Epiphany of a Patriot

One Disenfranchised and Disgusted Ex-Patriot | March 6th, 2005 | Marc Snider

[JasonC]

"The whole world falling apart, and all you can think about is your own feeling. You are a coward and weak." Ilsa

"Look I'm not any good at being noble, but it doesn't take much to see that the troubles of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. Someday you'll understand that." Rick

Um, she already did...

[Diana in Wisconsin]

"I used to be a patriot."

Zzzz. Blue Stater. I stopped reading right there. Have a Nice Day. :)

[sdpatriot]

i disagree. where does he say/imply that the the Gvt is supposed to take care of his problems?

if you think father's rights mean crap in most courts, your mistaken. like many Patriotic Americans he's been hammered down by the Judicial system that he once believed was there for "justice". i know way too many cases/people who have seen what the courts have become. people really need to educate themselves on this. it's about money, power, fraternity of lawyers, local mafia type DA- Judge - etc. you will only "get it" when you see it happen your self. you'd think the last UNjust UNConstitutional ruling by the SCOTUS we be a big clue.

[sdpatriot]

the thing is Marc, those who still believe in the Constitution as it was wrote and the BoR and the original intent of the Writers ARE the Patriots. don't call your self "ex-patriot" others who would let those Rights be usurped have stolen the title "patriot". Patrick Henry was a true Patriot - not the nasty over paid lawyers and the power mad men in black robes, nor those who turn a willing blind eye to the facts.

my brother in law lost everything fighting for partial custody. i know where you're coming from.

[JasonC]

I will attempt the cure. It may not help you, but others may at least see what is happening. If it does help, all the better. Briefly, you should be patriotic because it is not a matter of the perfection of the thing loved, but a transcendent tie of loyalty, that sees clearly all the faults of the country, and wants to change them precisely because of that transcendent tie.

A wiser man explains -

"The point is not that this world is too sad to love or too glad not to love; the point is that when you do love a thing, its gladness is a reason for loving it, and its sadness a reason for loving it more. All optimistic thoughts about England and all pessimistic thoughts about her are alike reasons for the English patriot. Similarly, optimism and pessimism are alike arguments for the cosmic patriot.

Let us suppose we are confronted with a desperate thing -- say Pimlico. If we think what is really best for Pimlico we shall find the thread of thought leads to the throne or the mystic and the arbitrary. It is not enough for a man to disapprove of Pimlico: in that case he will merely cut his throat or move to Chelsea. Nor, certainly, is it enough for a man to approve of Pimlico: for then it will remain Pimlico, which would be awful.

The only way out of it seems to be for somebody to love Pimlico: to love it with a transcendental tie and without any earthly reason. If there arose a man who loved Pimlico, then Pimlico would rise into ivory towers and golden pinnacles; Pimlico would attire herself as a woman does when she is loved.

If men loved Pimlico as mothers love children, arbitrarily, because it is theirs, Pimlico in a year or two might be fairer than Florence. Some readers will say that this is a mere fantasy. I answer that this is the actual history of mankind. This, as a fact, is how cities did grow great.

Go back to the darkest roots of civilization and you will find them knotted round some sacred stone or encircling some sacred well. People first paid honour to a spot and afterwards gained glory for it. Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.

Let us reiterate for an instant that the only right optimism is a sort of universal patriotism. What is the matter with the pessimist? I think it can be stated by saying that he is the cosmic anti-patriot. And what is the matter with the anti-patriot? I think it can be stated, without undue bitterness, by saying that he is the candid friend. And what is the matter with the candid friend? There we strike the rock of real life and immutable human nature. I venture to say that what is bad in the candid friend is simply that he is not candid. He is keeping something back -- his own gloomy pleasure in saying unpleasant things. He has a secret desire to hurt, not merely to help.

This is certainly, I think, what makes a certain sort of anti-patriot irritating to healthy citizens. I do not speak (of course) of the anti-patriotism which only irritates feverish stockbrokers and gushing actresses; that is only patriotism speaking plainly. A man who says that no patriot should attack the Boer War until it is over is not worth answering intelligently; he is saying that no good son should warn his mother off a cliff until she has fallen over it.

But there is an anti-patriot who honestly angers honest men, and the explanation of him is, I think, what I have suggested: he is the uncandid candid friend; the man who says, "I am sorry to say we are ruined," and is not sorry at all.

And he may be said, without rhetoric, to be a traitor; for he is using that ugly knowledge which was allowed him to strengthen the army, to discourage people from joining it. Because he is allowed to be pessimistic as a military adviser he is being pessimistic as a recruiting sergeant. Just in the same way the pessimist (who is the cosmic anti-patriot) uses the freedom that life allows to her counsellors to lure away the people from her flag.

Granted that he states only facts, it is still essential to know what are his emotions, what is his motive. It may be that twelve hundred men in Tottenham are down with smallpox; but we want to know whether this is stated by some great philosopher who wants to curse the gods, or only by some common clergyman who wants to help the men.

The evil of the pessimist is, then, not that he chastises gods and men, but that he does not love what he chastises -- he has not this primary and supernatural loyalty to things.

