Alt Left: Requiem for A Country

This is what we’ve turned into. The country I loved like my own self all through my childhood, the country I revered because I was told that unlike other countries, we always played fair, square, and decently, is gone. In its place is some ugly, scar-faced, gangster thug with a stone cold expression and a gun in his hand.

And I can’t tell you how much that breaks my hardened heart. It’s like my heart fell right out of my chest. My country was like the woman you loved more than any other in your whole life.

Now imagine that one woman you loved more than all the others, the one you risked it all for, the one you poured out your heart and soul for, risking it all and opening yourself up, bare, naked, defenseless and helpless like an infant to her mercy.

Imagine that woman ripping your heart out of your chest in gleeful, cackling, wicked contempt and stomping your heart on the ground like a bug. Imagine the ultimate betrayal. Imagine the death of all hope and optimism in the  human race.  Imagine all your finest dreams crashing on the rocks of a wild-torn sea.

That’s how I feel betrayed by my country.

And it’s sad as Hell. I feel a bottomless sadness, like tumbling into a black bottomless well where you tumble and crash what seems like forever until you die and land. Like all the pain in the world condensed into a black ball, one that you squeeze in your fingers until it explodes, paints and taints everything around you.

The US is nothing more than the neighborhood capo of the world, a petty, two-bit gangster thug.

“He’s a gonna make-a you an offer you cannot-a refuse!”

And if you do refuse you end up with a bloody horse’s head in your bed. That’s if you are still alive at all.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

2 thoughts on “Alt Left: Requiem for A Country”

  1. America signed a pact with the devil at its very birthday through her Godfather Benjamin Franklin’s mouth, get over it. It got its independence from Britain for two reasons.

    First retaining total unbridled freedom to kill on sight like game Amerindians and other non-conformist peoples in the colonists’ way. This at the time would have become juridically impossible to do if the territory had been considered part and parcel of a “Christian” European country.

    Second was in order to practice slavery at will (not only Negro). In the particular case of England, slavery was growing more and more problematic. Quite hypocritically, English country was asking all Europe to phase the practice.

    She showed the rest of Europe this good example once she had made all the money to be made by this traffic. No longer needing slavery, England moved on to practice quite another form of colonialism in India which didn’t require the institution of slavery but instead relied on far more modern exploitative practices.

    America grew independent from Britain for exactly the same reason as later on Rhodesia would do. Both countries enabled the metropolis to either apartheid, slavery, or Indian slaughter.

    Hadn’t there been an American revolution, there would still be an Iroquois nation along River Hudson most probably enjoying a status quite like Scotland within Great Britain, though probably a very mixed-blood and English-speaking brand of Iroquois people.

    Negro slavery would also have been phased out right at the time of the Revolution in order to give way to some form of indentured labor. These two reasons alone justified America’s war for independence and especially Louis XV France’s support of the new entity, which didn’t entail any form of humanistic benevolence whatsoever.

    The French people were not a bad one but the French overseas interests were always the top nastiest of the world. For them, America was to become a great model for the French plantation colony.

    Also, make no mistake about it, the French so-called Enlightenment movement (contrary to German Aufklärung) from which the American derives grew from the most anti-humanist ideological group of all French society. They were, among others, especially Voltaire, the most opposed to popular elementary instruction. The French diplomats who supported the early American enterprise were all likes of Kissinger.

    There was no betrayal of the American revolution by oligarchs, it was an oligarchs’ revolution right from the start. But they had to cover their crimes through a very elegant media presence in Europe so as to make as many “useful idiot” European intellectuals as possible dream instead of inquiring as they should have done. The USSR would later on adopt this same notion in the name of quite a different ideology but to the same effect.

    America was a colonial company like the East India Company, both having acquired full sovereignty and right to full secrecy from England. The earliest American flag (13 stars in circle, 13 stripes) was simply borrowed out of whole cloth straight from Sassoon’s East India Company. All the rest was already propaganda.

    The right to free expression as defined by the First Amendment was a fraud right from the start. Only chartered private enterprises, not individuals as such, ever had that full right, and that right was always assorted with the right of legal recourse that allowed the targets of such speech to pursue the speakers for defamation.

    Allowing an override of the First Amendment is in reality total censorship of opinion exerted by private rather than public interests – the worst of both worlds. In reality, one feels far freer in a country where you have to fear only disagreement from a single state authority rather than from a multitude of private interests and religions liable to declare themselves offended at any of your words.

    As for the Second Amendment, the rationale for its existence was never for the right of ordinary individuals to be armed in order to prevent the rise of a tentative tyranny from some ambitious politician. Its purpose was instead the delegation to private interests, especially plantations, of the repression of both slaves and Indians.

    It was actually the acceptance of a semi-feudal private state as regards police so as to discharge the state proper of any responsibility. One reason for the state’s abdication of its law enforcement responsibility was due to the vastness of the territory.

    Anyway, history shows us that gleeful gun-toters in any case have always sided with would-be tyrants in position of authority against the poor and the free thinkers. A good example of this tendency occurred outside America in the Caribbean.

    The new rulers relied on the inheritance from the American “gun rights” as the Americans proclaimed during the American occupation of the Island. A classic example was the triumph of François Duvalier in Haiti. He counted not on any legitimate power of state police but instead on a police force made up of purely voluntary individual gun bearers, later to be known as the infamous Tontons Macoute, to assert his fascistic dictatorship.

    1. Britain had no need for slavery, nor France so no need to help the Confederate States. It was retarded to think they’d get support from them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *