tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8294304458677955232.post9221715504861815297..comments2023-10-23T17:44:39.517-07:00Comments on Paratus Familia Blog: Loyalist or Patriot?Enola Gayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12719123975236426938noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8294304458677955232.post-41718110838575742152013-03-14T22:32:40.219-07:002013-03-14T22:32:40.219-07:00Hiya very cool site!! Guy .. Excellent .. Amazing ...Hiya very cool site!! Guy .. Excellent .. Amazing .. I'll bookmark your website and take the feeds also? I am glad to find a lot of helpful information here within the submit, we want develop extra techniques in this regard, thanks for sharing. . . . . .<br /><br />Here is my site; <a href="http://psz-24.cba.pl/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=4325&sid=8249be12fc5a807196cbec2f0989c512" rel="nofollow">kredit trotz negativ schufa</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8294304458677955232.post-9633310964861225922012-04-14T00:00:26.892-07:002012-04-14T00:00:26.892-07:00"I hate why people tend to take their lives a..."I hate why people tend to take their lives and mix them with nothing but politics." That has to be the wisest thing I've read on this blog. By a child too.<br /><br />I also think people are over complicating the motives of 18th century settlers on the American frontier & why they stood up with arms against their federal government that neither represented the American colonies locally or federally, but simply inslaved them thougth tax legislation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8294304458677955232.post-19790363125444523352010-10-08T06:53:25.780-07:002010-10-08T06:53:25.780-07:00I have never seen so many people act like five yea...I have never seen so many people act like five year olds. I understand how you all defend your side,but that is no reason to bite each others heads off. I hate how people tend to take their lives and mix them with nothing but politics. You all need to learn how to be respective of other peoples opinions and try to understand that persons point. I hate having to tell a bunch of adults this when i'm 15 years old.Sarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06278686273396088780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8294304458677955232.post-70031475188265176052010-08-24T18:38:56.463-07:002010-08-24T18:38:56.463-07:00LOL, I stand by my characterization of you, Zarove...LOL, I stand by my characterization of you, Zarove. You ARE a crackpot. You claim to make your living through writing. Writing what? Your writings ramble and your grammar is horrible and your keystrokes are worse than any other's I've seen anywhere. You make a living writing? Please, whom do you think you're kidding?<br /><br />I use a screen name, that's my perogative. You use the name Zarove. Is that any more identifying than mine? I think not. So, please don't whine about my anonymity. If Zarove be your name, I frankly can't even tell if that's male or female. Not that I care.<br /><br />Please come right out and state exactly in which country you reside. You have discussed the USA, Canada, England, Ireland, and I'm sure there are others but I didn't read all of your posts because they are too long and too many. <br />Where do you live? I don't need specifics but I'd like to know which country you call home and where you are originally from. You seem to think you are such an expert on American history, particularly American Revolution history. I got news for you, friend, you know as much about American Revolutionary history as I know about the history of Jupiter - which ain't much. You put 2 and 2 together and come up with 5 when it comes to American history. I guess where you're from that's OK. Where I'm from, it's typical liberal crackpot ideology trying to corrupt and change historical accuracy. It's revisitionist history. I'm not buying it. Peddle your baloney elsewhere. <br /><br />You don't like being called names yet you attacked Enola Gay right out of the gate, so who started this, Zarove? Answer: YOU did! <br /> <br />As I said earlier, get your own blog. You have a lot to say, but don't know how to get your points across. You continue to ramble and dominate with one post followed by another, despite the advice given you by Samuel Adams, Jr. Why don't you take his advice? More people might read your posts if you got to the point and stopped defending the indefensible. You have repeated yourself ad nauseam. It's time to move along. <br /><br />NoCal GalAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8294304458677955232.post-50225912987035466052010-08-24T13:27:54.983-07:002010-08-24T13:27:54.983-07:00PS, I don’t accept Moral Relativism, so I don’t th...PS, I don’t accept Moral Relativism, so I don’t think one mans Rebel is another mans Patriot. We ought look truthfully at all matters, and take all sides in each matter.ZAROVEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17668854596329493360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8294304458677955232.post-9951560599586905082010-08-24T13:25:56.771-07:002010-08-24T13:25:56.771-07:00On that note, you ask if its ever right to rebel, ...On that note, you ask if its ever right to rebel, and seem to assume it is. But, if this is the case, and if the American Colonies were right to rebel against a monarchy to create a Republic, let me ask this then: Would it ever be right to rebel against a Republic, like the current United States, and to Create a Monarchy? Or, if we have a “Second American Revolution” should we Overthrow the corrupt and evil Republic only to replace it with a form of Government exactly like it, only with new people more to our liking? Would the restoration of Monarchy be seen as offensive to you? IF so, why? If the King is Just and good, what is the flaw? If the only reason we have a right to rebel is injustice, then a Just monarchy would be just as good as a Just Republic, wouldn’t it?