patriotism
perpetuating the fraud of patriotism
Submitted by antarchi on September 30, 2010 - 04:06The more difficult the government finds it to retain its power, the more numerous are the men who share it. In former times a small band of rulers held the reins of power, emperors, kings, dukes, their soldiers and assistants; whereas now the power and its profits are shared not only by the government officials and by the clergy, but by capitalists - great and small, landowners, bankers, members of parliament, professors, village officials, men of science, and even artists, but particularly by authors and journalists.
And all these people, consciously or unconsciously, spread the deceit of patriotism, which is indispensable to them if the profits of their position are to be preserved. And the fraud, thanks to the means of its propagation, and to the participation in it of a much larger number of people, having become more powerful, is continued so successfully, that, notwithstanding the increased difficulty of deceiving, the extent to which the people are deceived is the same as ever...
patriotism
Submitted by antarchi on September 30, 2010 - 03:53Patriotism in its simplest, clearest, and most indubitable signification is nothing else but a means of obtaining for the rulers their ambitions and covetous desires, and for the ruled the abdication of human dignity, reason, and conscience, and a slavish enthralment to those in power. And as such it is recommended wherever it is preached.
Patriotism is slavery.
reason and subordination
Submitted by antarchi on September 30, 2010 - 03:49The nations of our time have reached the period of reasonableness, have no animosity toward one another, and might decide their differences in a peaceful fashion. But this argument applies only so far as it has reference to the people, and only to the people who are not under the control of a government. But the people that subordinate themselves to a government cannot be reasonable, because the subordination is in itself a sign of a want of reason.
How can we speak of the reasonableness of men who promise in advance to accomplish everything, including murder, that the government - that is, certain men who have attained a certain position - may command? Men who can accept such obligations, and resignedly subordinate themselves to anything that may be prescribed by persons unknown to them in Petersburg, Vienna, Berlin, Paris, cannot be considered reasonable; and the government, that is, those who are in possession of such power, can still less be considered reasonable, and cannot but misuse it, and become dazed by such insane and dreadful power.
This is why peace between nations cannot be attained by reasonable means, by conversations, by arbitration, as long as the subordination of the people to the government continues, a condition always unreasonable and always pernicious.
human rights myths
Submitted by antarchi on November 15, 2009 - 13:50The best place to look for these is the Daily Telegraph. I don't know why I bother to look there, except it has a readership of nearly a million (nearly 2 million, if you look at the Sunday Telegraph). And because its readers mostly rule this land. And because lies are just annoying.
They are running a monster campaign against the Human Rights Act. It is European, bossy, foreign. It is weak on evil-doers, foreigners, and terrorists, and it ignores and penalises decent British citizens. We don't need it because we invented human rights. And we don't need it because we don't want human rights.
I shall add lies as I find them. Here is a spectacular example, contained within an article whose every other sentence bangs away to those enduring myths about British supremacy at which the Daily Telegraph excels.
neither of [habeas corpus, nor trial by jury] is guaranteed by the convention that underpins the Human Rights Act. While Article Five disallows imprisonment without charge and trial, only Britain and Ireland practice habeas corpus. It is possible, in many Continental countries that are signatories to the ECHR, to be locked away for months or years without charge by the simple expedient of handing the suspect over the judicial authorities. The fact that a juge d'instruction bangs you up for 15 months does not make it any more edifying than if it were done by executive diktat.
Philip Johnstone, It is time to draft another Bill of Rights
gordon's values
Submitted by antarchi on April 28, 2008 - 02:15Gordon Brown has put up some revealing archive films on the Downing Street website. If we had any illusions that we currently had a Labour Party prime minister ensconced in Downing Street, possessing even an inkling of labour sympathies, a brief look at his selection of noteworthy films should disillusion us:
First on the list (most recently posted) is Anthony Eden (Con.) trying to put a noble gloss on British involvement in Suez:
- antarchi's blog
- Login to post comments
- Read more
doing their duty
Submitted by antarchi on June 16, 2007 - 01:57As I write, highly civilized human beings are flying overhead, trying to kill me.
They do not feel any enmity against me as an individual, nor I against them. They are ‘only doing their duty’, as the saying goes. Most of them, I have no doubt, are kind-hearted law-abiding men who would never dream of committing murder in private life.

