938 or 1940 Germany? The Germans at that time didn’t think anything was wrong with Germany.

                  Tyranny, corrupt/illicit judicial systems, and people who can oppress, rob, and murder others while being granted sanction to do so, know no bounds. Just ask Julian Assange.

          • It’s not just about “tehm” either. There are a lot of unscrupulous people out there who, if they have any personal info on you, will dox you; stalk you (I had a stalked once…it’s NO fun!); defame you by using your name and info; etc. etc. Not worth the hassle!

            What matters is the ideas that we convey!

            We’re not asking anyone to give us credence based on our name or reputation; we’re simply positing ideas and having discourses- and those ideas should stand or fall, and be judged based on their ownh soundness and validity. Such is the purest form of discourse, as it enables one to speak freely- a right which should be respected by gubmint and civilians alike….but which, like every other basic liberty, has now essentially been relegated to the scrap heap.

            • I completely agree. Real dissent comes with a price. That’s why a lot of people who see through the fraud choose to keep it to themselves — which is not a laudable or valid decision in my opinion. Trying to keep the pressure on is sometimes all we can do — that and informing others.

                • Hi Mark!

                  I’m still trying to divine James’ point. He – like so many – argues in the Royal We (collectives) and presumes consent not actually given. His posts are interesting because they give us insight into the government-schooled mentality. My automotive journalist antagonist – Marc Rauch, late poster here – is another such government-schooled mentality.

                  They both instinctively refuse to discuss the core issues; indeed, they require acceptance of the collectivist premise – because they seem to grok (Marc, just for you) that if it is accepted, all else follows.

                  Of course, the same is true of our premises. That only individuals have rights; that consent must be freely and explicitly given, else it isn’t consent.

                  But the difference is our premises impose no harms upon others while theirs necessarily do. All we ask of them is to leave us alone. They insist we do as they say – or else.

              • hi Eric theres nothing wrong with an occasional dissenting voice. But back up your argument. Liberals communists etc never will. because they cant. they go straight to name calling – racist fascist racist – etc. You are correct in that 2020 will be an interesting year!

                • 2020 will not be interesting at all. It will be the exact same thing as every other election: No matter who wins, we lose. The welfare and the wars and the erosion of liberty will continue; just the names and faces and rhetoric change.

                  It’s all a show put on to placate the gullible. If that hasn’t been made crystal clear after the election of Trump…then it never will be.

                  • Hi Nunz!

                    I will probably vote for the Orange Man – as I’ve stated previously. He’s no Libertarian, obviously. But he is driving the political left as well as the establishment right (e.g., the Bushes, Romneys) out of their minds – and that’s worth voting for, if only for hate’s sake.

                    • Not to mention he SMOKED ’em all out; he made all these establishment pukes ‘decloak’, as it were…

                    • Hey Eric!

                      AHhh! It’s a show put on for the gullible. Trump is not driving anyone crazy (except perhaps us liberty-lovers), because he is doing the exact same things any other establishment politician would do- D or R.

                      His words are sometimes laudable; and make a good foil for the media to rail against in their little show- but those words have nothing to do with his actions.

                      It’s really of no relevance at this point who is elected. The empire will do as it wants; and the majority of people will cheer and cooperate.

        • Hi James,

          “Masking my identity” is something I’ve never done. I make my living publicly, as a writer – and have done so for more than 25 years now. Google me and see.

        • James, you’re hilarious. Eric puts way too much of his personal info out there IMO. Eric’s info is at the levels of the before time of the internet when everyone posted under their real name and would have things like their phone number in the sig file.

          • Brent, I worry for Eric. Scary thing too, with the interwebz, once that info is out there, you can’t make it go away.

            In the case of my cyberstalker (And bear in mind, that I’ve ALWAYS been one to guard my privacy- never putting my name and info even on my own computer- much less publishing it on the web) it was just ONE instance of publishing my email address on a forum; she never learned my real name or anything- but just from that one association, and apparently a LOT of free time, it was amazing the damage that was caused, and the many hours it caused me to waste.