<br /><br />But I somehow doubt it. Somehow the Tyranny of a King proves monarchy is a Dangerous and bad idea, but the Tyranny of a Republican President like Obama would never prove Republicanism bad, only that he has betrayed its Principles.<br /><br />And this is Hypocrisy.<br /><br /><br />That said, I also don’t think I’ve hindered anyone from getting a word in edgewise. They are as free as I am to post, I should think. They can also, if they would like, do the research and write as long a post in condemning my words, my insane, stupid, moronic words which just can’t be true, can’t they?<br /><br />And how would I stop them?ZAROVEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17668854596329493360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8294304458677955232.post-29456908793935068682010-08-24T13:24:57.417-07:002010-08-24T13:24:57.417-07:00The concerns the colonists had could have been wor...The concerns the colonists had could have been worked out peacefully by political means, and did not require a Rebellion against a Just and Lawful Authority. There was simply no legitimate cause for the war.<br /><br />Well, unless you agree that all Monarchy is evil and only a Republic is Just, which was a large part of why the war was fought. But why should I embrace Republicanism? I have listed my faults with it already.<br /><br />The King was not committing Genocide. He did not order the wholesale destruction of peoples property. He had not began a systematic persecution of Minorities an in fact seemed intent on protecting the rights of Minorities. The issues were purely political, and could have been resolved another way.<br /><br />But even if you disbelieve this, even if you still ardently support the Patriot cause of 234 years ago, bare only this in mind, the real cause of my presence here. The Loyalists did not live in our modern times, and were Loyal to heir country, not the United States of America, which at the time did not exist.<br /><br />All, in the end, I asked here was that their memory not be so defamed, and they not be classified as something they weren’t’. They weren’t Selfish and self interested cowards whose only loyalty was to themselves, they weren’t fighting the Revolution because they believed in Big Government and Wealth Redistribution. They even believed Reform was needed by and large. They simply fought for their King and their way of life, and wanted to remain a part of the Empire.<br /><br />They were also Conservatives. <br /><br />It is wrong to then see them as the Natural Allies of those pushing a socialist vision, for they were not Socialists. Its wrong to deny that they had Faith in God, when they did. Its wrong to claim them as supporters of Moral Depravity when often they had stronger moral ethics than did the Patriot leaders. <br /><br />They did not want to rob Peter to pay Paul, they didn’t believe in Wealth redistribution. They didn’t believe in the Dissolution of Traditional Marriage. They didn’t support Abortion-on-demand. They didn’t support large, sweeping Bureaucracies. All that you as conservatives stand opposed to today they would gladly join you in, and all that you oppose they oppose, in terms of the moral and social evils.<br /><br />Yet they are made to be the Liberals of their era because you fight Liberals today? Is that Fair?ZAROVEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17668854596329493360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8294304458677955232.post-74600909338475238972010-08-24T13:23:41.067-07:002010-08-24T13:23:41.067-07:00We transform it to sin of course by saying they we...We transform it to sin of course by saying they were in the end Loyal only to themselves but this is clearly not the case. They had their lands taken form them and often were subjected to brutality by angry mobs of so-called Patriots. They had to flee their homes, and all they had, all because of this. This is the dark side of the Revolution, in which the Patriots were far from the Sanitised Saints we like to imagine them as.<br /><br />War is a Hellish, Detestable thing, sometimes needful, but always bad. Revolutions are always Sin. They always attack the Legitimate Government in Favour of replacing it with a new one, just so one group can seize power another has.<br /><br />This Revolution is no different.<br /><br />While I would argue that all Kings must be subject to Laws, I would also contend that King George the Third did not truly deserve the label of Tyrant he is given, and his Tyrannies were mainly just people disagreeing. Often those who disagreed had their own motives, such as personal enrichment. Yes I said personal Enrichment. The American Founders weren’t driven solely by Pure and godly motives. <br /><br />That said, your Hypothetical, in which you ask what a Christian Citizen should do if their rulers become Drunk with Power and begin to abuse it. If I answer they have a right to remove him you will point to the American Cause as just this, even though the King was not abusive. Is that Fair? Worse, if I say they have no such right, you will label me a Big Government Liberal, who, of course, works for the Government.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I shall Answer the Fool according to his own Folly, as it were, and simply say this. It is the duty of a Christian to live within the law of his land, unless the law expressly contradicts the teachings of God. It is the Law of God we place above all. We also are not to Rebel against those in Authority over us.<br /><br />So, while I would not burn a sacrifice to Zeus, I would, as did Saint Serge and Saint Bacchus, submit to my fate. They were Roman Soldiers, who had converted to Christ, and upon this being discovered, refused to recant and offer Libation to Zeus. For this, Bacchus was tortured to Death and Serge beheaded. And how many died at the hands of the Emperor Decius? Did they ever form a Rebellion?