Category Archives: Conservatives
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
What follows is the transcript of the speech I delivered at the second National Policy Institute’s conference, which was held at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, DC on October 26th.
(Ed.Note: Emphasis mine. ZTW)
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is not always easy to tell the difference between destiny and chance.
I discovered the “Alternative Right” three years ago, by a link posted on a Swiss blog. It was a perfect illustration of a famous line in Simon and Garfunkel’s song The Sound of Silence: “The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls, and tenement halls.”
I was going through a period of questioning at that time. I had been working for a couple of years for the “conservative movement” in Paris and I couldn’t fail to notice that all my efforts had been invested in a cause that was not really mine, that had never really been mine actually.
Until that fateful day of July 2010, I had always centered my attention on France. My only knowledge of the other Western countries was through history books, movies or touristic trips.
Regarding politics proper, I wasn’t much interested in what was going on outside France. Though I was involved with the Right, I had always been wary of the American Right. For me, being right-wing in America meant worshipping the Holy Scrap (also known as “the Constitution”), waving a stars and stripes flag in the garden of a generic white-picket-fenced house, and making boring, tired jokes about the French who “always surrender.” I had still not digested my dish of freedom fries.
Discovering the Alternative Right was an Epiphany for me, as I think the discovery of the European New Right was for many Americans present in this room today. I’m thinking particularly of Richard Spencer and of John Morgan, the editor-in-chief of Arktos Media.
I discovered that though I wasn’t feeling at home in the French “conservative movement,” there were “people like me” on the Web, all over the Western world, who shared my hopes and concerns.
Ironically enough, I even discovered French authors thanks to American publications like AlternativeRight.com or Counter-Currents.com. Of course, the name “Alain de Benoist” was familiar to me, but he was not very popular, let alone read, in my corner of the Right.
Now, it seems that more and more Western people (White people as you say in America) are aware of the fact that what brings them together is much stronger than what divides them. And I’m not only talking about activists like us here. When this British soldier was beheaded in London by two African Muslims last Spring, I could see many manifestations of solidarity by average Western people. It’s something that would have been unthinkable a mere decade ago. As this example shows, reasons for this growing awareness among Western people are often negative ones: Westerners face the same danger of being displaced in their historic homelands.
There are positive reasons too, the first of which being the fact that we are the heirs of a great civilization. But although it is important to focus on the positive more than on the negative, it’s about a problem that is remarkable but not often commented on that I want to talk today: the generational divide.
When I say that this problem is not often commented on, it is not quite true. Actually, the liberal narrative about generational relationships is that the baby-boom generation, thanks to a courageous revolution, managed to put an end to an oppressive, reactionary, boring society.
There is some truth to that liberal narrative. But the generational divide applies differently to nationalist movements, and this is what I want to dedicate my attention to today.
More than a generational divide, there is, first off, a generational gap in right-wing movements. If the generation of my grand-parents (born between the two world wars) was rather conservative in the right sense of the word, the baby-boom generation is, in my experience, much more liberal in its outlook, hence the lack of right-wing activists from this generation. This is what explains “gerontocracy,” i.e. government of the old, in many right-wing movements, especially in Europe.
Even self-defined right-wingers born during the baby-boom are liberal in their views.
The most striking thing that I noticed, in France, Europe and America, was the inability of baby-boomers, even when they see themselves as dissidents, to completely break away from the institutions. The desire of recognition, the fear of social rejection makes the right-wing baby-boomer gives legitimacy to the very institutions that are willing to destroy him.
For instance, right-wing baby-boomers show a great deal of respect to Academia. They are very proud of their PhD when they hold one, and when they don’t, they are all the prouder to mention that an author they publish does. Well, at a time when there are PhDs in queer, gender, black, and even chicano studies in America, is it so important to mention that? Wouldn’t we be better advised to give as little legitimacy to university degrees as we can, given the circumstances?
This PhD cult among right-wing baby-boomers is related to their own rationalistic, scientistic delusions. Since conservatives are outmoded liberals — and many White nationalists are conservatives: they just want to conserve their people as it is, as if it were possible to save said people without becoming a new one in the process — they still believe in the Enlightenment myth that one would just have to show “the truth” to people to gain credibility and support. (And trying — in vain — to gain credibility from an Establishment that despises or hates them is an important trait of right-wing baby-boomers.)
But this idea that people would just have to know “the truth” to support the cause of saving Western civilization and the White race is fallacious. People have to be inspired rather than convinced, and they won’t be inspired by a set of bell curves, IQ tables and cranial measurements. Furthermore, it reduces “the truth” to the only things that can be numbered and quantified. The problem with that idea is that our struggle is a qualitative one. We can’t “prove” that architecture has become ugly since the 20th century, for example. Yet it’s something that has to be said.
I mentioned the PhD cult because it is one of the most obvious problems in right-wing intellectual circles. But this excessive respect of right-wing baby-boomers is granted to institutions in general, chiefly to the State, the Nation-State.
Since I was born in the 1980′s, at a time when the main Western countries had already been “enriched” with mass immigration, I understand that it is easier for me to dissociate myself from my own Nation-State.
Here, I’m reminded of an American friend I met in Paris a few weeks ago. He was born in the 1960′s, and when I mentioned to him the idea of an Ethnostate, he chuckled: for him, up to ten years ago, he had always considered he was already living in an Ethnostate: the United States.
And in day-to-day life, it remains common to hear people say “we” and “us” when they talk about the State. “We went to Iraq.” “Our troops are bringing democracy there.” “Syria’s chemical weapons threaten us.” I’m using silly examples here to make a point, but if you listen to people around you, you will inevitably notice that they keep saying — and thus thinking — that the State is them. That the State is the Nation.
But it’s getting more and more necessary to get rid of this false consciousness. Since the end of the 18th century and the American and French revolutions, the Nation-State has monopolized the way Westerners see themselves. This triumph is so complete that even multiculturalists use the Nation-State as a comforting reference to impose their dogma on the West. In every Western country, you can hear the same mantra that “Our [national] identity is diversity.”
Some people in our movement suggest that we should likewise use the Nation-State as a means to make people aware of our goals. The problem is that we can’t use the same tactic, for two reasons: first, we are obviously not in charge of the State. Second, a strict national consciousness leads to serious errors of interpretation. It is common in countries that used to have colonies and slaves to hear people say that our problems are rooted in colonization and slavery. In my homeland, the troubles with the Algerian community are thus attributed to French colonization and civil war there.
But Sweden, which never had any colony nor slaves, is facing similar, if not graver threats than Britain, America or France. We are not attacked for what our ancestors did, or allegedly did, but for what we are: White, Western people.
From my understanding, it is easier for my generation to see a brother or sister in another Westerner than it is for the former generation, which was born in the aftermath of the Second World War. In France, Front National is still anti-German, as well as it is anti-British and anti-American. But for the young generation, all these grudges are fading into irrelevance. A Briton might dislike the Germans or the French, wrongly or rightly, but those are unlikely to drug and pimp his daughters, behead a soldier in broad daylight, or burn the city down when a drug dealer is killed by the police.
In case you are wondering, I’m talking about things that actually happened in Britain in the last years.
Young Westerners know that they are more and more becoming one nation, the same way that other races, as Jared Taylor had noted in his book White Identity, are more and more seeing themselves as one people when they live in the West.
The right-wing baby-boomer is not able to fully understand what is happening in other Western countries, since he relies solely on national, liberal media, unlike young right-wingers who get information via alternative, Pan-Western websites. The liberal media gives him a distorted image of reality. As he knows that mainstream journalists are liberal, he basically inverts their depictions of other “far-right” movements in other Western countries to make his own opinion of them. Right-wingers, most often, only define themselves in opposition to the Left. What the Left likes, they hate. What the Left loathes, they love. It is thus easy to manipulate them into supporting a controlled opposition, given that their only justification to support is: “Since liberals hate it so much, it must be doing something right.” By this false standard, George W. Bush “was doing something right” when he made up the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to invade this country.
Generally speaking, the right-wing baby-boomer is subject to the bourgeois dream, which has been known as the “American dream” since the end of the Second World War: a world of peace, trade, and boredom.
Right-wing baby-boomers share the project of two American politicians (both born before the baby-boom though), Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan, whose similarities are more obvious than their differences. Their common motto can best be summed up as “Leave us alone.” Well, we of the New Guard don’t want to be “left alone.” We want to rule. We want to rule not only because we want actual power to get ourselves out of the present situation, but because we know that the “leave us alone” idea, which was behind the White flight phenomenon, is precisely what has led us to our current dispossession. Baby-boomers wanted to be “left alone,” so they fled to even further suburbs, moving further and further away from their own responsibilities. It is this process, White flight, that guaranteed that the ongoing dispossession could go on without being too painful.
The “good news” is that it is becoming impossible to continue the White flight process. Rising housing costs, growing gas prices, the concentration of jobs in city centers are putting the bourgeois dream to an end. It is now almost impossible for a generation that can only wait tables after a masters degree to keep fleeing. Problems will have to be faced, and dealt with.
At this point, I realize that I might seem unfair to the previous generation, but keep in mind that baby-boomers did what everyone else would have done if given the choice. This choice no longer exists. The quiet, suburban life has become impossible for the reasons mentioned before.
What is to be done, then? As of now, nobody, including myself of course, has a genuine solution to offer. Many in our circles claim that it is “five to midnight,” but I would argue that it is “five past midnight.” Not because it is too late, but because it is too soon. A mere decade ago, many people in this room, including, again, the foolish 20-year-old liberal that I was, were not aware of what was going on. Our awakening is too recent to find political solutions to our current problems now. For politics as we would like it to be to become possible, we have to win the intellectual and cultural battles, which right-wing baby-boomers have never really considered worth fighting. It is time we do so.
What we can thus do in the meantime is to get intellectually prepared as a movement (for the individual and practical aspects of this preparation, Piero San Giorgio and Jack Donovan are more competent than I am). The first task would be to get rid of intellectual debates dating back to the Cold War, with the false dichotomies between libertarianism and socialism, conservatism and progressivism, etc.
This necessity to go beyond these false dichotomies seems obvious to activists like us, but it is still in these terms that politics are debated today.
When I say that we have to go beyond Left and Right, I don’t mean that we have to reject both notions altogether — our ethno-national project obviously belongs on the Right — but the way they have been defined and falsely opposed for these past seventy years. The alternative is not between the kolkhoz and IKEA, the best reason for that being that the kolkhoz and IKEA are two sides of the same materialistic coin. We have to find a way out of here, a way forward and upward, and that implies rising above these irrelevant debates.
As a radical movement, we need to attract intelligent and educated young men, who are the future.
Crime statistics and differences of achievement between races are important, to be sure, but no snowboarding session on the bell curve will attract young men to us. We need to show them a way out, and thus to remind them of the need to gradually withdraw from the prevailing disorder, but we also have to show them a way into, and that is what the Old Guard has been unable to do so far.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not trying to bury the Old Guard, or even to dispute its achievements. We wouldn’t be here today if the Old Guard had not taken the first step in the past. But we can’t keep doing the same things for decades.
It is now clear why we want to found a new society, now is coming the harder part: what we want and how we are going to achieve it.
The answer is not sure at this point. What is sure is that the powers of creation, not only of reaction, will have to be summoned.
Thank you for your attention.
From Alternative Right: http://alternativeright.com/blog/category/children-of-oedipus
Many people these days that call themselves “conservative” and many others, that go further and consider themselves “resistors” are really just “legends” in their own mind. People like myself, especially, who have not been in the military, or at least been involved in some area of law enforcement, only fool themselves if they think because they can win some warfare video game that they are the biggest bad ass on the planet. It is only a matter of time before the shit hits the fan in this country, and when it does, very few, who in their opinion are ready for anything, will, in fact, be ready for nothing. Western Rifle Shooters Association, who anyone that considers themselves in one of the two aforementioned categories should be reading, has a link today to the November issue of III Magazine which has a wake up article by John Mosby on just exactly what we can expect when the SHTF. Go here http://iiimagazine.com/NOV13/ and read this excellent article entitled “Untutored Courage” and discover why those of us that consider ourselves patriots need to be trained and realize what this so called “resistance” really entails and what that encompasses is no fricken walk in the park. Below are a few quotes from this article:
“The absolute truth is that fighting as a guerrilla, whether modern or classical/tribal, pretty much sucks.”