            I can only imagine what may have ensued had I not practiced the high degree of anonymity that I do- if that person had been able to find my real name and address.

            I question the motives of anyone who even makes an issue of anonymity. Since we don’t know if the name THEY’RE using is their real name; a falsely assumed name, or a fictional name; and what does it even matter what our name is? It wouldn’t mean anything to 99.999% of people anyway, unless they had some nefarious purpose in mind. [And seeing how the person instigating this is defending someone who is responsible for the deaths of over half a million people; the disabling of who-knows-how-many; the destruction of untold amounts of private property; and the enslavement [conscription] of many whites, I’d say that such a person wouldn’t bat an eye at any atrocity that could be visited upon one of us!]

            If I didn’t care, I’d be using FaceRook- where one must be verified and censored and tracked- which will no doubt lead to a China-style “social credit score” where one can be punished for their words and ideas; and where all dissent is squelched.

    • The one that OWNS this forum…or in your SJW dementia, do you claim ericpetersautos.com as the (literal) domain of the “Proletariat”?

    • James,

      “Who’s “eric”? Don’t we have a right to a byline on this one”?

      While your subsequent responses have shown that this was a rhetorical question intended to disparage those people, who you deem lacking in moral courage, I will answer it. No, “we” don’t have a right to the private information of the author/owner of this, or any other, privately owned site. In addition to being insulting, your question was shockingly lazy. How did you fail to notice that Eric’s full name was listed at the top of the article page to which you responded? If you had done even a little more searching on the site, you would have found that he reveals far more personal information than you do on your site.

      You claim to be a serious activist, “standing up to oppressing authority”, which may very well be true. However, nothing you have posted here is even remotely challenging or dangerous to that “oppressing” authority”. Contrarily, there is perhaps no other narrative more useful and pleasing to “oppressive authority” than the Lincoln worshiping myths you’ve been peddling. Pretty much every wanna be tyrant in the White house eventually invokes Lincoln to justify whatever extra constitutional nastiness he deems necessary. The neo-conservative lunatics who, based on your website, I assume you despise, revere Lincoln as well. The loathsome R2P doctrine, that virtually guarantees perpetual war, has it’s roots in the fraudulent deification of Lincoln as the “Great Emancipator” whose war to end slavery conferred a “treasury of virtue” on the North. Lincoln, more than any other president, created the government capable of committing “the crimes of 9-11-2001”.

      I have asked you twice to provide any evidence of the “oath” you insist that Lincoln upheld, you have not. I have asked for any evidence that the State representatives believed that they were signing on to a perpetual Union, you have not. I, and others, have pointed out the numerous, repeated and egregious violations of his actual oath, you have not responded.

      In theory, the Constitution created a union of independent, sovereign States who delegated certain specific, enumerated and limited powers to their agent, the Federal government, Lincoln destroyed that union. His assertion, if he is to be believed, of a mystical, perpetual Union that predates the States, is absurd and borderline insane.

      Jeremy

  4. Hi Ken,

    “They refuse to accept that 600 thousand White men fought to end slavery,,, nope,,, doesn’t count.”

    Except for the abolitionists, almost no white men fought to end slavery, though some did fight to preserve it. Of all the factions in the war, only a tiny minority can plausibly be described as being primarily concerned with slavery. Imagine breaking down Northern and Southern society into four broad classes: the landholding/political elite, the military leadership, the common soldier and the civilian. Of these eight groups only the landholding/political elite in the South considered the preservation of slavery as a primary concern.

    In the aggregate, none of these groups in the North “fought to end slavery”. Lincoln did not seek to end slavery, his primary goal, as he made abundantly clear, was to preserve the Union as he saw it. He even supported the Corwin amendment, which would have made Federal interference with the “peculiar institution” in any state where slavery was legal, unconstitutional. Only the abolitionists, many of whom opposed the war, sought the total end of slavery. The majority in the North was concerned about slavery, not for moral reasons, but for economic and political self interest, as well as idealistic feelings about the “Union”.

    Kind Regards,
    Jeremy

    • Agreed Jeremy…

      I only used it ‘in that context’ because that is the lie they teach in corpgov schools and media.