<br /><br />While I think that Obvious evil can be removed, it must be Obvious Evil and those who remove it must, absolutely must, be fighting purely for the removal of that Evil, not to seize power for themselves. When Boenhoffer attempted to assassinate Hitler, his motive was not Revolution, he did not seek to take over Germany to remake it under his own Rules, but only to Halt the evils he saw around him. Meanwhile the egregious tyranny of King George the Third where what? He would not let them expand into Indian Territories? That sounds pretty reasonable to me. He allowed The French Colonists to keep their Religion and French law? This also sounds reasonable, as it was not imposed on all other colonies, and later America did the same for Louisiana. That he quartered Troops in peoples homes? While today this seems odd, even outrageous, it was common practice for the time. <br /><br />Even the Tax issue was overblown. The Bulk of the Taxes imposed had been repealed as soon as the Colonists complained, and the last Tax, the Tea Tax, had been created after the King had Consulted with the Colonists and attempted to levy a tax they would find Fair. It even won the Approval of none other than Benjamin Franklin.<br /><br />It was a Tax on Imported Tea, and one they did not have to pay if they drank locally produced Tea.<br /><br />The Taxes themselves were being Raised to fund the Colonial Defence.ZAROVEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17668854596329493360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8294304458677955232.post-71242888527744917422010-08-24T13:22:06.674-07:002010-08-24T13:22:06.674-07:00However, I do want to make the case for the Loyali...However, I do want to make the case for the Loyalists. They have recently been defamed. It seems people want to Draw upon the American Revolution as inspiration for the current Struggle, and to that end I am perfectly accepting, and say nothing. <br /><br /><br /><br />However, when you go beyond generalities to actually depict the Loyalists as exactly the same as Modern Liberals, and the Patriots as exactly the same as Modern Conservatives, when you speak of the Patriots as fighting for Gods eternal Moral Law, and the Loyalists as rejecting God in favour of their own ideas, when you se the Loyalists as in the end only interested in themselves and their own welfare and the Patriots as driven by Pure Motives, you cease to conform to any standard of Truth and corrupt your own stance, whilst slandering the memory of those who stood up for their way of life, and who pout their own lives, property, and sacred honour into a cause they believed in every bit as firmly as the Rebels did.<br /><br />The Loyalists of course didn’t believe in Big Government, most even thought reform was needed to help accommodate the Colonial Concerns. Most saw a sort of Colonial Continental Parliament being built, to raise Taxation, as a good model to follow.<br /><br />They simply drew the line at Treason.<br /><br /><br />When you look beyond the Rhetoric of the Revolutionaries, and at the actual deeds of the Tyrannical King George you soon realise his actions were much less Tyrannical than we are lead to believe. You shouldn’t trust the Propaganda from the Revolution as if its presenting 100% accurate information, and as if there is no other side to the story at all.<br /><br />Reading other perspectives often helps. From Canada, you can find these examples which depict the Loyalists as victimised Heroes, not Villains as often shown in the United States.<br /><br />http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0004796<br /><br />And<br /><br />http://www.mysteriesofcanada.com/Canada/united_empire_loyalists.htm<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Then there is this.<br /><br /><br />http://www.common-place.org/vol-08/no-01/larkin/<br /><br />It is from an American Perspective.<br /><br />And then there is this.<br /><br />http://branemrys.blogspot.com/2006/07/campbell-against-american-revolution.html<br /><br /><br />And this.<br /><br />http://www.americanrevolution.org/loyalist.html<br /><br /><br />If you read the works of Loyalists like James Chalmers, Joseph Gallaway, and William Smith, you soon realise that they were far from the self interested Liberals looking for Big Government as depicted here, as well. George Campbell’s Sermon against the Revolution, with its theme of “Meddle not with those given to Change”, provides a stark contrast to today’s Obama Administration which came to power on “Change we can believe in”, and to Jefferson’s own Progressivism which saw a never-ending sea of Change in Humanity.<br /><br />And, as this posting started with the definitions of Loyalist and Patriot, it should be again noted that the root of the word “Loyalist” is “Loyal”, and since when was Loyalty ever sinful?ZAROVEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17668854596329493360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8294304458677955232.post-13554359422954916922010-08-24T13:21:30.373-07:002010-08-24T13:21:30.373-07:00Why is it that, whenever I take an opposing view I...Why is it that, whenever I take an opposing view I am somehow easily seen as a Villain who doesn’t care what others think? Imputing on me evil motives is easy, and fits with the rest of the post above, which imputes on the Loyalists evil Motives. We also tend to lump all evils into he same Category, so wee the Loyalists as the opposite of the Patriots thanks to the American Revolution, and assume that the word :Loyalist” always means someone is not a Patriot. The fact is, though, that Loyalists often see themselves as Patriots. The song “Will You Stand” is a Loyalist Song written for Northern Ireland, and calls upon people to “Join the Ulster Volunteer force in a Patriotic Band”. <br /><br />The Author of this blog, however, can’t Imagine a Loyalists as being a Patriot thanks to that Bias. Meanwhile also accusing the Loyalists of loving their Government, not their Country. Others take this up and accuse me as being a Communist, despite the fact that Communism is clearly not compatible with Monarchy. Its just easier to take things you don’t like, such as Communism and Monarchy, Loyalists and liberals, and imagine them as the same thing, and its easy to imagine me as some sort of evil monster too.