...yawn, ditto.
American Racism - and the Anti-White Left -
- Thread starter Gypsy Nirvana
- Start date
...yawn, ditto.
not possible to keep everyone happy. many will not be happy because certain others ARE happy...their enjoyment of their life is dependent on others they dislike being unable to enjoy theirs.
Absolem
Active member
This is the best self own on here when it comes to claiming somebody said someting.
Just a reminder you have a quote in your sig attributed to Thomas Jefferson. The reason you leave this fake quote in your sig is because having Thomas Jefferson's name by it's creates legitimacy to the quote. If you were truthful and just put "Unknown" by the quote it would lose it's appeal in your sig.
Carry on with your disinformation campaign on here starting with your own sig.
ROTFLMAO
you're like one of those little dogs yipping and yapping and gnawing on a tiny little bone, lol.
Quotation: "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
Variations: None known.
Sources checked:
- Papers of Thomas Jefferson: Digital Edition
- Thomas Jefferson retirement papers
- Thomas Jefferson: Papers and Biographies collections in Hathi Trust Digital Library
Earliest appearance in print: undetermined
Comments: This quotation has not been found in Thomas Jefferson's papers. It has been suggested that it is a paraphrase of Jefferson's statement in the Declaration of Independence, "...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...," although such a paraphrase would seem to be taking some radical liberties with the original version. The quotation bears a much closer resemblance to Martin Luther King, Jr.'s comment in his famous letter from Birmingham Jail: "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."1
https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/if-law-unjustspurious-quotation
yawn, looks like we have another yapper, lol.
Just because you put something in between quotation marks, doesn't make it true[?]
Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." That quote often comes up in the context of new technology and concerns about government surveillance. Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and the editor of Lawfare, tells NPR's Robert Siegel that it wasn't originally meant to mean what people think.
RICHARD ANDERSON: Very simply - and I'm paraphrasing here - but Ben Franklin essentially said at one point, those who would trade privacy for a bit of security deserve neither privacy nor security.
SIEGEL: Now, Anderson did say he was paraphrasing, but a few of you wrote in anyway saying, hey, that's not the quote. So we're going to clear things up right now. Benjamin Wittes, editor of the website Lawfare and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, joins us. Hi.
BENJAMIN WITTES: Hey.
SIEGEL: What's the exact quotation?
WITTES: The exact quotation, which is from a letter that Franklin is believed to have written on behalf of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, reads, those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
SIEGEL: And what was the context of this remark?
WITTES: He was writing about a tax dispute between the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the family of the Penns, the proprietary family of the Pennsylvania colony who ruled it from afar. And the legislature was trying to tax the Penn family lands to pay for frontier defense during the French and Indian War. And the Penn family kept instructing the governor to veto. Franklin felt that this was a great affront to the ability of the legislature to govern. And so he actually meant purchase a little temporary safety very literally. The Penn family was trying to give a lump sum of money in exchange for the General Assembly's acknowledging that it did not have the authority to tax it.
SIEGEL: So far from being a pro-privacy quotation, if anything, it's a pro-taxation and pro-defense spending quotation.
WITTES: It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security. It means, in context, not quite the opposite of what it's almost always quoted as saying but much closer to the opposite than to the thing that people think it means.
SIEGEL: Well, as you've said, it's used often in the context of surveillance and technology. And it came up in my conversation with Mr. Anderson 'cause he's part of what's called the Ben Franklin Privacy Caucus in the Virginia legislature. What do you make of the use of this quotation as a motto for something that really wasn't the sentiment Franklin had in mind?
WITTES: You know, there are all of these quotations. Think of kill all the lawyers - right? - from Shakespeare. Nobody really remembers what the characters in question were saying at that time. And maybe it doesn't matter so much what Franklin was actually trying to say because the quotation means so much to us in terms of the tension between government power and individual liberties. But I do think it is worth remembering what he was actually trying to say because the actual context is much more sensitive to the problems of real governance than the flip quotation's use is, often. And Franklin was dealing with a genuine security emergency. There were raids on these frontier towns. And he regarded the ability of a community to defend itself as the essential liberty that it would be contemptible to trade. So I don't really have a problem with people misusing the quotation, but I also think it's worth remembering what it was really about.
https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/3902...safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century
"blissful ignorance" is no longer a real option...at least, not real safe.
Last edited by a moderator:
nice fella
Member
"The fact that Right-wingers in America shrug in helplessness as whooping, howling mobs of Bolshevized monkeys, along with their opioid-addled degenerate allies, denigrate White history and smash the symbols of White honor and glory----yet are ready to lose their jobs on principle over not taking a vaccine----shows to what extent our collective consciousness has already been neutralized and disarmed.
I'm not saying you shouldn't be pissed about the vaccine mandate. But being more pissed about taking the vaccine than about your history being torn down and violated around you is like if your wife was raped and you were most worried about now catching an STD from her. The worst harm that could come to you from taking a vaccine is ten times less than the harm done to you by the loss of your honor as a people and nationality.
And if the Right had that mindset from the beginning, if it wasn't constantly undermined by cowards and traitors preaching individualism when racial solidarity was needed, we would never have come to this point. If the Right had rallied behind those who attempted to prevent the Lee statue from being pulled down in Charlottesville, if Whites marched and rioted every time our symbols and history were violated, or every time our innocent men, women and children were slaughtered by inhuman Blacks or immigrants, then we would now have the collective racial power to oppose this mandate.
Thinking only of ourselves and our own rights is how we will lose all our rights and ultimately our very lives. Thinking of our people as a whole, being willing to risk job loss not just for yourself but for the honor of your ancestors, is how you will gain the power to resist these kinds of mandates from the Left."
- Warren Balogh
I'm not saying you shouldn't be pissed about the vaccine mandate. But being more pissed about taking the vaccine than about your history being torn down and violated around you is like if your wife was raped and you were most worried about now catching an STD from her. The worst harm that could come to you from taking a vaccine is ten times less than the harm done to you by the loss of your honor as a people and nationality.
And if the Right had that mindset from the beginning, if it wasn't constantly undermined by cowards and traitors preaching individualism when racial solidarity was needed, we would never have come to this point. If the Right had rallied behind those who attempted to prevent the Lee statue from being pulled down in Charlottesville, if Whites marched and rioted every time our symbols and history were violated, or every time our innocent men, women and children were slaughtered by inhuman Blacks or immigrants, then we would now have the collective racial power to oppose this mandate.
Thinking only of ourselves and our own rights is how we will lose all our rights and ultimately our very lives. Thinking of our people as a whole, being willing to risk job loss not just for yourself but for the honor of your ancestors, is how you will gain the power to resist these kinds of mandates from the Left."
- Warren Balogh
pale cowards care
nice fella
Member
umm...I've got some really bad news my friend.
America was founded by white nationalists, and was intended for their posterity.
I'm happy to provide sources if that is truly necessary.
...yikes.
I'm happy to say I'd like to see your sources.
You just sound pissed. It just don’t matter. They make this shit up just to piss you off.
A diverging opinion from leftist who would tear down statues to prove you wrong. But ”white” is not even a national category to begin with. It would be more accurate to say that the United States will never be a nation and leave it at that.