      I ‘woke’ when McNamara the wimp confessed the lie of Gulf of Tonkin LBJ used to up the ante in Vietnam. After learning this I began research on everything I was ‘taught’ in skrool. I learned that about 70% was pure fiction, the other 30% was disinformation packaged out of context. Everything from slavery to WMD to Iran nukes was/is massive BS. It was all for the empire cause.

      The CSA seceded due to the tariffs the government was applying. It also was not a ‘civil war’ as the CSA was not trying to take over the US government. Slavery at the time was being done away with as it was found too expensive. They discovered wage slavery was much more cost effective. It’s still with us today.

      As for the Corwin amendment, it was unnecessary as the 10th applied,,, the Feds were not given that specific power. They still usurp State powers today under the Commerce clause BS. Well,,,,,,,,,really doesn’t matter any more as the entire constitution has been eviscerated. We live under a corporate oligarchy today.

      I appreciate any schooling as I am always open to learning and other ideas….

      • Hi Ken and RK,

        The idea that the North fought to end slavery is an after the fact rationalization for what was an unjustifiable war of aggression. This mythology began shortly after the war, the victorious North claimed a “treasury of virtue” and used this false moral piety to impose the disastrous reconstruction policies that likely harmed everyone, black and white, in the South as well as contributing to the virulent racism that characterized much of the South until relatively recently.

        When State propagandists, like Ken Burns, insist that the war was about “slavery, slavery, slavery”, he perpetuates the myth that the war was fought to end slavery, it was not. Slavery was a huge issue in the war but, as RK notes, except for the abolitionists, the concern was driven by base political calculations, not noble ideals.

        Cheers,
        Jeremy

        • Hi Jeremy,

          Amen!

          Rather than read the hagiographies, anyone interested in the true story ought to check out Lincoln’s own statements regarding both slavery and the issue of federal supremacy (i.e., the “union”).

          Lincoln had trouble finding troops willing to fight to “end slavery.” It was only after the war became about the assertion of federal hegemony against the recalcitrant Southern States that things turned as far as Northern opinion.

          • Hey Eric,

            Yes! His own words and actions speak for themselves. But, the Lincoln cult dismisses all of it and insists that it was just an example of his masterful statesmanship. You see, his intentions were pure all along, he just needed to deal with the political reality of the day, what some today ludicrously refer to as 3D chess.

            Cheers,
            Jeremy

        • Hi Jeremy and all
          IMO,,, Lincoln was one of the worst presidents ever until recently with Bush and Obama and was far from a Saint.

          But that said…. LOL

          ““Lincoln is theology, not historiology. He is a faith, he is a church, he is a religion, and he has his own priests and acolytes, most of whom … are passionately opposed to anybody telling the truth about him … with rare exceptions, you can’t believe what any major Lincoln scholar tells you about Abraham Lincoln and race.”
          –Lerone Bennett, Jr., Forced into Glory, p. 114

          And Mr. Bennett was Black, the editor of Ebony Magazine.

          Regards to all

          • I can’t think about Lincoln without laughing. I guess you had to be there at Disneyland to see his robotic figure in the typically shown chair, his mouth flopping up and down with all sorts of moths and flying insects zipping in an out of it, and no synchronization of flapping jaw and recorded speech.

            The Lincoln suckers never, ever mention the “scorched earth” policy and the immoral tyrant generals who made it so. We in the south are still pissed.

            We need a wall Mr. Trump. one that goes all the way around Texas. Left and right coasters can follow it around and sheer off into Mexico.

      • Hey Ken,
        If the 10th applied then the war would have been deemed illegal. But, I get your meaning. What matters re, Lincoln’s goal is that he supported the promise of permanent legal slavery to the South as an inducement for them to stay in the Union. This proves that his goal was not to end slavery.

        I think Lincoln is the worst ever as he destroyed the system of a voluntary union where the States and the Federal government served as a check on each other’s power through divided sovereignty. This concept had already taken a beating prior to Lincoln, but he completed the destruction. In short, he created the imperial presidency that has plagued us ever since.