<br /><br />But, I’m not. <br /><br />I may make long posts but, I do write for a living. And not for the Government. I am also one given to scholarly tendencies. Before we jump on the Liberal Academic bandwagon keep in mind that everything I’ve thusfar said is the exact opposite of what a Liberal Academic would say. Liberals are Socialists, who Favour Democracy, and push for the Abolition of Tradition. Does that really, <i>really</i> sound like where I’m headed with my posts?ZAROVEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17668854596329493360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8294304458677955232.post-64144975650832176582010-08-24T09:29:35.478-07:002010-08-24T09:29:35.478-07:00What you appear by your actions to be, is a man wi...What you appear by your actions to be, is a man with two mouths, and 1/2 an ear !<br /><br />And one who hates dialogue - allow others to interact with your points, if you are confident they have merit.<br /><br />This shows precious little desire to follow the highest Law, to "Love God with all your heart, soul mind & strength and to LOVE your neighbor as yourself."<br /><br />If your arguments are True, Balanced & Scriptural - then you should make them point by point, then pause & allow others to respond.<br /><br />Yes, you make a valid point here & there. <br /><br />But oft times getting at the Truth means balancing points of truth - like the Spirit & Letter of the Law.<br /><br />I know it's easy to gush forth all of 'what seems right in our own eyes' - I have to FORCE myself to make a point & pause. You haven't done that.<br /><br />The HTML character limit per post is a good clue - if one goes past that, shorten your post & wait for others to respond. <br /><br />This is known as "Neti-quitte", a Victorian English fancier like yourself should make the point that it's a social grace to be observed on the Web.<br /><br />By the way, to the point of the on-going discussion:<br /><br />Can you imagine a point at which a KING goes awry so far, that he HAS become an evil Tyrant ?<br /><br />Or are you positing the 'Doctrine of Unlimited Submission to Earthly Kings' ? <br /><br />What are Christan citizens of good conscience to do when their King (or congressman, or president, or governor or mayor) goes wild, drunk with power & begins using the power of government to deny or destroy their Life, Liberty & Property ?<br /><br />What then, ZAROVE ? <br /><br />Or does a government drunk with unjust power & abusive of it's citizens rights NOT concern you ?<br /><br />What work do you do ? Just curious.<br /><br />Do you work in some Government agency ?<br /><br />Thou doth protest too much...<br /><br />Samuel Adams, Jr. <br /><br />PS: One man's rebel is another man's Patriot !Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8294304458677955232.post-58076604579751310642010-08-23T11:57:51.707-07:002010-08-23T11:57:51.707-07:00Another well thought out, reasoned argument agains...Another well thought out, reasoned argument against my idiocy and insanity, by such a brave person they go anonymous.<br /><br /><br />Seriously do any of you even have he temerity to even discuss what I've actually written? Or why its all wrong and I',m a crackpot?<br /><br />I f my arguments are flawed, if the Truth is that the Patriots were called this because they loved their country and God and the Loyalists hated God and favoured their one ideas, and loved Big Government, if all I've said is simply false, wouldn't evidence prove me wrong? Or am I shown wrong by mere decree?ZAROVEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17668854596329493360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8294304458677955232.post-32033057805231039952010-08-18T17:32:09.469-07:002010-08-18T17:32:09.469-07:00It should also be aid that the "Patriots"...It should also be aid that the "Patriots" only turned on the King later. The Sons of Liberty were origionally Monarchists, who saw the King as a hero. It was Parliment who they saw as the villain, for thye understood the King had no real power to grant them representation, only Parlient did, and it was Representation in Parliment they sought.<br /><br />Only when the King sided with Lord North the Prime Minister did the Rebels turn on him too. Bu today too many Americans think he had sweeping powers, when he didn't.<br /><br />He also turned on the Colonists, whom he was origionally sympathetic towards, when they turned to Violence.ZAROVEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17668854596329493360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8294304458677955232.post-49077979633697273612010-08-18T17:28:06.041-07:002010-08-18T17:28:06.041-07:006: In our system, we teach ourselves to be selfish...6: In our system, we teach ourselves to be selfish. We vote for what we want. The theory is we vote for the best candidate for the Job, but we don’t. We vote Tribally, in accordance with the general Party we assign ourselves to and whose believes we have adopted as our own. Thus why if someone is a Registered Democrat you can predict he will vote Democrat and the same is true of Republicans.<br /><br />The people who run for office are those how seek power and more often than not are those seeking either prestige or to impose an agenda. They are not, on average, well meaning people who just want to help. Even if they were, our system is designed so that those who wish to secure office must cater to the crowds, as a result compromise, and the Politician finds himself making deals with large united groups in order to secure their support, and saying whatever rhetoric will generate the appropriate emotional reaction to his base so they will support him.<br /><br />This breeds corruption, and all but ensures that men of Character are weeded out of the process, and no Humble man will ever win high office either. Only those willing to compromise, adapt, and tell people what they want to hear will.