What is the evil of the man commonly called an optimist? Obviously, it is felt that the optimist, wishing to defend the honour of this world, will defend the indefensible. He is the jingo of the universe; he will say, "My cosmos, right or wrong." He will be less inclined to the reform of things; more inclined to a sort of front-bench official answer to all attacks, soothing every one with assurances. He will not wash the world, but whitewash the world.

We say there must be a primal loyalty to life: the only question is, shall it be a natural or a supernatural loyalty? If you like to put it so, shall it be a reasonable or an unreasonable loyalty?

Now, the extraordinary thing is that the bad optimism (the whitewashing, the weak defence of everything) comes in with the reasonable optimism. Rational optimism leads to stagnation: it is irrational optimism that leads to reform.

Let me explain by using once more the parallel of patriotism. The man who is most likely to ruin the place he loves is exactly the man who loves it with a reason. The man who will improve the place is the man who loves it without a reason.

If a man loves some feature of Pimlico (which seems unlikely), he may find himself defending that feature against Pimlico itself. But if he simply loves Pimlico itself, he may lay it waste and turn it into the New Jerusalem. I do not deny that reform may be excessive; I only say that it is the mystic patriot who reforms.

Mere jingo self-contentment is commonest among those who have some pedantic reason for their patriotism. The worst jingoes do not love England, but a theory of England. If we love England for being an empire, we may overrate the success with which we rule the Hindoos. But if we love it only for being a nation, we can face all events: for it would be a nation even if the Hindoos ruled us.

The same women who are ready to defend their men through thick and thin are (in their personal intercourse with the man) almost morbidly lucid about the thinness of his excuses or the thickness of his head. A man's friend likes him but leaves him as he is: his wife loves him and is always trying to turn him into somebody else. Women who are utter mystics in their creed are utter cynics in their criticism.

The devotee is entirely free to criticise; the fanatic can safely be a sceptic. Love is not blind; that is the last thing that it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound the less it is blind.

This at least had come to be my position about all that was called optimism, pessimism, and improvement. Before any cosmic act of reform we must have a cosmic oath of allegiance. A man must be interested in life, then he could be disinterested in his views of it. "My son give me thy heart"; the heart must be fixed on the right thing: the moment we have a fixed heart we have a free hand.

For our Titanic purposes of faith and revolution, what we need is not the cold acceptance of the world as a compromise, but some way in which we can heartily hate and heartily love it. We do not want joy and anger to neutralize each other and produce a surly contentment; we want a fiercer delight and a fiercer discontent. We have to feel the universe at once as an ogre's castle, to be stormed, and yet as our own cottage, to which we can return at evening. No one doubts that an ordinary man can get on with this world: but we demand not strength enough to get on with it, but strength enough to get it on. Can he hate it enough to change it, and yet love it enough to think it worth changing? Can he look up at its colossal good without once feeling acquiescence? Can he look up at its colossal evil without once feeling despair? Can he, in short, be at once not only a pessimist and an optimist, but a fanatical pessimist and a fanatical optimist? Is he enough of a pagan to die for the world, and enough of a Christian to die to it?

In this combination, I maintain, it is the rational optimist who fails, the irrational optimist who succeeds. He is ready to smash the whole universe for the sake of itself."

- GK Chesterton, "The Flag of the World", Orthodoxy chapter 5

[nhman1]

And, by the way, I will still do everything in my power to support the family law debacle in that is tearing the country apart at its very foundation. Until such time as that happens, though, the rest is nothing but lip service. Now back onto your high horses and into battle with the forces of darkness overseas... If you *real* patriots are still reading... {raspberry sound}

Marc

---

Dear legislator,

I am horrified to learn that Congress is considering spending my tax dollars to promote marriage.

I insist that you OPPOSE ALL MARRIAGE PROMOTION programs currently being considered as part of Welfare (TANF) reform.

These programs represent an APPALLING act of government intrusion into one of the most personal and private decisions a person makes. Not
only that, but with our current budget crisis, spending $1.5 billion on unproven marriage programs is just not fiscally responsible.

They also put parents and children's lives at risk. Many who receive welfare support are victims of domestic violence or who have made allegations to that effect. You should be providing victims with support to escape and recover from abuse, not incentives to stay in unsafe relationships.

Instead of spending money to promote marriage, you should ESTABLISH EQUAL PARENTING as the law of the land. Quit making fathers into wage slaves under the guise of a noncustodial parent. Quit teaching women to make babies to collect a welfare dollar and subvert and extort a dad. Invest in education, training, child-care, domestic violence, mental health and substance abuse services – programs which are known to help lift people out of poverty and help them become self-sufficient.

Please DO NOT SUPPORT any marriage promotion programs.

Instead, I urge you to support the following measures, which will help women become self-sufficient.

1. Tell any mother or father applying for benefits that equal access of the child for the other parent shall be first considered. Benefits shall then be based on the individual, since the child will receive equal care from each and both parents.