“Being an effective fighter does not come naturally to anyone, I don’t care what anyone tells you.”
“There is a very sad condition that exists in people, and is especially apparent in the gun and preparedness communities, for men to delude themselves into believing that they know more than they do.”
Now, go read the article and look in the mirror, be honest with yourself, and realize that, like most of us, you don’t really know shit but we need to know. Our lives will depend on it. ZTW
This magazine link and many other great articles come from Western Rifle Shooters website: http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/
William Butler Yeats (1865-1939)
THE SECOND COMING
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
Posted byDaniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog
Ted Cruz has come the closest to understanding that the other side just doesn’t play by any rules, but lacks the leverage to make much of that. Cruz is still a product of a system in which there are rules. And that system is as unfit for challenging the left-wing radicals running things as trying to play a game of chess against an opponent who feels like moving the pieces any which way he feels like and always claims to have won.
Law is a consensus. If you stop keeping the law, the police arrest you. If a gang of left-wing radicals in a basement somewhere stopped following the law, they might be locked up. It’s not a certain thing considering that mad bomber Bill Ayers is a university professor. But once those same left-wing radicals control much of the system and the media that reports on the system, they have no reason to follow the law.
Political factions agree to follow the law for mutual benefit. The Constitution had to be agreed upon by just about everyone. The left-wing radicals in Rhode Island who were making everyone pledge allegiance to their worthless paper currency while threatening to nationalize everything refused and had to be forced in with threats of military intervention and trade embargoes.
But in the end they got the last laugh.
The United States has never really had full-bore left-wing radicals running it before. It does now.
Media outlets breathlessly report on Tea Party radicalism, which consists of wanting to undo the judicial activism of the last century. Meanwhile Obama and his cronies just ignore any law they don’t like and rule by fiat.
Which of these is more radical? The Tea Party activists who would like to revisit the debate over the Tenth Amendment or an administration that does anything it pleases and challenges an impotent judiciary and an even more impotent legislature to stand in its way?
The Tea Party activists would like to revise American legal history. Their left-wing opponents sweep the whole thing off the table. The Tea Party would like the system to abide by the letter of its legal covenants while their left-wing opponents have “modernized” them by judicial fiat and disregarded them by executive fiat.
The only laws that Obama will follow are those that allow him to do what he wants to do anyway. Like the Caliph who conquered Egypt and declared that if the Library of Alexandria should be burned because if its books contradicted the Koran they were heretical and if they agreed with it they were blasphemous, the entire American system, its laws and regulations, are at best supplementary.
Law is a consensus. But the left rejects that consensus. It subjects each law to an ideological test. If the law meets the ideological test, which is based on social justice criteria entirely foreign to the American legal system, and the practical test of furthering social justice, it can stay. If not, then it will either be struck down or disregarded. They have applied that same ideological test to the nation as a whole and decided that the existence of the United States does not meet their ideological tests.
Political factions in the past may have engaged in bare-knuckle political hostilities but they all agreed that the United States in its past, present and future forms was the proper arena for their disputes and that the maintenance of an objective system of laws was the best way to ensure its perpetuation. When that consensus broke down, a civil war resulted. Now the consensus is in even worse tatters.
It’s not the Tea Party that is the new Confederacy, as popular a media talking point as that may be. The new threat isn’t secessionist, but supersessionist. The new Confederacy isn’t out to break up the Union into territorial slices, but to replace the Union with a new and different Union. Call it the Confederacy of the Community Organizers, the War between the Unions or the Supersession War.
The Supersessionist rebels insist that the Constitution and the old order were superseded a long time ago by the march of history. And the only reason that we don’t call them rebels is because they are in control of almost the entire system of government.
Can a government be considered in rebellion against a nation’s laws and its established order? That is the bizarre situation we find ourselves in. There is no shot fired at Fort Sumter. Instead a million conspirators tear apart and remake the system in countless ways on a daily basis while the leadership remains in open rebellion of the laws that it is obligated to abide by and enforce.
Obama and the Republicans are fighting a civil war which only the Supersessionists of the Liberal Confederacy fully understand.
The Republicans, who for the most part are about as radical as a three-piece suit, are fighting to maintain a consensus in which everyone follows the law and settles their disagreements by hammering out a compromise that keeps the system going. And their opponents disregard the consensus and the system and go on doing what they want while defying anyone to stop them.
You could call it political civil disobedience, the left would certainly like to when dealing with the administration’s radical lawbreaking on immigration or gay marriage, but civil disobedience applies to the civil population, not to their government. Government disobedience isn’t noble or virtuous. The rebellion of governments against the laws they are obligated to enforce is self-righteous tyranny.
A government in rebellion against the laws is one that asserts that no power, not that of tradition, of the legal covenants that brought the system into being or even the previous votes of the people, is superior to it. That is why the rebellion of the supersessionists is far worse than the rebellions of secessionists. Both the secessionists and the supersessionists reject the consensus, but only the supersessionists insist on forcing a new system of their own making in place of the old consensus.
The unequal constest places liberal rebels looking to trash the system from the top against conservative defenders of an old order fighting from the bottom. The old Nixon vs. Hippies match-up has been flipped over. Nixon is in the crowd of protesters against government abuse and the hippies are laughing at him from the White House. The counterculture has become the culture, but still acts like it’s the counterculture even when it’s running everything.
On one side there is no consensus and no law; only sheer will. On the other there is a body of legal traditions going back centuries.
