Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Martyrdom Is A Fool’s Method Of Suicide

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default Martyrdom Is A Fool’s Method Of Suicide

    Of course later, when the entire South moved to secede from the union, it led to the most violent war in our country’s history.
    XXXXX

    Tolerating secession is not tolerable at any time or in any place.

    Former New Hampshire governor and former U.S. Senator, Judd Gregg, is not exactly right. Thirteen colonies ratified the Constitution. Statehood had to be ratified for each of the other 37 states. Mayors cannot secede because their cities were never ratified. There is a constitutional mechanism for states to secede, but as you know the South did not get too far with that one.


    The South did not commit treason, nor did Lincoln when he gave the country a war between the states rather than allow Confederate States to exercise their constitutional Right to secede.

    Lincoln is the last person anybody should invoke trying to justify the Civil War with the slavery argument. Everything Lincoln did and said set this country on the road to federal government control.

    Instead of civil war, Lincoln could have, and should have, worked within the Constitution if he felt so strongly about preserving the Union. Naturally, the Civil War would have been unnecessary had the South surrendered their Rights instead of defending them.

    The fact is that Lincoln saw the Constitution impeding his will.

    Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech, "It is poetry not logic; beauty, not sense." Lincoln said that the soldiers sacrificed their lives "to the cause of self-determination -- government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth."


    Mencken says: "It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves."


    The Real Lincoln
    Walter E. Williams | Mar 27, 2002

    http://townhall.com/columnists/walte...e_real_lincoln


    Mencken specifically objected to this:

    THAT FROM THESE HONORED DEAD WE TAKE INCREASED DEVOTION TO THAT CAUSE FOR WHICH THEY GAVE THE LAST FULL MEASURE OF DEVOTION~THAT WE HERE HIGHLY RESOLVE THAT THESE DEAD SHALL NOT HAVE DIED IN VAIN~THAT THIS NATION UNDER GOD SHALL HAVE A NEW BIRTH OF FREEDOM~AND THAT GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE SHALL NOT PERISH FROM THE EARTH


    NOTE: Lincoln stole a constitutional Right from the South in addition to providing a blueprint for the theft of stealing states’ Rights from every state.

    Nobody can make the case that America today is governed by, of, and for the people. Nobody can convince me that AMERICANS demanded open-borders, sanctuary cities, loss of their sovereignty, and everything else the federal government imposes on them. Everything the federal government does came from Lincoln’s blueprint. The result has been government by, of, and for the UNIC (United Nations/International Community) and illegal aliens.

    Lincoln used his gift of gab to impose his personal belief on the country; i.e., holding the Union together. Almost every president after Lincoln behaved as though their personal moral code overrides the Constitution. The recent spiritual leader, Obama, took Lincoln sacrificing the Constitution for his personal moral certainty far beyond what all of the other dirty little moralists did to the country.

    Bottom line: Lincoln can be blamed for the evils of today’s big government because he took the first step towards totalitarian government. Put it in perspective by examining all the harm that flowed from holding the Union together.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...72#post2797672

    First secede and everything else will fall in place. Analyze Communist goals for their cities and you will see they are trying to legitimate their Right to secede as the best path to political power.


    They are taking a weak, dangerous and counterproductive path.

    Judd Gregg: The South may now secede
    By Judd Gregg
    06/22/20 06:00 AM EDT

    https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-ri...may-now-secede

    Bottom line: After the shooting stops, nobody can secede from a Communist government. Russian Communists did not secede from the Czar, nor can any anti-Communist secede from Cuba, China, North Korea, Vietnam, etc.

    Communists engineering the violence in city after city operate under the misguided belief that Americans fear making martyrs out of revolutionaries. So-called martyrs killed by their government has been a workable strategy since the Russian Revolutions. The Martyr Strategy will not work with a free people when tens of thousands of cannon fodder commit suicide when they are shot by fifteen or twenty million well-armed Americans.

    In short: Americans will fight to the death before they surrender their guns to this fate:





    Most of us were quite thin, malnourished, lacking vitamins and proper nutrition,
    but we were all in the same boat and we could do nothing about it as we had no arms to mount a rebellion to overthrow the Communist Party.


    You Can't Miss What You Don't Have in the First Place
    By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh
    June 22, 2020

    https://canadafreepress.com/article/...he-first-place
    Last edited by Flanders; 06-23-2020 at 10:37 AM.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Philly, PA
    Posts
    3,296
    Thanks
    590
    Thanked 1,229 Times in 809 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 176 Times in 163 Posts

    Default

    The above post reminds me why we have a fool and con-artist as president. Life is too complex for the uneducated and they look instead to hidden meanings and complex excuses. It is a world in which it only makes sense if your sense is conspiracy and revisionism. One can believe anything - but does that make it so? It does for those who want it to. It gives an odd and bizarre succor to those for whom reality is too real. A recent excellent history read for the interested is ''The End of the Myth: From the Frontier to the Border Wall in the Mind of America' by Greg Grandin.


