I have been wandering about the web, and scribbling away. I was over at CHICAGO BOYZ [despite the name, it is an excellent economics and politics blog that is Moonbat-free] and the subject under discussion was the level of division in our country and whether the current media/political jihad against Sarah Palin can be compared to the media/political jihad against Pym Fortune in the Netherlands that led to his assassination [to the quiet joy of the Dutch media and the Dutch political establishment]. For those not familiar with him, he was a rich, openly gay, entrepreneur whose political party had as its main point that Muslim immigrants into the Netherlands would have to accommodate themselves to, and assimilate into, Dutch society, and not the other way around.
His being gay was not a problem in the Netherlands [except, not surprisingly to Muslims who today attack open gays on the streets there]; but the idea of placing the Muslims under the same laws and requirements as everyone else in the country was heresy to both Muslims and the Dutch ‘Pierre Laval-ist’ political class. His party, List Pym Fortune, was expected to become at the very least a major force in their Parliament in the upcoming election, and it was possible that they could become the largest party, giving him a shot at being prime minister. Only a shot, mind you, because they have a LOT of parties over there and almost all governments are coalitions.
His witnessed and confessed killer, Volkert van der Graf, was a Leftist. Supposedly, his thing was animal rights activism; but there were reports [not followed up on] that he was a recent convert to Islam. In the first day of his trial, he openly declared that one of the reasons he killed Fortune was to protect Muslims. Threatened Political Classes, regardless of ideologies, will gladly cross party lines to suppress threats to their access to the public trough. Thus LC Gunsniper’s comment in the previous thread,
perhaps they’re hoping the donk’s will take care of their “Mama Grizzly” problem for them?
Part of the discussion [my part included] was over the question of exactly how divided we were in this country. That, of course, has a bearing on how we will react to the Tucson shooting and its aftermath; and any further incidents either from the Political Class or from the Patriot side. [and no, I have no pretense as to neutrality here, and I suspect that applies to most of us here].
I was going to post this yesterday, but then I saw His Majesty’s birthday post. My namesake was a crafty bugger indeed. And I am not stupid enough to push His Majesty’s birthday celebration down the front page until after he put his own post out that does so. Unlike my namesake, I cannot add a country to the Empire as a birthday present, so I am going to keep a much lower profile.
The delay actually came out for the best. I will end with a more recent quote from one of the CHICAGO BOYS who gives one of the best practical political statements as to why we cannot back off if we are to restore America.
For some time I have been positing that we are in fact two hostile nations inside one geographical entity. Leaving aside the traditional marker of ethnic homogeneity as inapplicable to what has for centuries been the world melting pot [discounting that factor emphasizes the relative importance of differences in what remains]; nationality can be considered as being to a great extent defined as a common language, a common culture, a common history, a common view of how the nation stands relative to the rest of the world, and a common piece of territory viewed as a homeland. This may not be all-inclusive, but I think it covers a majority of the ground.
One of the things that differentiate not only what [for lack of a more concise term] can be called the Left -v- Right but also the Political Class [of both parties] from the mass of the population is that we are using the same words in English, but we assign vastly different meanings to them. Further, it is a hallmark of the Left and the Political Class that everything is relative and there are no set truths or meanings. The Left takes this the farthest with their insistence that meanings are just “constructs” and each is equally valid. And that facts are only valid when they support their construct. If there is no agreement on the basic meanings of words or what is a fact, there is no common language.
The Left and the Political Class draw their cultural basis from modern Europe’s Socialist movements from 1848 on, with deeper roots in Plato’s writings [Plato, with his view of "Philosopher Kings" was a totalitarian elitist] and the “rationalist” Philosophes of the French Revolutionary era. The mass of Americans still draw their culture from the Judeo-Christian tradition. The contempt between the two is palpable and is on the verge of hatred. That, incidentally, is not the sole cultural divide. The very founding of our country divided in great part along the lines of the English Civil War of the 1640′s [Look at the colonial names, north and south. The southern colonies were largely named for Brit kings and queens. Northern colonies had non-royalist names; reflecting the ideology and origins of the settlers.] The English Civil War itself ['Cavaliers' -v- 'Roundheads'] reflected in part the ongoing cultural split between the Celtic peoples and the Anglo-Saxons in Britain.