It’s painfully clear that two such approaches cannot coexist within a single government. And those who have the power and follow no rules have the supreme advantage of wielding government power without the legal restrictions that were meant to bind the abuse of that power.
The Republicans are struggling to find common ground over a mutual respect for the system where none exists. Like any totalitarian radicals, their opponents regard their concern for legalism with contempt.
The radical does not respect process, only outcome. He holds law in contempt, but respects will. While the Republicans debate process, the Democrats steamroll them by focusing only on outcome. Where there is no consensus, then process does not matter. The Democrats treat process as a fiction when it comes to ObamaCare or immigration. And the Republicans struggle to understand why no one holds them accountable without understanding that accountability is also an aspect of process.
The radicalization of the Democratic Party is slowly leading to a counterpart radicalism in the Republican Party. The process is moving far slower because of the vested interests in the way, but every time the radicals of the left displays their contempt for the consensus, they are paving the way for the rise of a Republican Party whose members are more like Ted Cruz than John McCain.
What radicals never understand is that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The process of the consensus exists to safeguard both sides and prevent political battles from spinning out of control. Democrats, under the influence of the radical left, have decided that they can unilaterally transform the country by acting as if the consensus and the process don’t bind them. They have not considered what will happen when a Republican Party that has as much resemblance to its present day leaders as Barack Obama does to Hubert Humphrey makes that same decision. Liberal supersessionists claim to be worried about conservative secessionists when they should be far more worried about conservative supersessionists. The consensus we all live by is a fragile thing. It is being torn apart by the radical left and once it is destroyed, it will not bind the right, in the same way that it no longer binds the left. And then the true conflict will begin.
Found at The Daley Gator
There’s a special election next Tuesday, the 24th of September in Alabama’s 1st Congressional District and my friend Quin Hillyer is running in the Republican Primary.
Quin, along with Stacy McCain, were the two people who gave great encouragement and advice [and links] to a new, unsophisticated blogger five years ago. I’m not sure many of you would have ever heard of me if it wasn’t for those two gentlemen.
From the first day we were in contact, Quin has displayed nothing but kindness and patience towards your Humble Dispatcher. He is a good egg and a stand-up guy.
And it also happens that he is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, possessed of a solid integrity.
As David Bossie remarked recently:
A vote for Quin Hillyer for Congress in South Alabama’s upcoming special primary election on September 24th is like getting the best of both worlds. Not only do you get the best possible principled conservative you could hope for, you’re also getting someone with the experience to be a skilled legislator for his constituents from day one.
If you read conservative journalism, you know the name Quin Hillyer. Quin has been my friend and colleague for two decades and I can confirm firsthand that he has always been a principled, movement conservative. It is as if Quin was born with a conservative philosophy, as he started in politics with his parents pushing him in a stroller while canvassing for presidential candidate Barry Goldwater.
In an article last week over at The American Spectator, Jeffrey Lord describes to a ’T’ the man I have come to know and respect:
My friend and former colleague Mr. Hillyer is a conservative’s conservative — the kind who takes umbrage if you mistake that fact. This is decidedly not someone who runs from the fray, trying to figure out what mealy-mouthed toss of word salad can please whomever needs pleasing in the moment. Quin, as it were, takes his conservatism straight-up. He runs straight towards the action, principles fixed.
This is, sadly, a rare phenomenon in the Republican Party, as conservatives have repeatedly learned to their chagrin. But take heart: today that principled political courage is on display as Quin runs for the congressional vacancy in Alabama’s 1st district in Mobile.
And by a quirk of fate — the resignation of the incumbent —the special election in the Alabama First takes on a special importance as the place the repeal of not just ObamaCare but the disaster that is the Obama presidency begins.
Which in turn brings us to the subject of the importance of Quin Hillyer.
One of the problems common to holders of public office is that the desire to have a title too often outstrips a well thought out reason for holding the job in the first place. This will never be said of Quin Hillyer. For years in this very publication Quin has spelled out his conservative beliefs in detail. He never wrote for popularity — not once. Quin always wrote out of passionate belief in conservative principle.
Dead solid perfect
Quin is also a man of deep faith in his country and in God. That’s why people like Rick Santorum, John Lott, Bob Tyrrell, and many other conservatives have come out in support of this fine man.
If you live in Alabama-01, please consider casting your vote for Quin.
If you, like me, live outside of that District, please consider donating to help Quin and his Campaign in their final week’s push before the 24 September Primary. I did.
As Jeffrey Lord writes:
The people of Alabama have an enormous opportunity to begin what might be called taking America “back to the future.”
After over five years of this so-called Obama “transformation” — which by any measure has shown itself to be an utter disaster — one can only hope that the way back begins Alabama. Where the First Congressional district is considering the candidacy of Quin Hillyer, a man of character, conservatism, courage and common sense.
As America teeters on the brink of war, its economy in shambles, its president now a global laughingstock, the importance of Quin Hillyer cannot be underestimated.
The future begins in Alabama.
Indeed, it does.
From TCOTS: http://thecampofthesaints.org/
Today, as I write, the English Defence League is marching in Tower Hamlets, East London. Police and law-makers have diverted the procession from its planned route that would have seen it march into the very centre of the borough and past the notorious East London Mosque (capacity 8000 and recently extended). Now it shall be largely a ‘static’ demonstration on the outskirts of the area. Over 500 EDL members are rumoured to be in attendance, and will be met by a counter-protest of up to 4,000 Leftists and Militant Muslims.
To mark the occasion, British newspapers, left and right, have trotted out the usual moth-ridden accusations. Most common of all is the habit of never mentioning the EDL without the libelous prefix ‘far-right’.
It’s never thus ”The English Defence League are holding a march”, it is the ‘The Far-Right English Defence League are holding a march…”. So commonplace is this trope that a foreigner would be forgiven for thinking The EDL is really called the FREDL.
But is the EDL really ‘far-right’, and if not then where does it sit on the political spectrum?
My answer would be that the EDL is on the ‘right’ for ‘left-wing’ reasons. Complicated and hard to jingoise as that is, it is considerably more accurate than ‘far-right’.
