A short, light read for y’all as I resurface into the blogosphere after a month of hellacious task-mastering. (I expect to be invited to return below depth after this post…)
Crossing the Rubicon
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.
– H. L. Mencken, A Little Book in C major, 1916
If we renew the contract, we will get the same deal – with only one difference. In a second term, he will never answer to you again.
– Congressman Paul Ryan, at the Values Voter Summit, September 14th, 2012, via Paul Ryan to ‘values voters': If Obama wins, there’s no going back
Believe me: If this continues, you’re not going to recognize this country.
– Bill O’Reilly, Fox News, February 15th, 2012, via The Gateway Pundit
On paper, given Obama’s record, this election should be a cakewalk for the Republicans. Why isn’t it? I am afraid the answer may be that the country is closer to the point of no return than most of us believed. With over 100 million Americans receiving federal welfare benefits, millions more going on Social Security disability, and many millions on top of that living on entitlement programs–not to mention enormous numbers of public employees–we may have gotten to the point where the government economy is more important, in the short term, than the real economy. My father, the least cynical of men, used to quote a political philosopher to the effect that democracy will work until people figure out they can vote themselves money. I fear that time may have come.
– John Hinderaker, Why is This Election Close?, September 8th, 2012, via Powerline
Simply put: If Obama wins this November, the Rubicon has been crossed. For such a feat will indicate that the scales of American populace have tipped from the doers, the achievers, the freedom-lovers to that of the moochers, the sheep, and those who espouse the master/slave model of society.
And from here, there is no going back. Not without a fight.
The Primary Decision
Too many conservatives—especially those of esteemed intellect—seem resigned to America’s defeat. I understand all too well the skepticism and the defeatism which plagues our ranks. We are outnumbered, outgunned, out-monied, out-lawyered, out-maneuvered, and far too often out-smarted.
But then, so were the little band of scrappers from the colonies who took on the world’s greatest empire and military power.
As I’ve stated repeatedly, between a choice of dying on my feet or living on my knees, seems to me that the only American option is to die fighting.
In even the dourest of circumstances, I maintain this point of view. I hope you do as well.
Leadership, and the Vacuum Therein
But whom to fight? When to fight? Where to fight? How to fight?
For these answers, we need leadership.
Perhaps more than anything, America needs great leaders once again: men who are not enamored with power and wealth; men who are more concerned with honoring their word and preserving the Constitution than they are being reelected and receiving a government pension; men who really do respect the people that elected them; men who are willing to be unpopular, if that is the cost of honesty and integrity; men who know the difference between the eternal and the temporal; and, yes, men who know the meaning of the word AMERICAN.
– Chuck Baldwin, Is The Day Of Great Leaders Past?, VDare.com, October 7th, 2010
But therein lies the rub. For where have all the leaders gone?
On some deeply instinctual level, most of us—regardless of political views—have a feeling that something, some life force, has gone out of public and private life. What is that force? Leadership.
– Charles A. Coulombe, Where Have All the Leaders Gone?, Taki’s Magazine, September 15th, 2012
The sad answer is: I have no idea where men of stature have retreated. Or perhaps we’ve been so emasculated as a society that we have driven leaders to extinction. I hope this is not the case. I hope out there lie many undiscovered diamonds in the rough, yet to be hewn and polished by the throes of our impending economic, political, and civilizational cataclysm.
Preparing to Be Led
These developments aren’t liberal plots so much as sweeping cultural changes.
– James Poulos, If Obama Wins, The Daily Caller, December 21st, 2011
But if Spengler is to be proved wrong, leaders and led alike must see that full bellies, sated gonads, and endless entertainment are not enough. The codependency of mediocrity between rulers and ruled must be broken. Otherwise the dour comment of Proverbs will be fulfilled once more: “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” Regardless of how leaders ascend to rule, even those with vision are useless if their people do not share it.
– Charles A. Coulombe, Where Have All the Leaders Gone?, Taki’s Magazine, September 15th, 2012
Until a leader emerges, we must at least prepare ourselves to be led. That entails, firstly, garnering a common understanding of what it is that will be required of us when our long-awaited leaders finally emerge.
Far be it for me to assume the capability of enumerating what’s required of us patriots in order to be effective “foot soldiers”. But I’m quite confident that, first and foremost, we must agree on an objective.
And I believe the objective is as follows: to restore the United States as a constitutional republic—not an empire; not a socialist “utopia”; not a client state of international bureaucrats, but a constitutional republic.
And the key elements of this constitutional republic are as follows:
- The protection of and service to individual liberty;
- A strictly limited federal government with only certain, clearly enumerated powers (i.e., abidance to the Constitution’s original intent);
- State sovereignty;
- Equality under the law, regardless of race, religion, color, or sexual orientation;
- Sound fiscal policy;
- Sound immigration policy;
- America and Americans first—and all other nations and peoples subordinate therein.