<br /><br />Even then they aren’t free, and must still present an image to maintain support, so often just create a false persona around themselves and lie it, thus causing themselves distress, not to mention embarrassing scandals.<br /><br /><br />The people in this system become corrupt too, as they vote along the lines of personal desires, interests, and whims. Every impulse, every whim becomes a right, and a right denied if there is some law against it.<br /><br />We, the People becomes I, the People, and we try desperately to attach some high minded words to our personal predilections to make sure we can bully others into giving us our way. And the Masses divide further, and further, until the two sides cease to be people who disagree on Politics and Society, and becomes two or more groups of people who hate each other, are alienated form one another, and who don’t even think of the other group as "Real Americans".<br /><br />Yet this breeds Freedom? This Breeds Morality? This Breeds Unity?<br /><br />We have nothing in common but a mutual desire to get our own way. We have gobbled Poison.ZAROVEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17668854596329493360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8294304458677955232.post-87933829333942453512010-08-18T17:27:05.972-07:002010-08-18T17:27:05.972-07:004: At the end of the Day the Human Species is gear...4: At the end of the Day the Human Species is geared toward Monarchy. It is our Nature. Republics are ultimately run as Elective Monarchies. George Washington himself viewed the Presidency as an Elected Monarchy. Even if he had not and it was not intended to be, people now focus so much on the President as Leader he gets to be one regardless. The difference is we have a Political contest and now the only king who will rule us is on who is Ambitious and willing to compromise for power.<br /><br /><br /><br />5: Democracy is a horrible form of Government, and Republicanism always leads to Democracy. The Theory it is Founded upon violates the Principles of Law it is suppose to Safeguard.<br /><br />If all Power is vested in we, the people, then it is not in God and not to God whom we look, it is "The People."<br /><br />Worse, who are "We, the People"? I hear constant criticism of the US Government. For Eight Year sunder "King George" as Liberals called President Bush to insult him, they insisted that he was shredding the Constitution, Violating the Laws, and acting as a Tyrant. The True Patriots, to them, were the Liberals who stood in Opposition to Bush. Naturally they said that We, the People opposed him, but not all did did they? Now we live in the Age of Obama, the Liberals no longer claim Tyranny is in the White House, but Conservatives do. King Barrack sit son the Throne of a Tyrant, Shredding the Constitution, and Violating the Laws. He is a Dictator. Same song with only one new Lyric. Naturally they Imagine that "We, the people" oppose him.<br /><br />The Truth is, We, the People aren't United in this matter. Some support Obama, and others don't. a little over Half that voted Voted for him. This is why he is President.<br /><br />Now this Blog claims those how support Obama are Loyalists, and those who resist are Patriots. <br /><br />This of course becomes a Problem. If the people here are the True Patriots, then the Liberals aren't. This must mean the Patriots don't need to defend their rights, and if another Revolution comes can freely kill them. This happened in 1776 when the Patriots slaughtered Civilian Loyalists, and in France, and in Russia. The same thing of course would happen if Liberals formed a Revolution.<br /><br />Somehow, to a Conservative, the Liberals in the Untied States rent part of We, the People. They Imagine America as a Solidly Conservative Nation, just as Liberals imagine it as a Liberal Nation. Its really a Nation of Divided peoples following Diverse beliefs. There has never been a General Will of the People. There never will be. We don’t come together in a big room to elect the President or any other official, and it is not Consensus that selects who hols office, its a Popularity contest. <br /><br />Whoever gets the most votes Wins, and then claims to represent "The Will Of The People" as he has a Democratic Mandate.<br /><br />This ensures that our society is perpetually divided. Factions vying for power will form coalitions with other groups to gain greater votes, and will attack coalitions that oppose their agendas.<br /><br />In the end its about getting enough votes to push an agenda onto everyone else, all in the name of "Freedom".<br /><br /><br />Is this less a Tyranny that the Constitutionally Limited Monarchy of 1776?ZAROVEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17668854596329493360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8294304458677955232.post-30143290285899377852010-08-18T17:25:42.763-07:002010-08-18T17:25:42.763-07:003: I am still bound by Scripture. Even if I did ag...3: I am still bound by Scripture. Even if I did agree that all of their complaints were Legitimate, nothing in either the Old or New Testament declare that it is our Duty to overthrow Tyrants. Nothing in the Scripture remotely hints that our Duty is to take up arms against our Government, or that True Patriotism is to disregard the Government if the Government acts uncouthly. We are of course to not obey a Government commandment that goes against Scripture, but not to openly Rebel. This is not what is Taught in Romans 13, and the Christians then lived in an age when the Sanhedrin and the Roman Senate had both issued persecutions against them, and several Local Governors had allowed them to be killed or asked they be suppressed. If anyone in History can claim they had a right to Revolution because of how the Government treated them it was the Early Church, or the Church in the first 300 years After Christ, but they never Rebelled, never formed a Revolution. They were commanded to obey their Emperor and the local Authorities, and they did. Revolutions were forbidden as Sin. <br /><br />Am I to think somehow the Revolution of 1776 was not Sin? All because the king was a Tyrant?<br /><br /><br />Worse still, King George was not really a Tyrant and, again, all the talk of how horrible he was had been manufactured to create Antipathy towards him. It was Propaganda, no different from the Communist Propaganda against Saint Tzar Nicolas the Martyr. ( Because as much as I am a Communist who hates Americas Revolution because of its Freedom and thus must love the Communist Revolution, I find it Sin too.)<br /><br /><br />This compounds the problem for they were Rebelling against a really moderate King who they could have resolved their differences with much more peacefully. The Hanover King was not unreasonable, and had shown interest in negotiations with them until the Sons of Liberty began burning down Governors mansions after looting them, and killing Royal Officials. Was the king wrong to oppose Mob Violence?<br /><br />It is written, we should fear God, and Honour the King.ZAROVEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17668854596329493360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8294304458677955232.post-52823072109612330172010-08-18T17:24:55.668-07:002010-08-18T17:24:55.668-07:00I of course cannot agree. For numerous reasons.
1...I of course cannot agree. For numerous reasons.<br /><br />1: There never was a King George the Third of England. England has not had a Monarch since 1701. Does no one realise that its now the United Kingdom? Not just England? Back before 1801 it was "The Kingdom of Great Britain" not "The Kingdom of England". Too often Americans think we broke from England, and have this odd Animosity towards England alone, but a deep love of the Scots, the Welsh, and the Irish who were just as much a part of the Kings forces as anyone else.<br /><br />By the way a lot of the Redcoat Army were also Americans. The idea that they were too cowardly to fight comes up a lot too but they did fight, just not for the Revolutionaries.<br /><br /><br />2: Having read the actual Declaration of Independence, I actually side with the King on a lot of those complaints. One of the Complaints the Colonists had against the evil, tyrannical King was that he allowed Catholic in Quebec to continue to be Catholic, and allowed the Catholics to hold Public office. This is what they meant by Powers and Customs Foreign to us. The bit about Savages being permitted free reign was a reference to the fact that the King had issued a decree that the Colonies would not expand Further past the Appalachians, and the land held by the Blackfoot, Cherokee, and Iroquois would be preserved for the Indians themselves. Am I suppose to think the Anti-Catholic hatred felt by Early American Rebels was good, and proof the king was a Tyrant? Am I to think that the king was wrong and Tyrannical for wanting to preserve the Indians in their land? <br /><br />While I do think the Colonists had some legitimate complaints, not all of them were Legitimate nor did most of them really warrant the reaction that they got. The Declaration of Independence was designed to rile the passions of the day, which is why it’s not specific, as everyone then knew what was referenced. Today it seems so inaccessible that people just sort of accept it all without trying to figure out what was being discussed. However, when looked at in Historical Context the Declaration played on peoples Passions, fears, prejudices, and self interest in order to foster a sense of hatred and by such motivate them to rebel. It was no more Sacred or Morally sound than a modern Political Pamphlet, and filled with the same Rhetoric and Polemic standards. "Vote For Me because my opponent worships Satan and Eats Babies" comes to mind.<br /> <br /><br />It may not be a Popular thing to think about, and certainly I'll have another round of "Your a Communist" for denying the underlying premise of the Revolution despite the fact that Communism itself emerges from a Revolution and is based on the same basic principles, but I don't think I am going to sit here and unquestioningly agree that the king had become a Tyrant and it was thus right for the Colonists to break off from him. Exactly why should I? Because the Rebels themselves said so?ZAROVEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17668854596329493360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8294304458677955232.post-73692749460233467112010-08-18T12:06:54.388-07:002010-08-18T12:06:54.388-07:00ZAROVE, Enola & all:
May I try to clarify the...ZAROVE, Enola & all:<br /><br />May I try to clarify the controversy ?<br /><br />Your quote by CS Lewis was on the mark: if men cease to honor a King, they will revere some other authority in his place - a celebrity, a congressman, a rock star, or a shallow, but charismatic president.<br /><br />So the issue then, isn't <br /><br />'Will we have a King ?', as much as: <br /><br />"What (or whom) shall we have as King ?"<br /><br />Can we agree on that ?<br /><br />Keep in mind, the Colonists - reading the Declaration of Independence, for context - didn't deny the King's right to be King - their specific complaint was he, by his usurpation of God given rights, had by his many unlawful actions become "unfit to be a ruler of a Free People."<br /><br />In short, the King must be a Righteous King, to be a 'fit ruler of a Free People.'<br /><br />That was their standard, and the King George III of England, had violated it willfully & repeatedly.<br /><br />ZAROVE, are you in agreement on this Principle ?<br /><br />I sure can't speak for Enola - the hostess of this blog & author of this post, "Loyalist or Patriots ?" but my sense is that this essential point the post makes -<br /><br />"When the government disregards the Law, the Patriot must disregard the government."<br /><br />The colonists would simply have rendered it:<br /><br />"When the King (repeatedly, willfully) disregards the Law, the Patriot must disregard the King."<br /><br />For Christ & Liberty, <br /><br />Samuel Adams, Jr.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8294304458677955232.post-48793737841608034862010-08-18T11:25:59.928-07:002010-08-18T11:25:59.928-07:00SORRY but, I also just thought of this minor probl...SORRY but, I also just thought of this minor problem. A lot of you seem to think calling me a Communist or Socialist makes a good deal of Sense, as I am a Loyalist. The Author of this blog likely agrees. But in addition to how absurd this is considering what Communists believe in, one other minor point emerges. Communism is Revolutionary. I am a Reactionary. Perhaps the blog owner will look that word up in the Dictionary, along with Revolutionary.<br /><br />Marx taught that the Proletariat had to rise up against the Oppressive Borsuasie, and seize power by force of arms. In order to create the Socialist Government, and eventual Communism that would naturally result when we overthrew the ruling elite, there had to be a Revolution.<br /><br />Marx believed the Kings of the Earth and the Aristocracies had to be cast down. To him, the Capitalists were no different than the Lords. They were wealthy men who had power over other men because of the wealth they had accumulated. To him, this Power, which extended into Politics, was just as wrong as the fact that they were allowed to horde wealth by exploiting others. <br /><br />So, to have a Just society, the Ruling Elites would be overthrown, and the wealth seize din the name of the People.<br /><br />To think of the Loyalists of the 18th Century as the same as Communists and Socialists today, you’d have to take forces opposed to Revolution and say they are the same as those who want Revolution, which is Logically inconsistent. The Loyalists were not Communists, and a Monarchist today can’t by definition be.<br /><br /><br />Does that sound like the position of a Reactonary? Does that sound like the Loyalists of 1776? They opposed “Change we can believe in”, and sought to preserve their way of life. They were conservatives. They bore no ill will against those in Authority, and in fact sought to preserve their Traditions and way of life.<br /><br /><br />Refusing to fight a revolution, or joining the armed forces to quell rebellion, is not the Antithesis of Patriotism, it is an example of it, and in this way, the Loyalists were themselves Patriots. The only reasons we refer to the American Revolutionaries as Patriots are because they called themselves patriots, and because they won. Had they lost, we’d think of them not as Valiant Patriots fighting for their country, but as traitors to their country who tried to seize power for themselves. Then people like me would have to dispel the same myths only in reverse about their motives and what caused them to do as they did.<br /><br />Its not that they were the only ones in this war with true Patriotic Sentiment, and that the Loyalist only loved Government and not their country, its that the Patriot movement used the Country as a rallying point. It was impossible to use anything else as they were rebelling against Parliament an this had already turned into a full scale rebellion against the whole Government including the King.<br /><br />They could no longer rally behind both King and Country, but still wee able to claim to rally behind “Their Country”. In the same way, the <i>real</i> Second American Revolution did in 1861.<br /><br />The Civil War, by the way, was the real Second American revolution. Southerners rallied behind their Country. You can hear them say this explicitly on Youtube if you listen to the Confederate Battle Anthem. “South men hear your country callin’, up lest worse than death befall ye, to arms, to arms, to arms for Dixie”.<br /><br />They were secessionists. They wanted to break from the evil, tyrannical Government in Washington, DC, and from the Despotic Tyrant Abraham Lincoln. If your not use to Lincoln the Great hero being called a Tyrant, and if you’d protest this, then consider how the British Loyalists would feel against the so-called Tyrant King George the Third.ZAROVEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17668854596329493360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8294304458677955232.post-8498636537021901122010-08-17T17:28:55.733-07:002010-08-17T17:28:55.733-07:00One Last, Dennis, most Monarchies ae not British, ...One Last, Dennis, most Monarchies ae not British, and even the British Monarhcy dopesn't derive from King Arthur. The Preasent Monarhy came about as a result of a long series of exchanges of Power. The Present Hanovarian Dynasty rules because of the events of the last part of the 17th century and firts part of the 18th.<br /><br />All that said, consider this, you claim rightful powr is derived form the Masses. I ask Why? Does this mean Majority Rule? if so, if the only Legitimate Claim to rule is Majority Vote, then we must conclude the Majoriry is usually right, which its not. You shoudl bow to Obama which you dont. Populism is only your voice when you get your own way, and te Masses turn on eaxhch other easily.<br /><br />Meanwhile, thinklign of ourselves in such grand terms we reject others who disagree Politically and create not but strife. We are Barbarians who fancy ourselves Princes when we're really just a Horde.<br /><br />There is no Logic to Majority Rule.ZAROVEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17668854596329493360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8294304458677955232.post-58600985225811614162010-08-17T13:32:27.654-07:002010-08-17T13:32:27.654-07:00All that said, I also believe that people should h...All that said, I also believe that people should have unqualified right over their own property, including the abolition of Property Taxation. People should have the absolute right over that which is their own, and be able to control it. I believe all Speech restrictions should be stricken down, and I believe that people should have the right to their own Business and associations. I don’t see how all this makes me a Socialist.<br /><br />Can anyone explain this reasonably?<br /><br />That said, why is it that you think Obama and his followers can rightly be associated with those how remained Loyal to the King in 1776 when they, like me, rejected the Populism that made him what he is today? it’s not like I supported Obama. But you did, implicitly, by supporting a system of Governance that sets at variance all of society in order to create endless strife and division, so as to make them easier to control and less likely to rebel. This is madness.<br /><br />Elections are by nature Divisive, and ungodly.<br /><br />By the way,. Chesterton was a Monarchist, so quoting him to get at me makes no sense either. May as well Quote Lord Acton. Paine rejected Christ, though, so is it really the godly Christian who cites him and his words?<br /><br />That said, you also show how godly you are by your insults to me. You are willing to lie about me too. Does God say it is proper to curse our Enemies, to lie about their beliefs, and to harbour such bitterness? Thomas Jefferson did, but Hatred, anger, and revilement is not of God.<br /><br />It is written that we should Love even our Enemies, and it is written that we should only be Truthful, and to be wise, and to get all sides. This is something none of you will do, for you are too tied up with your own interests and the love of your own heart to seek Truth, Wisdom, or the will of God, which also confirms the Scriptures.<br /><br /> A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself.- Proverbs 18:2ZAROVEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17668854596329493360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8294304458677955232.post-38287380305999795952010-08-17T13:30:29.404-07:002010-08-17T13:30:29.404-07:00IF we love Quotes so much, why not this one from C...IF we love Quotes so much, why not this one from C. S. Lewis.<br /><br />“Monarchy can easily be debunked, but watch the faces, mark well the debunkers. These are the men whose taproot in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire mere equality they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.”<br /><br /><br />Saying I am a Socialist and a Communist may make you feel good, but like the Author of this blog, and like the people on WND who nowadays find it Fashionable to contrast today’s Struggle to the Past Revolution for Emotional Reasons rather than Reason, what your saying makes no sense. How can I be a Socialist or Communist if I am a Monarchist? You do realise that, even if you see them both as Great Evils, they aren’t’t Compatible Philosophies. One believes in the Establishment of a Class system, relies upon Tradition, and is designed around Ancient Rights and Duty to God. The other is about rejection God in Favour of the rule of men, about Abolishing all Class distinctions, and about the abolition of Tradition in the name of Endless Progress. You cannot simultaneously be a Traditionalist and a Progressive, and you cannot simultaneously claim all men are Equals and there shall be no distinction, and want a society broken into Lords and Commons. This makes no sense whatsoever.<br /><br />I am not a Socialist. I don’t believe in Wealth Redistribution. I don’t believe in Equality, Fraternity, Liberty as the French Revolution taught, nor even the American. I see only a Divided Society as a Result of our Republicanism, and as Plato wrote long ago, Republics deteriorate into Democracies. Obama is still the result of an election, still produced by the Constitution, and still ultimately came to power base don Populism. If I were as you said, I would support him of course, but I’d speak of Democracy lovingly not in a condemnatory way.<br /><br />Instead, I oppose not only Obama but the entire process that brought him about. HOW can you honestly say that I am like Obama then when I am basically saying he has no legitimacy to be President?ZAROVEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17668854596329493360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8294304458677955232.post-89897583487222898542010-08-17T09:57:10.282-07:002010-08-17T09:57:10.282-07:00“The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder...“The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout, “Save Us!”….and I’ll look down and whisper, “No”<br />- The Watchmen<br /><br />“One man with courage makes a majority.” <br />- Andrew Jackson<br /><br />First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;<br />Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;<br />Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;<br />Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;<br />Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.<br />- Pastor Martin Niemöller<br /><br />“Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable.” <br />- G.K. Chesterton<br /><br />“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.” <br />- G.K. Chesterton<br /><br /> Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.<br />- G.K. Chesterton<br /><br />The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry. <br />- Thomas Paine<br /><br />“It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its government.” <br />- Thomas Paine<br /><br />And that is all I have to say.Robnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8294304458677955232.post-7585870248639402822010-08-17T07:49:56.249-07:002010-08-17T07:49:56.249-07:00Oh, king eh? Very nice. And how'd you get that...Oh, king eh? Very nice. And how'd you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers. By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society.<br /><br />Strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. <br /><br />You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you. <br /><br />If I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away.Dennisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8294304458677955232.post-15333486840129309322010-08-17T04:55:13.869-07:002010-08-17T04:55:13.869-07:00It is nice to see other Patriots posts even among ...It is nice to see other Patriots posts even among Loyalists.<br />VETTOM III<br />we are everywhereAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com