The internet definition of ‘far-right’ is –
“(of political views) reactionary; extremely conservative.”
Uneducated Liberals might think the first word applies here, but it doesn’t. The internet definition of ‘reactionary’ is –
“(of a person or set of views) Opposing political or social liberalization or reform.’
The social trends opposed by the EDL are those which imprison women, stone homosexuals, and go against every liberal reform England has ever known. In fact, if you feel like suggesting something on an EDL forum, perhaps ‘Anti-reactionary’ would be a good way to promote its mission in future.
When I say the EDL are ‘right-wing for left-wing reasons’, I mean that while the group is opposed to something ‘foreign’, that ‘foreign’ element has been chosen purely for its hostile attitude towards liberal society. The EDL are no more ‘far-right’ for doing this than British generations before them were ‘far-right’ for fighting the (equally foreign) Nazis.
(On a side-note, why is the EDL ‘far-right’ but Hamas isn’t? Or what about the vile populist Christine Kirchner or the gay-hating Fidel Castro? Why is liberal judgement so selective?)
Whatever you think of the EDL or its methods, to call them ‘far-right’ is a deliberate lie and Leftists only demean themselves by its circulation.
From DTMW: http://defendthemodernworld.wordpress.com/
Well done, Colorado.
COLORADO SPRINGS — Colorado Sen. John Morse delivered his concession speech in Colorado Springs on Tuesday night, ending a historic recall election saw the one-time state Senate president lose his seat just months after leading the effort to enact stricter state gun laws.
With about 86 percent of returns counted in the historic recall election of Democratic Senate President John Morse show 52 percent have voted “yes” and 48 percent “no.”
Morse, a Colorado Springs Democrat, is the subject of the recall for his leadership on stricter Colorado gun laws passed this year by the Democrat-controlled legislature.
From WZ: http://weaselzippers.us/
“In response to President Obama’s empty speech, Sir, you turned your back on Americans in Benghazi, so do not pretend to lecture us about obligation. He is afraid to make a decision so is now setting up Congress for the blame. We should not commit our Military because Obama said something stupid and especially since he does not have a strategic or operational objective. Perhaps if he had not decided to “end the Iraq War” and left a residual force on the Iraq-Syrian border we would not have this situation. I guess this is not so time sensitive, but it is a confirmation of Obama’s weakness. NO authorization for military action in Syria.”
If you don’t know Allen West is, perhaps you should get to know him.
Thanks MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/page/3/
Found at The Daley Gator
Found at The Daley Gator
Facebook Yanks Steven Crowder’s Video About Zimmerman Trial Witness’ Racist Testimony, Citing “Hate Speech”
Comedian Steven Crowder is known for his comical – and,often times, edgy – viral videos. Keeping up with current events as he typically does, the performer posted a video on Facebook last week surrounding the George Zimmerman trial. Little did he know that the social media platform would inevitably ban the clip, citing a “hate speech” violation.
Before we get into the specifics of the removal, let’s first take a brief look at the video, which meshes media footage from Rachel Jeantel’s testimony in the much-covered court trial with Crowder’s perspective on her comments.
If you’ve been paying attention, you know that during questioning, Jeantel made some curious and noteworthy comments. When asked about whether Trayvon Martin might have lied to her, she said, “That’s real retarded, sir. That’s real retarded to do that, sir” – a response many found quite odd. Then there was Jeantel’s refusal to admit that the term “creepy ass cracker” was a racial statement.
Crowder took these moments and ran with them, poking fun in the viral video in question, which he titled, “‘Retarded’ Racist Zimmerman Trial Witness.” In assessing footage of Jeantel making these statements, the comedian made numerous quips that were laden with sarcasm about how “creepy ass cracker” obviously isn’t racist because white people use it all the time as a term of endearment.
He then turned to the term “retarded.”
“Now initially that [Jeantel using the word 'retarded'] could seem offensive… but I understand in this instance its different, because, according to the records, the star witness, Rachel, as you’ve seen, would appear to be a special needs person – and so she can use the word,” Crowder joked. “She can say that something is retarded. See, you and I can’t use the word. But only people with special needs can call people retarded.”
This may be what landed Crowder in hot water with Facebook. But considering that he regularly stretches boundaries for the sake of comedy – and taking into account that he has never seen one of his videos removed from the platform – the conservative performer was perplexed.
Watch the edgy (and heavily sarcastic) video, below:
After realizing on July 1 that the clip had disappeared from his Facebook page, Crowder contacted the company’s sales department, noting that he had paid to advertise the clip and that it subsequently disappeared without reason.
“The video is… centered around Rachel Jeantel repeatedly using the word ‘retarded’ as well as ‘creepy ass cracker’ in her testimony on national television,” Crowder said in an e-mail to a Facebook contact named Bryce Dahnert.
After sending numerous messages demanding to know why it was removed, the company responded and looked into the matter, determining that the video was “removed for violating [the] policy around hate speech.” Dahnert explained that, even if Crowder didn’t intend to discriminate, Facebook deemed the clip’s contents unpalatable.
“While your post may not have been intended as hateful, or discriminatory, the content itself contained speech that is hateful,” the response read, in part. “The guidance I have been given by the policy team states that you could re-post this content as long as you also post a message condemning or clarifying the actual hate speech.”
The letter concluded by noting that Facebook would not be able to publish the video in its original form, but that a denunciation of the commentary “or clarification on the quote containing hateful speech” would bring the clip back into compliance.
What’s unclear, though, is whether Crowder’s commentary was the problem, or whether Jeantel’s statements were flagged by Facebook as being inappropriate.
The letter from the company doesn’t definitively determine what exactly violated its policies. If it is the latter, there would be clear issues with any other clip uploaded by media outlets or others that highlight the same testimony. While it seems more likely that Crowder’s assessment was deemed inappropriate, TheBlaze reached out to Facebook to clarify; we are awaiting a response.
We also reached Crowder by phone. He remains perplexed over a few elements associated with this story and wonders whether the ban was political in nature (he regularly produces conservative content).
To begin, he explained that he had paid to advertise the clip and that Facebook took the money and then later removed the video. This causes one to question why it wasn’t rejected from the beginning, as the company seemingly made a profit from what it later deemed “hate speech.”
“They advertised it Thursday through Friday and then removed it Sunday… or Monday,” Crowder said. “They took the money, advertised it and then took it off.”
The comedian also said that he found the subject matter violation surprising. After all, his video about Islam and the Prophet Muhammad was extremely controversial and much more likely, in his view, to be flagged and removed (but it wasn’t).
Crowder also noted that pages are currently live and active on Facebook that encourage killing Zimmerman. Here’s one. And here’s another. Why these are operational, yet his video, which used the word retarded in reference to Jeantel, isn’t allowed surprises the comedian.
“They allow pages like ‘Kill George Zimmerman’… they allow those kinds of things,” Crowder noted. And for him, removals based on political reasoning create a “hostile environment.”
You can get more of Crowder’s comments on his official Twitter account. This story follows another over the weekend about Fox News’ Todd Starnes, another conservative whose “politically incorrect” content led to him temporarily being blocked on Facebook.
From: The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/page/2/
Over at The American Spectator, Stacy McCain [tip of the fedora to Zilla][worth quoting at length]:
One of the seminal triumphs of the conservative movement was Phyllis Schlafly’s successful crusade in the 1970s that prevented ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. Strange to say, Schlafly’s success has been almost entirely abandoned by conservatives who, evidently fearful of being called “sexist,” have embraced the culture of androgyny against which Schlafly rallied American women.
For years, I have sought to explain that this is why conservatives are losing — and now, appear ready to abandon altogether — the defense of traditional marriage. As I wrote in January 2009:
Are men and women equal in the fullest sense of the word? If so, then equality implies fungibility — the two things are interchangeable and one may be substituted for the other in any circumstance whatsoever. (La mort à la différence!) Therefore, it is of no consequence whether I marry a woman or a man. … This is why so many of those who would defend traditional marriage find themselves unable to form a coherent argument, because traditional marriage is based on the assumption that men and women are fundamentally different, and hence, unequal. Traditional marriage assumes a complementarity of the sexes that becomes absurd if you deny that “man” and “woman” define intrinsic traits, functions, roles. To declare men and women unequal, however, puts one outside the law— you are guilty of illegal discrimination if you say that there is any meaningful difference between men and women. Yet if you refuse to argue against sexual equality, you cannot argue effectively against gay marriage, and find yourself subjected to lectures about “accessing the positive social norms”with nothing important to say in reply.
A cowardly unwillingness to confront the egalitarian myth of feminism, therefore, has crippled conservatives in their confrontation with gay-rights radicalism. The history of this intellectual surrender has seldom been examined because the conservative movement evidently does not wish to remember its former successes, which contrast so starkly with its recent failures.
Because conservatives have surrendered to the culture of androgyny, they were ill-equipped to combat the absurd “war on women” theme that emerged in last year’s presidential campaign. Rather than interrogate the fundamental assumptions of this liberal madness (i.e., that taxpayer-funded contraception is the essence of “women’s rights”), the best that Republicans could do was to answer, “But we’re for equality, too!”
Good luck with that. Feminism Lite is not a popular brand.
Because there is no longer any organized and committed resistance to the radical egalitarian demands of feminism, American society has become increasingly anti-male, a phenomenon Dr. Helen Smith describes in her new book, Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream — and Why It Matters.
One must truly pity the young fellow on today’s college campuses, where coeds are indoctrinated in misandry by Women’s Studies professors and performances of The Vagina Monologues. This deliberate demonization of masculinity is complemented by an assault on what used to be understood as the female prerogative. We can scarcely expect men to extend the traditional deference of courtesy and chivalry to militant trollops shrieking radical slogans as they march in annual “SlutWalks.”…
One could argue that the ‘traditional deference of courtesy and chivalry’ began it’s long and slow death march with the coming of the French Revolution. I do. I think Edmund Burke saw the future begin with it; he saw that it marked a disastrous turning point in the history of The West. Perhaps he would agree with me that the Revolution was the placing of the final nail in the coffin of Christendom and that the two hundred years since has been a series of hammer blows upon that nail’s head.
Here’s what Mr. Burke wrote at the time of the French Revolution:
…But the age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists; and calculators has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished forever. Never, never more shall we behold that generous loyalty to rank and sex, that proud submission, that dignified obedience, that subordination of the heart which kept alive, even in servitude itself, the spirit of an exalted freedom. The unbought grace of life, the cheap defense of nations, the nurse of manly sentiment and heroic enterprise, is gone! It is gone, that sensibility of principle, that chastity of honor which felt a stain like a wound, which inspired courage whilst it mitigated ferocity, which ennobled whatever it touched, and under which vice itself lost half its evil by losing all its grossness.
THIS mixed system of opinion and sentiment had its origin in the ancient chivalry; and the principle, though varied in its appearance by the varying state of human affairs, subsisted and influenced through a long succession of generations even to the time we live in. If it should ever be totally extinguished, the loss I fear will be great. It is this which has given its character to modern Europe. It is this which has distinguished it under all its forms of government, and distinguished it to its advantage, from the states of Asia and possibly from those states which flourished in the most brilliant periods of the antique world. It was this which, without confounding ranks, had produced a noble equality and handed it down through all the gradations of social life. It was this opinion which mitigated kings into companions and raised private men to be fellows with kings. Without force or opposition, it subdued the fierceness of pride and power, it obliged sovereigns to submit to the soft collar of social esteem, compelled stern authority to submit to elegance, and gave a domination, vanquisher of laws, to be subdued by manners.
But now all is to be changed. All the pleasing illusions which made power gentle and obedience liberal, which harmonized the different shades of life, and which, by a bland assimilation, incorporated into politics the sentiments which beautify and soften private society, are to be dissolved by this new conquering empire of light and reason. All the decent drapery of life is to be rudely torn off. All the super-added ideas, furnished from the wardrobe of a moral imagination, which the heart owns and the understanding ratifies as necessary to cover the defects of our naked, shivering nature, and to raise it to dignity in our own estimation, are to be exploded as a ridiculous, absurd, and antiquated fashion.
While we can point to many areas where Leftism has successfully caused the institutions of The West, both physical and spiritual, to implode, it is, perhaps, in the area of the Family that it has wrecked the most damage. And, as the wisdom of the ages tells us, the Family is the central core of any true civilization — certainly of the Western one and why it has triumphed in all areas over all others.
Feminism is merely one of the jump-off points for the offensive against the Family. It has helped rip it asunder. It is, by it’s core nature, anti-Family, believing as it does that the real differences between men and women and the key role those differences play in civilizing the Society, can be wished [and legislated away], as if they never existed. Once again we are confronted with the foolish belief that Human Beings can be re-engineered. Human Beings can be taught to defy aspects of their Nature, but they cannot be made to wipe their Natures from existence [this is why the Left ends-up engaging in mass murder].
Since they conceive of their ideas and schemes in the sterile laboratories of their own minds, far away from the Real World, the Left is able to fantasize, to wish into being that which, by the nature of it’s origins, is doomed to fail when applied to the world as it actually is.
The conservative believes in the Art Of The Possible, whereas the Leftist practices the Conjuring Of The Impossible.
Let me end with Mr. Burke:
On this scheme of things, a king is but a man, a queen is but a woman; a woman is but an animal, and an animal not of the highest order. All homage paid to the sex in general as such, and without distinct views, is to be regarded as romance and folly. Regicide, and parricide, and sacrilege are but fictions of superstition, corrupting jurisprudence by destroying its simplicity. The murder of a king, or a queen, or a bishop, or a father are only common homicide; and if the people are by any chance or in any way gainers by it, a sort of homicide much the most pardonable, and into which we ought not to make too severe a scrutiny.
On the scheme of this barbarous philosophy, which is the offspring of cold hearts and muddy understandings, and which is as void of solid wisdom as it is destitute of all taste and elegance, laws are to be supported only by their own terrors and by the concern which each individual may find in them from his own private speculations or can spare to them from his own private interests. In the groves of their academy, at the end of every vista, you see nothing but the gallows….
Gallows that fill a vast carnival field of an Atrocity Exhibition.
From Bob Belvedere: http://thecampofthesaints.org/
Ted Cruz Blasts Obama For Arming Islamist Rebels In Syria: “Don’t Give Weapons To People Who Hate Us”…
Then again, Obama hates us.
Via Beltway Confidential:
While most of the Senate is debating immigration reform this afternoon – Sen. Ted Cruz took time to deliver an address on the Senate floor criticizing President Obama for his decision to intervene in Syria.
Cruz warned that there were elements of Al Qaeda supporting the rebels and highlighted reports of some of them desecrating churches, kidnappings, rapes, and beheadings.
“These forces are engaged with a deadly struggle with the Assad regime and President Obama has chosen this moment to signal that it is now suddenly in our vital security interests to intervene in Syria,” Cruz said. “It seems far more likely a recipe for disaster.”
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
Posted on | June 13, 2013 | 41 Comments and 0 Reactions
Everything you need to know about the so-called “Gang of 8″ Senate immigration bill is this: Obama supports it.
If this bill was good for America, Obama would be against it.
If this was a bill that any conservative could honestly support, Harry Reid would have killed it in committee and Chuck Schumer would not bebegging people to support it, and the fact that 30 Republicans voted for cloture is profoundly disturbing.
Supporters of the Senate bill are lying, because if they told the truth about it, there would be a firestorm of outrage. And because we know that they are lying about it, as Michelle Malkin explains, it’s important not to listen to what they say, but to watch what they do:
The official White House operating policy is: No illegal alien left behind. “Smarter enforcement” means no enforcement.
Remember: Exactly one year ago this week, the president announced he would halt all deportations and start granting work permits to an estimated 2.1 million illegal aliens who entered the country as children.
This blanket amnesty through administrative non-enforcement has been plagued by questions of fraud from the get-go.
Read the whole thing. Every word spoken or written in favor of this wretched legislative monstrosity is a lie, including any claim that it would require immigrants to learn English:
[ProEnglish Executive Director, Bob Vandervoort said:] “Contrary to what the Gang of 8 says, S. 744 has no requirement for illegal immigrants to learn English to get work permits or amnesty. They can renew their work permits indefinitely. They only have to show some knowledge of English IF they apply for green cards after 10 and a half years of residency! In the meantime, taxpayers will be paying for translations and interpreters. It’s time for the Gang of 8 to stop the lies.”
“For at least ten years and perhaps for their entire lives, this huge new group of predominantly non-English speaking, former illegal immigrants will create a huge new demand for costly government services in their native language, further exacerbating the dangerous and growing division of the United States into separate cultural and linguistic communities,” Vandervoort elaborates. “This would be an unprecedented calamity for our nation’s unity,” he said.
What part of “NO AMNESTY” is so hard to understand?
On Tuesday, the Senate voted 84-15 — with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell among 30 Republican senators voting “yes” — to bring the bill to the floor for debate. Tea Party favorite, Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, was among the GOP senators declaring support for the controversial legislation. . . .
Rubio told David Drucker of the Washington Examiner that he is working with fellow Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah to craft an amendment that would strengthen border enforcement provisions in the bill. However, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, has already signaled that he will oppose stronger enforcement.
The “Gang of Eight” bill was slammed this week by two influential conservative columnists.
“If the GOP Is This Stupid, It Deserves to Die,” Ann Coulter headlined her Wednesday column, saying Republican supporters of the legislation “are devoting all their energy to slightly increasing their share of the Hispanic vote while alienating everyone else in America.” And the bill was also criticized by Michelle Malkin.
“Suicidal Republicans have supported illegal alien amnesties dating back to the Reagan era,” Malkin said in her Thursday syndicated column, which concluded: “Trust them? Hell, no. There’s only one course for citizens who believe in upholding the Constitution and protecting the American dream: Stop them.”