But how to achieve this objective? For once the Rubicon has been crossed, there will be no way to vote patriots into office. It will be a quick descent into an “Ameritopian” hell from there…unless we find other means of ejecting the traitors from power.
But those in power will not go without a fight. If Obama wins, the only way for patriots to regain the reins of power will be via unrelenting force—though whether that takes the form of violent or non-violent force (mass protests, boycotts, etc.) I cannot say.
What I can say is that this force must focus on all halls of power: government, academia, public education, entertainment media, “journalism”, labor unions, etc.
In other words, I believe the bottom-line that everyone and anyone who considers himself a patriot must agree on is that once it’s clear that the voting public prefers enslavement to freedom, totalitarianism to liberty (i.e., once they re-elect Obama), in order to survive as the great nation we once were, we’ll need to immediately commence a widespread “ideological cleansing” of all the treasonous anti-American zealots in every hall of power—and we must be willing to do this via any means necessary.
And as for their mindless, lazy, flabby, channel-surfing, bread-and-circuses sycophants who enable the traitors’ malfeasance while being simultaneously entranced by it, I believe Samuel Adams said it all:
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
In short: If we are to restore America as a constitutional republic, we must purge our nation of leftists. Whether that means simply “winning hearts and minds”, removing them from power, or somehow physically ridding the nation of their presence, I know not.
Ideological Cleansing Yields Ethnic Cleansing
That said, I suffer no delusions about what an ideological cleansing of leftist/Marxist/Communistic adherents would entail: it would inevitably result in de facto ethnic cleansing.
That is to say, were we to find a means to somehow purge our nation of the traitorous, anti-liberty, anti-law-and-order ideologues of the left judiciously—i.e., purely by an objective measure of individuals’ ideological positions and completely irrespective of one’s race, religion, color, or creed—we would nonetheless be purging large and disproportionate swaths of blacks, Muslims, Hispanics, sexual deviants, and Jews (presumably in that order, from greatest to least proportionate impact).
In the parlance of the left, an ideological purge would have a “disparate impact” upon “protected classes” of U.S. citizens—and therefore, according to twisted leftist “thinking”, evince systemic or “institutional” racism inherent in the “pogrom”, thereby striking it as invalid and evil.
Of course, any “disparate impact” inherent to a purge of perfidy would no more evince racism than does disproportionate black-on-black gun violence demonstrate inherent racism within the gun industry. In reality, like wildly disproportionate incarceration rates of “minorities” (read: NAMs), any “disparate impact” would not be a reflection of racism or any such failing of the system, but rather an appropriately color-blind, and hence equal, application of the law to human subspecies unequal—whether courtesy nature or nurture or some combination thereof—in their general ability to abide by the American charter of self-government, individual liberty, and equality under the law.
Implicit in the above is the notion that somehow [Gentile] whites would be immune from “de facto ethnic cleansing” resulting from an ideological purge of the left. This is not to say there would be no whites subject to the corrective measures of such a purge—far from it. Rather, it means that whites wouldn’t be disproportionately affected.
Why would that be? Simply put, whites are, evidentially, relative to other races and speaking strictly in the political realm, diverse thinkers—and hence fairly proportionately occupy all bands of the political spectrum.
Contrast this with blacks. In a recent poll, some 94% of blacks registered support for Barack Hussein Obama, while registering 0%—zero percent!—for Mitt Romney.
Close behind them are Hispanics who, despite all appearances of being a hard-working lot, still cling bitterly to the “give me handouts/stick-it-to-whitey” brigade known as Democrats.
Ethnosuicide Yields Ideological Cleansing
In other words, unlike whites, the two most proportionately populous voting blocs of the treasonous Democrat Party (blacks and Hispanics) show little, if any, capacity to espouse diversity of political opinion. And given the dearth of intellectual marvels coming from these demographics, one may surmise the bland intellectual uniformity is not limited merely to the political sphere.
Why this last point? Because while one of the key ingredients to the success story known as the United States of America has been the diverse, creative energy released in “we the people” by virtue of a government that was strictly limited, another key ingredient has been the rooting of an overwhelmingly creative, intelligent, self-governing, law-abiding population that would not only guarantee the tenability of limited government, but could also flourish directly as a result.
In a word: whites.
And which demographic has every affirmative action program and diversity initiative had in its crosshairs? Which demographic do our immigration policies dilute most? Which demographic has the lowest birth rates? Which demographic shoulders the heaviest tax burden? Which demographic—and only this demographic, the world over—must accept “diversity” and “open borders” and the happy subjugation of its own culture, land, and political system to third world invaders?