        Cheers, Jeremy

        • Lincoln begat Wilson begat F. Roosevelt begat Der Schlikmeister begat Obama…and along the way, enabled Bush 41 and 43, et. Al. But, it all started with Lincoln. Of course, there was Hamilton and Adams, and their fellow Federalists, but their designs were checked by the Jeffersonian wing of the Uniparty, up until disHonest Abe the Shyster Railroad Lawyer ripped the whole thing asunder.

          • Hey Crusty,

            Yes, as the great Robert Higgs notes, “each President builds a ceiling that becomes the next President’s floor”. Divided sovereignty was always a rickety structure, but Lincoln destroyed any possibility of it checking the growth of central power. Ironically, Lincoln destroyed the Union and replaced it with the monolithic State.

            Cheers,
            Jeremy

              • Hi James,

                Well, he did break his oath, many times. He suspended habeas corpus, shut down more than 300 newspapers and expelled Clement Vallindigham for the “crime” of criticizing the war.

                Please cite the specific passage in the Constitution that requires the Federal government to prevent a State from withdrawing from the Union.

                And yes, had the North not forcefully prevented secession, all of us would probably be better off. Slavery was dying out all over the world, it would have died in the South as well.

                Cheers,
                Jeremy

                • The Constitution was written to provide a stable, intact government, and that’s just what Lincoln pledged to protect and defend — not dismemberment of same, for which he’d have been impeached, removed, and villified. What the war was over in an immediate sense was the South’s refusal to accept the results of a duly-conducted presidential election, thereby betraying their citizens’ right to same. If all classes of people in the South, including the whole working class, had been accorded their due rights, including their political rights, any vote IN FAVOR OF staying in the Union wouldn’t even have been close. The South’s great crime was forcibly withholding the natural rights of a good share of its residents.

                  • Hi James,

                    So, you can’t cite the passage that requires the Federal government to forcibly prevent a State from withdrawing from the Union. As for the oath, it is to uphold and defend the Constitution, which Lincoln broke repeatedly. There is no oath to provide a “stable, intact government”. Nobody at the time of its’ writing believed that it would create a “permanent Union” that would forever preclude any individual sovereign State from withdrawing. If that had been a condition, the Constitution would not have been ratified.

                    Jeremy

                  • Hi James,

                    This is your opinion, which you’re entitled to. It isn’t the only opinion. And regardless, your premise is that both the Constitution and the government it created are legitimate and binding on everyone, perpetually.

                    This is absurd – unless you believe the dead can bind the living and that collectives have rights superior to those of individuals.

                    • Hi Eric,

                      “And regardless, your premise is that both the Constitution and the government it created are legitimate and binding on everyone, perpetually”.

                      Yes, but even if one accepts this ludicrous notion, the idea that Lincoln was somehow honoring his “oath” is absurd. I do not claim that the Constitution created a legitimate government, just that those who do, and also revere Lincoln and justify his numerous, egregious violations of that “oath”, are incomprehensible to me.

                      The great Jim Bovard recently posted an article about Lincoln’s reverence for his “oath”.

                      http://jimbovard.com/blog/2019/07/03/donald-trump-and-abe-lincoln-two-of-a-kind/

                      Cheers,
                      Jeremy

                    • Hey Eric,

                      For all you provide to us, a little backup is the least we can do. I greatly appreciate what you have created.

                      Cheers,
                      Jeremy

                    • Hi Brent,

                      Abe was like Obama in that both were gentle-sounding tyrants. They didn’t yell or engage in histrionics; they were both treated as scholars and moral avatars by people easily gulled by beautiful-sounding bullshit.

                    • eric, “beautiful sounding bullshit”….indeed.
                      A few years ago there was a petition of the US of A by Texans for secession. It reached the minimum in virtually hours and soon was well into the 7 digits and probably beyond.

                      I don’t recall the bureaucrat’s liar’s name but he finally responded to everyone saying something such as “while the petition reached the required number, there is no way to do this”.

                      Damn, I guess he couldn’t read plain language. Of course you couldn’t respond to the dickhead unless you wanted to find out where he worked and hit him with a rock. No doubt he was surrounded by AGW’s with guns…..and lots of them.