    Civil war stuff below:

    States Rights apologies - The Civil War was over Slavery

    A few documents and sources about a topic that constantly finds apologists and revisionists. This will be a work in progress as new sources of information are found.

    "I can testify about the South under oath. I was born and raised there, and 12 men in my family fought for the Confederacy; two of them were killed. And since I was a boy, the answer I’ve heard to this question, from Virginia to Louisiana (from whites, never from blacks), is this: “The War Between the States was about states’ rights. It was not about slavery.”

    I’ve heard it from women and from men, from sober people and from people liquored up on anti-Washington talk. The North wouldn’t let us govern ourselves, they say, and Congress laid on tariffs that hurt the South. So we rebelled. Secession and the Civil War, in other words, were about small government, limited federal powers and states’ rights.

    [b]But a look through the declaration of causes written by South Carolina and four of the 10 states that followed it out of the Union — which, taken together, paint a kind of self-portrait of the Confederacy — reveals a different story. From Georgia to Texas, each state said the reason it was getting out was that the awful Northern states were threatening to do away with slavery." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/opinion/19Ball.html


    [b]"Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it."

    "In this unprecedented account, Chandra Manning uses letters, diaries, and regimental newspapers to take the reader inside the minds of Civil War soldiers-black and white, Northern and Southern-as they fought and marched across a divided country. With stunning poise and narrative verve, Manning explores how the Union and Confederate soldiers came to identify slavery as the central issue of the war and what that meant for a tumultuous nation. This is a brilliant and eye-opening debut and an invaluable addition to our understanding of the Civil War as it has never been rendered before." http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/bo...andra-manning/


    "In citing slavery, South Carolina was less an outlier than a leader, setting the tone for other states, including Mississippi:

    'Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin...."

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...s-over/396482/


    "Benjamin Franklin, in a 1773 letter to Dean Woodward, confirmed that whenever the Americans had attempted to end slavery, the British government had indeed thwarted those attempts. Franklin explained that . . . . a disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed. " WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - The Founding Fathers and Slavery

    Southern arguments for and against: http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...st.html?cat=37


    Argument v Lincoln's position: http://apollo3.com/~jameso/secession.html


    Does the constitution allow secession: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20041124.html

    AmericanHeritage.com / How the North Lost the Civil War


    SCOTUS ruling on secession: Texas v. White


    Admission of state to union FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article IV: Annotations pg. 16 of 18


    "A primary element of this Southern understanding of the Constitution was the right to secede. Nowhere does the original document confer the right to detach from the Union, but Southerners still found the act "entirely legitimate under the terms of the federal Constitution” (Cook 114). Perhaps one could construe the tenth amendment to grant such a right, but Article six states that all government officials must support "this Constitution,” which runs contrary to secession (U.S. Const. 6.0.3 and Am. 10, from Gienapp 435-6). Alexander Stevens used this principle as a premise in his argument against secession (59). Yet, despite this Constitutional opposition, or at least ambivalence, to secession, South Carolina declared that it had such a right. " (from above url)

    And an early OP on topic.



    John Bingham and the Story of American Liberty: The Lost Cause Meets the 'Lost Clause'

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....ract_id=343460

    =
    Wanna make America great, buy American owned, made in the USA, we do. AF Veteran, INFJ-A, I am not PC.

    "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it." Voltaire

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Central New Jersey
    Posts
    23,253
    Thanks
    13,544
    Thanked 12,185 Times in 7,629 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,051 Times in 998 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by midcan5 View Post
    The above post reminds me why we have a fool and con-artist as president. Life is too complex for the uneducated and they look instead to hidden meanings and complex excuses. It is a world in which it only makes sense if your sense is conspiracy and revisionism. One can believe anything - but does that make it so? It does for those who want it to. It gives an odd and bizarre succor to those for whom reality is too real. A recent excellent history read for the interested is ''The End of the Myth: From the Frontier to the Border Wall in the Mind of America' by Greg Grandin.


    Civil war stuff below:

    States Rights apologies - The Civil War was over Slavery

    A few documents and sources about a topic that constantly finds apologists and revisionists. This will be a work in progress as new sources of information are found.

    "I can testify about the South under oath. I was born and raised there, and 12 men in my family fought for the Confederacy; two of them were killed. And since I was a boy, the answer I’ve heard to this question, from Virginia to Louisiana (from whites, never from blacks), is this: “The War Between the States was about states’ rights. It was not about slavery.”

