Preamble

Had a girlfriend once. For years we associated voluntarily, one with the other. I kept my stuff at her home, and built a nifty walk-in closet for myself outside the master bedroom. Normal relationship bumps were weathered well enough, but there came a time when she wished to be away from me. She asked me to move out, offering to pay for the physical improvements I'd made to her house. I refused to leave. Perhaps I was more belligerent than some, but you must understand that I wanted foremost to keep the relationship intact.

Eventually, after my steadfast denial of her requests that I leave her home, she pulled a gun on me. I grabbed it, knocked her to the floor, pointed the barrel at her head, and fucked her. I then moved into her house permanently. It was my duty to preserve the union, and this I did wholeheartedly and without quarter, for her treason was not to be endured by an honorable man.

Diet Coke, NASCAR, and IRS

Scratch a modern Southerner sporting a Confederate flag, and likely you'll find a simpering faggot enthralled by US federal attachments. The odds are not absolute, but dreadful still. I see no way the beast Lincoln could have triumphed more completely in his vile aim than to have Southerners worshiping the consuming federal state while claiming Confederate heritage.

Does it matter so many years later, discussing the Lincolnian horde? Sadly, yes. Since Lincoln's lie remains the foundation for the modern enemies of American liberty, it must be exposed. The US federal war against independence is as strong and insidious as ever — stronger than in 1861. Slavery has increased and spread to all races, but under a glove velvety enough for fools and cowards. Obedient lethargy will spare you a dreaded fate. This is the modern definition of liberty.

What is slavery? If one has some freedom, is he therefore not a slave? Black slaves in 1800s America were free to sing in the cotton fields. I suppose a man in prison is free to masturbate, to select what cinderblock he'll stare at, and to think. Is he then free? Conversely, if, to avoid kidnapping and imprisonment, you must ask and receive permission from rulers for thousands of normal tasks or occupations, are you not partially enslaved? When does partial slavery warrant an unequivocal label? Because of their regularity, it's too easily ignored that the encroaching constraints of the state come in myriad forms. You can't do X. You must do Y. Party A can't associate with you unless he does Z. And pay, pay, pay. The wealth moves. To whose benefit? The average American feeds over half of his income to the state via taxes and "fees". Lost opportunity, above this 50%+, is incalculable. It is brought by force and the demonstrated threat of it.

You are not a slave? Let a single person shove the same arrangement on you, and you'll cry slavery immediately. The result is no different. If scraps of freedom prevent a "Slave" label, then perhaps the only complete slavery is murder, and one may insist, as fits his argument, that freedom lives if the subject has a pulse and mild-to-active EEG. However, it is any slavery that must be opposed, not any freedom that should be displayed loudly to divert from the obvious. In proud failure, America's befuddled majority calls dwindling opportunity liberty, and slavery the price of this bastardized state. Partial slavery, that kind master kicking the common man for the common good, is extolled for not invading 100% of one's life — the ludicrous, pained excuse of shamed animals bred to captivity and the evasion of reality.

Who owns you?

As many have noted in the welcome trend for historical revision via the internet, describing Lincoln's rampage as "Civil War" is demonstrably wrong, and indicates irredeemable bias. Yet even books supposedly sympathetic to the cause of the South are riddled with this childish error of delusion.

A civil war is one where factions within a country fight for control of that country. Those in the Southern several states, despite their many shortcomings, did not seek control of those who remained in the United States; they withdrew and asked the representatives of the US to leave their newly removed states which were, immediately upon secession, another country. This country was called the Confederate States of America (CSA), and it claimed no US territory outside its borders. It fought only to defend itself from an invading force which would have the land and wealth of others.

The unprecedented mass destruction of the war was initiated by the US in the supposedly noble cause of denying self determination to groups of freeborn men and women in departed, not newly formed and contested, states. The avowed goal of the US was to chain these humans against their will into an association they no longer desired. Given this abominable history (disguised ably for the less adroit by the lie of slavery being at the heart of the war), are you not shocked by the brainwashing executed to associate liberty historically with the US federal government? Did it get you as well? Got me; I didn't know Lincoln was a murderer until my 30s.

Lincoln and the Goons of the North committed the spiritual equivalent of erecting the Berlin Wall, and they are extolled for it even today — a PR coup for the ages, in an alleged enlightened, cynical time. Reading documents from yankee thugs in 1861, you will find regular indignant use of the word "treason", yet it was Lincoln and the goons, not the secessionists, who had broken US law and ruined the United States. The Union was not preserved, for it had been voluntary prior to 1861. Only all parties could have preserved it, and some declined, as was their legal and natural right.

Parallels with the 2003+ invasion and occupation of Iraq run deep. Federal rulers still kill and rampage with sanctimonious impunity, because it's approved by the average American. Regardless of the disaster, it is begun in the name of goodness, and therefore absolved. Popes dream of infallibility approaching that of the federal state and its soldiers. The prevailing premise of US military worship by the cowed populace remains, "If a US soldier pulled the trigger, it was a good kill." (Assuming that rare case where a death is called death, instead of the blanket term that wipes out all sanctioned murder: "service".)

The state is elevated to a dangerous, undeserved position of a religion. However, the state remains only other, usually inferior, men.

Wars of independence

Promulgating or accepting the term "Civil War" presumes multiple parties fighting for the same prize, a handy way to nullify at the outset any consideration of Northern aggression and culpability. However, US forces were fighting for control of the Confederates States of America, while the CSA — separate states from before 1800, and a country outside the US upon secession — were defending from this attack.

These defenders were woefully imperfect, benefiting from and (some of them) aggressing against blacks. The victor-penned "history" of Lincoln's war highlights Southern wrongs against blacks while filtering out a tall pile of similar aggression by Northerners. Slavery, of blacks and whites, was a sin practiced internally by both sides, but invasion of the other's country was exclusive to the North. Southerners, blacks excluded, sought to live on their land and terms, without such crimes as the tariff. This "Leave us alone" declaration was secession, and the US responded to the shunning by executing serial mass murder. Nothing can wash it away.

Strange that so many are confused about this issue of secession and the US constitution, for it's not difficult to assess. As with many objects in US history, the legislative truth is found in the ignored tenth amendment, which asserts that the powers not delegated to the US by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or the people.

Damned simple, if you care to be honest: Secession was not prohibited to the states by the constitution; neither were the US delegated the power to "preserve the Union", by force or even peaceful persuasion. Lincoln and his horde were lawbreakers of the lowest sort — killers in the cause of anti-liberty. Again, Iraq 2003 is a notable repeat. Orwell could not have done better than this vacant "preserve the Union" (now "liberation" and "democracy") slogan under which 600,000+ were slaughtered with a grim smile. Freedom is slavery. Death is preservation.

Real

Death. Murder. Killing. Slaughter. These terms are often ignored as hype when discussing Lincoln's actions. Take a moment, however, to reflect on their rigid accuracy. They are not hype. What a strange thing, perspective. When presented with an isolated atrocity — the stabbing of a tourist, for example — we recoil. When a falsely revered narcissist in a big hat calls for the violent destruction of hundreds of thousands who want only to leave his aggression, he is elevated to a deity. Our reaction to death lessens. What beasts are we to not only fall to this phenomenal lie, but to support it?

Whatever the method of the emboggling, it mustn't be allowed. Lincoln and his idolaters killed and are killing, and any Southerner claiming a rebel heritage while bowing in any way to the federal flag exposes himself as a traitor. Are you a "proud Southerner", no matter your birthplace? Then fuck your "Pledge of Allegiance", your "Support the Troops" magnets, and your Lee Greenwood, Toby Keith masturbatory haze. The spirit of secession and honor is incompatible with these disguised homosexual paraphernalia.

That's twice I've mentioned homosexuality with regard to federal worship. Male supporters of the federal machine are clamoring, under their posing disguises, to be ruled by men. They get off on it, yet consider themselves to be rabidly heterosexual all the while. These farcical swallowers rate themselves and other obedient quacks in proportion to the rapidity with which they kowtow to the demands of other men. They cajole and ostracize those who don't participate in the sick ritual. Coincidence that this type quite reliably bashes homosexuality at every opportunity? Hardly. I am convinced, through observation, intellect, and intuition, that most male federal machinists are — excuse the overused term, for it's wholly applicable here — latent homosexuals, frothing in a sea of psychological projection embarrassing to behold. No wonder the US military is adamantly opposed to homosexuality, for you will find no more intense, collectivist fags. Their homosexuality extends to blood, covering the frankness of erections and grab-assing with jumping on grenades, in the ultimate act of submissiveness to another of the same sex.

Examining the charade with open eyes leaves one preferring the association of flaming drag queens, if only for the honesty. Concerning males, accuracy is not offended by in most cases replacing the word (begin waving flag) "patriot" with "closet homo". Try it. The Closet Homo Act.

[To clarify to those who may have stumbled on this article and are unable to allow rational discussion of homosexuality, I have no problem with overt, or at least benign, homosexuals. I am denouncing those who denounce homosexuality while practicing it. Overt homosexuals, as with many historically oppressed minorities, are rich candidates for a full understanding of the ethics of liberty, and I'm saddened and perplexed how few understand that the primary truncheon on their heads is the state — that entity to which most clamor in vain for relief.]

Losses

Examine "rebellion", a word with negative cultural weight in a society that claims to revere liberty. At the heart of rebellion, assuming one isn't within the term of a voluntary contract, lives the desire to not be ruled by another. Same with the South. The South rebelled against being ruled, and did not extend this into an attempt to rule the North. As noted, the converse didn't hold. Even so, use of "rebellion" in political discussion is often as a pejorative, despite the joist-cracking elephant in the room: By what moral or other authority comes the entity against which party X is rebelling?

The immediate assumption by most in America is that there's something wrong with the rebel. Given America's founding, this is a perverse inversion, of many related to liberty and slavery. As in 2003, US propaganda was successful in the 1860s claiming that an invasion was liberation. Public school drones repeat the lie. I was taught it as well, and my parents allowed it, despite the large portrait over our fireplace of our Confederate States Army ancestor.

Where are the rebels? They have been wiped out, first in the mind, then in life. The noble, defensive being — one who seeks not to rule others, and insists he not be ruled — is pilloried in every way across this land that, sadly, continues to call itself America. This dead America has transplanted the noble, even into the South. Under the skin, most Southerners are worse than yankees. They crow about Confederate blah blah, painting rebel flags on vehicles and T-shirts while crying out for — nay, demanding — subjection by the federal borg. Their ancestors, however imperfect, deserved better than to have begotten such wayward, traitorous filth.

Payment

Why does any of this matter, almost 150 years later? Because the South, while rife with imperfection, was right, and that will never change. More important to us, the position of the former South has never again been so applicable and required as it is today. The events of the 1860s are not removed and anesthetized by time. History has not "come full circle"; the tyranny of Lincoln never left. It was the Southerner's righteous, essential spirit of resistance and independence that was bloodied into absence, buried under a lying grave marked "Rebel Dog".

If you are not a rebel, whose slave are you? In imperfect human society, you must be one or the other if you aren't a ruler. Lincoln's victory was the obscuration of this unpleasant truth.