2.Provide Federal tax deductions to each and both parents for the monies they spend raising their children no matter where that child sleeps.

Please visit www.nhfamilylawreform.org for an education on just what is wrong with current family law policy and how it is causing the associated breakdown of the American institutions of Marriage and Family, thus endangering the entirety of American society. Once you understand the real issues I am confident you will become a staunch
supporter of the real reforms that are necessary. It is not rocket science, but you must pay attention to the true underlying issues if your powerful voice is to help facilitate reconciliation of the massive family problems we have in this country. The federal and state governments in this country have incentivized American divorce to the point where it has become an irresistible force that will never be bandaged away. The foundation needs to be fixed and the incentives removed.

Rome did not fall in a day. Please do what you can to prevent the slide of America toward the destiny of Rome...

Sincerely,
Marc Snider
Merrimack, NH

[Alberta's Child]

I don't know about this particular case, but there is an underlying issue in this country that flies in the face of "patriotism" in any form. To be blunt about it, the U.S. goes to great lengths to "defend our country" and "promote freedom" around the world, when in fact the government social order we've cultivated right here at home would have been utterly repulsive to people even just one or two generations ago.

[JasonC]

Attacking patriotism is not going to get you any support for your little crusade. If you tell me you don't care about America, I can tell you I won't care about anything you propose for her. Why would I listen to someone who starts by claiming he isn't seeking my country's good?

[WhirlwindAttack]

Yeah I got hosed too, but I'm still fighting the good fight.

[ApesForEvolution]

All the while, in the years subsequent to my divorce and unwanted separation from my daughter, I was being dragged through the family law system in the state of NH. I don't bring up NH in particular because it has any significance other than being mine and my daughter's state of residence. I ended up spending over thirty thousand dollars in litigation and GAL expenses trying to stay an integral part of my daughter's life, even as her mother was doing everything within her power to keep us apart (and continues to engage in an attempt to alienate my daughter from me to this day).

>>>

I would never put up with this sh*t. Ever.

[nhman1]

And what would you do? Anger and/or continued legal fighting often begets further constraints in access to your children... Your comments are the puffy-chested stuff from a fictional super-hero comic book and bear no relationship to reality. Thank your lucky stars you've never come face to face with the truth.

[ApesForEvolution]

My children are MY children.

Capiche?

Mess with that concept and people die. Period, paragraph and End of Story.

[nhman1]

Yeah, and no wonder she does everything in her power to keep my daughter from me and my daughter's grandmother and undermine both of those relationships too... I bet you'll have a good comeback to rationalize that as well, huh?

Geez, are you a perfessional (sic) psychologist or something. With patriots and intelligentsia like yourself you guys don't need a low-life no-fault-divorce-worthy fit but-less-than-fit parent like me on your side...

I await breathlessly further enlightment so I can learn to express myself in as concise and noteworthy a manner as yourself. And a speedy end toward your own faultless, but encumbered, destroyed relationship with your children. Hip hip hooray...

[ApesForEvolution]

You are a loon...wadr.

[nhman1]

Don't care. Been ignored by better than the likes of you, frankly, in state government, federal government, and the child welfare industry. Money talks in this country and that's why the billion and a half toward the preservation of marriage will be flushed down the toilet in desperate attempt to bandage the scathing American family wound with a band-aid the size of pinhead.

When the emperor has no clothes (read: American freedom) I'll be damned if I'll purport to defend his fabulous wardrobe. You go ahead though, and tell him I said the girdle looks particularly well-fitting...

[sdpatriot]

>>>....Invest in education, training, child-care, domestic violence, mental health and substance abuse services – programs which are known to help lift people out of poverty and help them become self-sufficient.<<<<

you're kidding right? the fix for this is NOT more Gvt spending - of any kind. the fix is less Gvt meddling and less Gvt programs and less Gvt enforcing of UNconstitutional bull hockey. all the socialist programs you just listed are UN Agendas. so you were correct in asserting you are an ex - patriot. and by the way, if you are convicted of domestic abuse you will never be allowed to own a firearm again under federal law. nice huh? the fix is not more Gvt. it is a matter of someone getting hungry enough to get off their lazy butt and go get a job - that's the best "program" for lifting people out of poverty. that and not to tax them to death when they do go to work, but to let them enjoy the fruits of their labor.

[nhman1]

LOL. Thanks for the entertainment, Einstein. I bet you've got a wall-sized copy of the 14th amendment in your bedroom to work on memorizing each night as you doze off to blissful sleep. Please marry quickly and thank the justice of the peace (or pastor) or whoever the M.C. is from me personally. You deserve no less... :)

Yours is truly a booming voice for freedom... {double raspberry}

[JasonC]

OK. Die and be damned. Simple enough.

[nhman1]

The point was to not make things worse by further supporting legislation to artificially prop up the institution of marriage. Those enumerated programs do indeed work, in my view, to varying degrees and do not contribute to an unequal playing field if administered properly (domestic violence is the big one with a capital PROPERLY). No societal institution can flourish if not on a level playing field...

The point is the presumption of equal parenting rights. The point is the 14th amendment..