We no longer have a common history, because each side views the events of our history through very different lenses. The Left and the Political Classes tending to something akin to Dialectic Materialism, while the mass of the country [or at least those who have any knowledge of history in these debased times] tend to more traditional views. n.b.- I do Living History re-enacting presentations for schools, and I may be prejudiced about the level of knowledge.
The two versions of history do not match up or get along well; which leads to a conflict over the view of the place in the world. It may be summed up as the traditional view of what is called “American Exceptionalism” and that the existence of America is a net positive for the world. The Left and the Political Classes tend to view American Exceptionalism as a deliberate lie, and that the existence of the US is neither a benefit to the world nor a good thing. In fact, the Left and the Political Classes tend to consider the US to be a force for evil and in need of being subdued by foreign influences if not destroyed.
This contributes to a difference in views about the piece of territory we both occupy. The mass of the American people lean to the traditional concept of national sovereignty of our laws within our borders and American control of the American side of those borders. While they are more than willing to welcome immigrants, they want those immigrants to be admitted under our own laws, requirements, and with the plain intent that they become Americans and not permanent resident foreigners. The Left and Political Classes favor more supra-national restrictions on the US and believe that our borders are inconvenient fictions. And that foreigners who come here are to a great extent exempt from the requirements of our laws, but deserve all the benefits of them, at Americans’ expense.
Looking at that; we are in fact two separate, ultimately incompatible nations within one set of borders. This is not a stable condition.
I would note that unlike the events of the 1770′s and 1850′s-65; the obvious geographical splits are not along state boundaries. There is a divide between the coasts and the midlands, and most especially along the lines of urban -v- rural. Many so-called “Blue” [Leftist-Democrat] states are really a case of a few urban areas overwhelming the votes of everywhere else. In Lame Duck tax raising Illinois, I understand that the Democrat governor won 3 counties … out of 102. This has important and dire implications for the future too.
Given these, I would not be at all surprised to see the Left/Political Classes engage in deliberate, premeditated violence against Conservatives, the TEA Party, or any other apostates against the almighty State. And because I am cynical, and understand that those of both wings of the Political Class who believe in Hofstadter’s [Richard Hofstadter's classic 1964 essay, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics"] formulation [the American right was psychologically dangerous and undeserving of holding authority for any public purpose] do not regard their enemies as either fully human or equal citizens; I do not rule out the possibility that such acts may be by an organized group, private or …. official. I am not sanguine about the results.
Now, as promised, the reason we cannot let up. Shannon Love from CHICAGO BOYZ.
The Hypocritical Civility of Power
Posted by Shannon Love on January 16th, 2011 (All posts by Shannon Love)
Why is the left hypocritically pushing so hard for “civility” in our political discourse? Why did they try to use the Tuscon shootings to suppress the passionate expression of non-leftists?
I think the answer is simple: Passionate, sometimes even inflammatory, expression is the tool of the revolutionary not the establishment and today, leftists are the establishment.
Those firmly established within the halls of power speak with calm gravitas because they have no need to stir people into action. Indeed, they wish the opposite, they want the people to slip into apathy so that the those in power can govern as they wish. They do not have to motivate supporters with the hope of future benefits. Using the power of the state, they can provide their supporters with immediate real benefits.
Those outside the halls of power need to stir people into action. They need people to rise out apathy and work hard for a change in power. Those outside the halls of power cannot immediately reward their supporters. They can only offer the hope of future benefits. They offer hope by using passionate rhetoric to paint an emotive vision of a better world. Passionate expression is the primary tool for those seeking to upset the establishment.
Forty years ago, the left were the outsiders seeking to impose a collectivist vision on America. Back then, the left supported all free speech no matter how extreme. They succeeded all too well and the leftist leaders of today were the vitriolic outsiders of the 70s. Now that they are the establishment, they want everything cool and calm. They want the people passive.
Right now, the Tea Party represents the uprising of the long marginalized American middle-class against the leftist’s establishment. The Tea Party uses the most impassioned expression today because they are the political outsiders. The Tea Party has to phrase its political discourse in intense and passionate terms because they must motivate the people to rise from apathy and take action.
Don’t fall for the left’s hypocritical and opportunistic sudden discovery for the need for civil discourse. We live today in a looking glass world in which those who call themselves “progressives” fight for the past and established policies while those who call themselves “conservatives” fight for the future and innovation.
If you are fighting for the future, be unashamedly passionate.
Passion. Dedication. Lives, Fortunes, Sacred Honor.
LC Subotai Bahadur, Lord Pao An