    I’ve heard it from women and from men, from sober people and from people liquored up on anti-Washington talk. The North wouldn’t let us govern ourselves, they say, and Congress laid on tariffs that hurt the South. So we rebelled. Secession and the Civil War, in other words, were about small government, limited federal powers and states’ rights.

    [b]But a look through the declaration of causes written by South Carolina and four of the 10 states that followed it out of the Union — which, taken together, paint a kind of self-portrait of the Confederacy — reveals a different story. From Georgia to Texas, each state said the reason it was getting out was that the awful Northern states were threatening to do away with slavery." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/opinion/19Ball.html


    [b]"Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it."

    "In this unprecedented account, Chandra Manning uses letters, diaries, and regimental newspapers to take the reader inside the minds of Civil War soldiers-black and white, Northern and Southern-as they fought and marched across a divided country. With stunning poise and narrative verve, Manning explores how the Union and Confederate soldiers came to identify slavery as the central issue of the war and what that meant for a tumultuous nation. This is a brilliant and eye-opening debut and an invaluable addition to our understanding of the Civil War as it has never been rendered before." http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/bo...andra-manning/


    "In citing slavery, South Carolina was less an outlier than a leader, setting the tone for other states, including Mississippi:

    'Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin...."

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...s-over/396482/


    "Benjamin Franklin, in a 1773 letter to Dean Woodward, confirmed that whenever the Americans had attempted to end slavery, the British government had indeed thwarted those attempts. Franklin explained that . . . . a disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed. " WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - The Founding Fathers and Slavery

    Southern arguments for and against: http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...st.html?cat=37


    Argument v Lincoln's position: http://apollo3.com/~jameso/secession.html


    Does the constitution allow secession: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20041124.html

    AmericanHeritage.com / How the North Lost the Civil War


    SCOTUS ruling on secession: Texas v. White


    Admission of state to union FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article IV: Annotations pg. 16 of 18


    "A primary element of this Southern understanding of the Constitution was the right to secede. Nowhere does the original document confer the right to detach from the Union, but Southerners still found the act "entirely legitimate under the terms of the federal Constitution” (Cook 114). Perhaps one could construe the tenth amendment to grant such a right, but Article six states that all government officials must support "this Constitution,” which runs contrary to secession (U.S. Const. 6.0.3 and Am. 10, from Gienapp 435-6). Alexander Stevens used this principle as a premise in his argument against secession (59). Yet, despite this Constitutional opposition, or at least ambivalence, to secession, South Carolina declared that it had such a right. " (from above url)

    And an early OP on topic.



    John Bingham and the Story of American Liberty: The Lost Cause Meets the 'Lost Clause'

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....ract_id=343460

    =
    From the "The" at the beginning of your response to the Tx at the end of your signature line, Midcan, I say...

    ...AMEN!

    The war was about the institution of SLAVERY...

    ...and I have the same low regard for "belief" as you and Robert Wilson.

    "Beliefs" in most cases are blind guesses being made by people unwilling to acknowledge them as blind guesses, so they disguise them with the words "belief/believe." Opinions work, estimates work, suppositions work. "Beliefs" are for those who cannot acknowledge opinions, estimates, suppositions...or just plain blind guesses.
    ON HIS WORST DAY, JOE BIDEN IS A BETTER PRESIDENT THAN TRUMP WAS ON HIS BEST DAY!

  4. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    Most of us were quite thin, malnourished, lacking vitamins and proper nutrition, but we were all in the same boat and we could do nothing about it as we had no arms to mount a rebellion to overthrow the Communist Party.



    Conservatives campaigning for Congress should hand out decks of learning cards. Print a different truth about the horrors of Communism on every one of the 52 cards. Dr Paugh’s brilliant definition belongs on the Ace of Hearts.


    “Useful idiots” are easily manipulated individuals without a compass, without a country, with allegiance to global citizenship and Mother Gaia, humans ruled by emotion and devoid of rational thinking. They are used skillfully to implement cultural Marxism, to disseminate poisonous ideas, chaos, decadence, and worthless entertainment parading as art.


    The Destructive Marxist Subversion of American Society
    By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh
    July 1, 2020

    https://canadafreepress.com/article/...erican-society
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

Similar Threads

  1. The appropriate method of dealing with fascists
    By FUCK THE POLICE in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-23-2017, 10:31 PM
  2. APP - us homicides by method
    By Don Quixote in forum Above Plain Politics Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-21-2012, 12:44 AM
  3. Rightwinger was expecting "martyrdom"
    By Guns Guns Guns in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-19-2012, 06:05 PM
  4. The Method to Hillary's Madness
    By The Bare Knuckled Pundit in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-28-2008, 09:27 PM
  5. Better Cancer detection method
    By Cancel 2016.2 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-01-2008, 11:56 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •