Freedom Folks

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Stolen Land?

One of our oldest blogpals dropped something well worth your while in comments. You'll be shocked to learn that Hannitized is still seeking to reveal me as the big lying-liar-poopie pants he just knows I must be, and frankly it must be true, after all, I love this country and her people, if there's a more damning indictment in the Big H's world I am currently unaware of what that might possibly be.

In this comment Katie's Dad performs a surgical takedown on several nonsensical comments left by our bestest pal and illuminates a point Stan was making quite admirably all on his own beautifully. Oh how I wish I could talk KD into leaving his life of high quality Wordpress blogs, dancing squirrels and song to write on this moron blog, but I know he has to be free, cuz the caged dude don't sing.

Without further ado I give you....
I'm going to rephrase what Stan wrote to make a point:

OK, let’s all get off all of the “stolen” land in the world! What fun! If the “stolen land” criteria prohibits any nation from having a right to establish and maintain sovereignty over some defined territory, then we must follow the concept, reductio ad absurdum. See y'all in the land between the Tigris and Euphrates; bring heavy weapons, I hear it's not a pleasant place for the unarmed these days.

Let me deconstruct this "logic" a bit more so we can get beyond discussing this "noble savage" crap. Bestowing some contrary-to-human-nature nobility on illegal aliens is the only way in which a proponent of reconquista can truly argue. The La Raza premise is a weak logical fallacy. For how does the conquest of the Americas differ from the way in which all peoples of the era treated other, strange cultures when they came across them? More specifically, how does this differ from the way in which many of the supposedly "indigenous" tribes, our cowboy-western-idealized noble savages, treated those they encountered here when they arrived?

Of course, nobody can get beyond evidence-based conjecture regarding the details, but it is certain that those we call "indigenous" were actually subject to the whims of human nature! Oh my! I know it's shocking for some to consider that those they hold in higher esteem than "other mere humans" displaced, killed, absorbed, enslaved and sometimes even made sacrificial objects of those they came across who were "different." It is asinine to posit that a continent the size of ours went totally unvisited and uninhabited by humans who had mastered travel during the 30 to 50 thousand years before the "Injuns" came here. Kennewick Man is a good thing to consider, as are some decidedly aboriginal-looking remains in lower South America (and some European looking ones too).

Those who claim the "right" of any "indigenous" person to violate any nation's sovereignty because he or she shares some genetic traits of those who merely happened to be the reigning champions of the Continental Game of Survivor circa 1492 are disingenuous asshats. They live in denial of all that surely went on for tens of thousands of years before any colonization of the Western Hemisphere by Europeans.

To wrap this up, the idea of such a thing as a nation-state is still a new organizational phase in the natural path of human nature. Whether it is a higher purpose, the highest purpose, or merely a waystation for man to deal with the complexities of this earth for the time being, the nation reigns today. So, in this nation we call the United States of America, nothing matters in the debate over immigration except our laws, the state of our culture and our sovereignty. It has been so in our nation since 1776. What we have is truly "ours." We The People, citizens, have the right, every right and are the only ones possessing the right to decide exactly who we allow to enter our home, who gets to stay and who must leave. Those are the rules. Those who don't like it can pound sand.

As a final note, every attempt to strictly apply today's mores to past events, whether noble or regrettable, rises to a level no higher than the nonsense of milquetoast straw-man argumentative fallacy. If you can't come up with something more significant than judging from some lofty leftist perch, you won't gain any traction except among those who are as sophomoric and deluded as yourselves.
If you care to subject yourself to The Big H's blithering it can be

As always, thanks KD!

And if you think I'm being hard on our sweet little troll? I know he keeps saying he wants to debate things rationally? Let me remind you of one of his first comments to me which placed him firmly in the assclown category...
How stupid are you? I would say extremely stupid.
That seem like the set-up for fruitful dialog? Yeah, me either. Of course he did say...
You don't have any idea who your fucking with.
Sure I do Big H, an over sized ego with very little real world experience and poor debate skills, I would wager that you have soft, tender girl hands. But I could be wrong, nah, I'm never wrong about this stuff!

Technorati Tags: , , ,