Like it or not, the trend is inevitable: We who stand for limited government and individual liberty either ideologically—and hence, de facto, ethnically—clean house, or we get ethnically—and hence ideologically—cleansed from our own nation.
The latter option has been the left’s pogrom since the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act: Drive whites into minority status, establish a permanent black and brown underclass forever dependent upon an enslaved white working-class minority, and rule despotically from on high.
This agenda has taken such a turn for the patently obvious over the past decade that to be blind to it by this point is simply inexcusable.
In other words, reality will rear its ugly head and we will be confronted with this stark choice (“cleanse or be cleansed”) sooner rather than later. Better to face up to it now than to bury one’s head and pretend no such vulgarly impolitic decision is looming.
So Be It
As mentioned, invariably the first avenue of the left’s resistance to any such ideological purge will be charges of “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” (not to mention the hackneyed “McCarthyism!”, “racism!”, “natavism!”, and such).
The answer to such charges? So be it.
Apply the law equally, regardless of race or religion, and let the racial and religious chips fall where they may. If we end up, say, shipping off 95% of the black population because that proportion refuses to live up to the ideals of the nation’s founding and insist, rather, on sticking it to whitey? …Well, then, so be it.
If you don’t want to be purged, be a patriot, not a traitor.
However, though it goes without saying to this audience, we must remain principled in any such effort and maintain as enemies of the state only those who are, in ideology and action, enemies of the state—and not those who simply fall into the same racial, ethnic, religious, or other such extraneous category as the majority of the traitors.
Who wants any of the above? Who wants any sort of cleansing—whether ideological or otherwise? Who wants violent conflict? Who wants war? Who wants to risk their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor for a means so perilous and an end so uncertain?
No one in their right mind, that’s for sure.
But when presented with a choice in which both options are equally unbearable, but the decision unavoidable, which evil will you choose? That which guarantees your destruction, or that which gives you at least a fighting chance?
No sentient person wants that towards which we rapidly head…but a patriot will want the alternative even less.
Just let us be clear: We will not be to blame for this choice and its resulting outcome, except insofar as we allowed it to get to this point to begin with. It is the enemies domestic of the United States of America that have forced our hands in the terrible decisions we will soon have to make.
The Path Forward
What to do?
Well, the obvious task is to get Romney elected. This should buy us some time and possibly avoid the necessity for any sort of violent conflict.
With that being said, we should also be preparing for the worst—i.e., the aforementioned violent conflict.
Also, we must find leaders. Tis almost a certainty that those lusting to lead are least fit for it, while those most deserving of it are least likely to seek it. (Think General George Washington.) So we must be forever sniffing out the leaders amongst our ranks, and, when found, thrust greatness upon them.
Lastly but perhaps most importantly, we must keep our chins up and our spines stiff. Come November, stuff’s going to get real.
Postscript: A Case Against Secession
AWD and others have often made the case that secession is looking like the preferable solution to our national dilemma. Perhaps it is. But I offer the counterargument that it would be better to maintain the union and fight the traitors wherever they slink rather than attempt to separate from them.
First, why cede territory to a bunch of worse-than-useless scum? Are they that powerful that they can’t be defeated without giving up half the country to them?
Secondly, and more importantly, I believe liberalism is an “intellectual disease”. And like many diseases, borders—no matter how strictly enforced—will not serve as a sufficient quarantine, especially when the method of transmission of said disease is via a global communications network consisting of television, radio, literature, movies, newspapers, social media, blogs, etc.
In other words, if we do not figure out how to cure this intellectual disease, then secession will only be, at best, a temporary means of sequestering an uninfected population from a disease that has shown a remarkable ability to extend into, survive, and thrive in even the most inhospitable of environments.
Think of liberalism not as gangrene, whereby severing the infected limb will save the body. Rather, think of liberalism as a cancer that has a tremendous capacity to metastasize. You can remove a tumor, or remove some part of the body, but there’s no guarantee that the cancer won’t pop up somewhere else. In fact, it’s likely that the cancer will reappear…and perhaps in a vital organ that can’t viably be extirpated. What then?
Chemotherapy. I.e., shock the body with toxins so lethal as to kill the cancer but just not quite lethal enough to kill the healthy cells. Radical, perhaps, but sometimes the only way to save the body.
Secession is to our national problem what amputation is to an aggressive, highly malignant cancer—i.e., a stalling tactic, but one unlikely to ultimately cure the disease. No, some tougher medicine will be in order—and to be effective, it won’t be localized. Rather, it will be applied to the entire body so that cancerous cells have no place to hide, and no place from which to spring back into deadly action once the heat is off.
If secession be the preferred answer, I will heartily support it. However, my contention is that this should be a last resort. Before that, we should be willing to fight—by any means necessary—to free the nation from the claws of traitors and their legions of useful idiots…wherever they are.