        • Hello again Jeremy
          “If the 10th applied then the war would have been deemed illegal.”

          Only if one believes the Supremo’s were constitutionally oriented. Take them today,,, I doubt they would recognize it if you held it up to their face.

          Yes, Lincoln turned the voluntary union into a forced union. Made “These united states” in to “The United States”.
          This really started when the founders axed the Articles (which plainly stated the States were the sovereign) for the Constitution making the national government the sovereign saying they wanted a strong central government….

          I only wish they were here to enjoy their baby.

          • Hi Ken,

            Jefferson – brilliant writer though he was – was also tragically imprecise in his writing. He wrote of the “pursuit of happiness,” which rolls off the tongue wonderfully. But what does it mean, precisely? He failed to articulate that rights are individual; that the foundational right is property in one’s person – which is sacrosanct. That everyone’s property right in their own person is equal; that no one has any right to any portion of the property in his person of any other human being. That it necessarily follows from this that no human being has the right to control any other human being, nor any right to property created by the person (body and mind) of another human being.

            • eric, I’m always amazed the “Oath Keepers” fall back on the Constitution. One of them is Sheriff Smith of Smith county Texas. He was one of the crew that murdered children near Waco(we ain’t comin out). He couldn’t be reached for comment though since he was out on a dragnet in a few counties involving nearly 100 people he was going to arrest on drug charges. That Constitution, you can evidently pick and choose and totally ignore it with a badge on. He’s a real piece of work. Of course east Texans are another breed and wouldn’t even blink an eye to someone running for sheriff and being a former murderer of children and adults who had broken no laws. Where do pieces of shit like him in the form of a human originate?

  5. As a veteran that transported the dead and dying in Vietnam today is the most disgusting day of the year for me followed by memorial day then veterans day which used to be Armistice Day. Nothing sickens me more than reading about the great barbecues and our present hero mercenaries going about their empire duties threatening others. Families cry about their dead/maimed coming home,,, call them hero’s for dying in countries that are 12 thousand miles away and pose zero threat to the US.

    Today they protest the Declaration, (the finest document ever, IMO), and the Constitution because White men who had slaves wrote them. They refuse to accept that 600 thousand White men fought to end slavery,,, nope,,, doesn’t count. And they don’t do a thing about slavery still being practiced worldwide. Hypocrites the whole lot of them. They have opened our borders to one and all bringing hate and disease from everywhere and our cities are cesspools (literally) because of it.

    Our young have been hideously indoctrinated by government socialist schools and by the media which serves as a conduit for every depraved activity while demonizing families and family values. They teach sodomy to kindergartners and communism to those in university. They disparage those that believe in God while celebrating those that believe in the occult. Law enforcement allows thugs to run our streets with clubs assaulting people (Portland) while killing those that don’t kneel before them.

    The country is no longer united,,, has no unified purpose,,, and with its culture destroyed cannot last very long.

    Enjoy you hamburgers America.

    • And they forget (or likely, were never told) that in a power-distributed country like the US in the 19th century, there were plenty of places where escaped slaves could go. Northern states ignoring laws like the fugitive slave act were a big driver of the civil war.

      • Hence why the misnomer that the Confederacy seceded over “states right”, a clarion cry that belong to the South…in the mid-20th century (indeed, the breakaway Democratic party faction that walked out of the 1948 convention and nomination Strom Thurmond of South Carolina for POTUS, aka the “Dixiecrats”, was formally named the States’ Rights Party). If anything, one of the grievances as to why the Confederate States want to leave was that many of the Northern states refused to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 (part of the 1850 compromise) in effect nullifying it, although South Carolina itself was threatened with military action when it had attempted to nullify collection of Federal import duties (e.g. “Nullification Crisis”) in 1832-1833.

    • Well-said, Ken! About the best thing any of us are likely to hear today (In addition to Eric’s fine article…which I greatly appreciate; Can’t emagine enduring this day of Hypocrisy and absurdity without a good dose of reality fromn Eric!)

LEAVE A REPLY