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
From American Digest
“I am not here as a serf or vassal. I am not begging my lords for mercy. I’m a born free American woman, wife, mother and citizen. And I’m telling my government that you’ve forgotten your place. It’s not your responsibility to look out for my well-being, and to monitor my speech. It’s not your right to assert an agenda. Your post, the post that you occupy, exists to preserve American liberty. You’ve sworn to perform that duty. And you have faltered.” — Becky Gerritson of the Wetumpka Tea Party, testifying today before the House Ways and Means Committee about abuse by the IRS.
Howso’ great their clamour, whatsoe’er their claim, Suffer not the old King under any name!
Here is naught unproven—here is naught to learn. It is written what shall fall if the King return.
He shall mark our goings, question whence we came, Set his guards about us, as in Freedom’s name.
He shall take a tribute, toll of all our ware; He shall change our gold for arms—arms we may not bear.
He shall break his judges if they cross his word; He shall rule above the Law calling on the Lord.
He shall peep and mutter; and the night shall bring Watchers ‘neath our window, lest we mock the King—
Hate and all division; hosts of hurrying spies; Money poured in secret, carrion breeding flies.
Strangers of his counsel, hirelings of his pay, These shall deal our Justice: sell—deny—delay.
From American Digest
QUINN HILLYER – RUNNING FOR CONGRESS
By Quin Hillyer on 5.23.13 @ 11:18PM
I’m putting journalism on hold and running for Congress. A fond farewell to The American Spectator.
When an opportunity comes to do something good, one must grab it.
At 2 p.m. central time Thursday afternoon in Mobile, word spread that U.S. Rep. Jo Bonner, a six-term Republican from a dark red district, would announce that he is resigning mid-term (Aug. 15) to take a big job with the University of Alabama system of colleges. He made the announcement at 4 p.m.
On the local 5 p.m. news, I announced that I intend to form a committee and expect to run for his seat.
I am a constitutional conservative—and an “opportunity society”conservative as well, hearkening back to the Reagan-Kemp era of prosperity and liberty. Free men and women, with free minds, in a free market, produce abundance and a vibrant society.
Readers of this site know I am a full spectrum conservative. Mostly libertarian on economics, firmly for a strong defense, and for traditional values.
I abhor racism and was a founding board member of the Louisiana Coalition Against Racism and Nazism, which defeated David Duke in the 1990s. I have a long record of volunteer service through churches and with educational foundations.
I am a movement conservative, with a Madisonian love of our constitutional system. And I love my adopted home of southern Alabama, which is developing into one of the greatest areas of growth in the country.
There will be much more to say in the coming weeks, and major endorsements to announce. But now I must set aside my cyber-pen forThe American Spectator, which has hosted me for seven years. I am honored to have been a part of this publication, which has enlightened and entertained the world of American letters for nearly half a century—and my thanks go to Bob and Wlady and to the whole team that does such a good job here. I also thank the readers for making this not just a magazine, but a conversation.
This is going to be a great adventure.
From The American Spectator: http://spectator.org/archives/2013/05/23/laying-down-my-pen
The Internal Revenue Service scandal just gets bigger and bigger. No ordinary scandal, this is the very definition of an un-American, Joe McCarthy-style persecution. This is Gambino crime family criminal behavior. We now officially know America is being run by a gangster government, the Obama crime family.
The real question is: Will the same IRS (or IRS-like bureaucracy) that targeted and persecuted conservatives, GOP donors, Tea Party groups, pro-Israel Jewish groups, Christian groups, pro-life groups and outspoken critics of the President (like me), now use Obamacare to deny us medical care?
From Mad Medic: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
From Moonbattery: http://moonbattery.com/
The Tea Party invested its energy into electing the right people, but as Rick Scott and Marco Rubio showed us, there may be no such thing as the right people. Politicians are in the business of selling out. The difference between Marco Rubio and Charlie Crist was that Rubio hadn’t really been tested.
But that doesn’t mean politics is hopeless. It means politicians are hopeless. People however can still force politicians to do the right thing.
The NRA won its fight against gun control even though all the odds, political, financial and emotional, were stacked against it. Politicians had every reason to defect and evolve into a new understanding. And some did. But the ground held because enough of them knew that the NRA was in it for the long term and they would have to deal with it long after Bloomberg had moved on.
In 2012, amnesty and gun control both appeared to be equally unacceptable and were shunned by Republican politicians. If anything they shunned amnesty even harder than gun control. But one election loss later and most of the stalwarts, including Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and Paul Ryan have jumped on the amnesty train.
Victor Davis Hanson observes that, “in these divided times ideology and politics can easily trump considerations about character.” But accepting that character doesn’t matter may just be practical politics.
There may be leaders of good character out there who firmly resolve to do the right thing and never waver from their course, but they are the exception and the political system is designed to weed them out.
The self-motivated politician who never wavers is a lot to ask of any man. Even Churchill eventually buckled to Stalin. What can one expect of the senator from Idaho or Virginia?
Politics is not about politicians. It’s about people. Politicians are just the brokers in the political process. The real lesson of the Tea Party is not that you can intervene in a primary for the most conservative candidate and then sit back while he does the right thing, it’s that the only way to get the right thing done is to have an organization that is constantly involved in the political process.
Prohibition, an insane policy, was largely rammed through by a clever and relentless organization that built alliances and forced the issue down the throats of politicians who didn’t agree with it. The same tactics have been used for a variety of causes, including, most recently, gay marriage. In each case, most politicians who did not agree with a cause, came around on it because it was smart politics.
The politician who evolves concedes that he is up for grabs. Evolutionary announcements should be met with contempt, but they also signal that a politician who flips can be made to flop back again. Treating him as if he were an intelligent thinking individual with principles may be a mistake. It may be easier to assume that he has neither principles nor character and that he will go whichever way seems easiest. And the trick then is to reshape his environment so that he evolves into another shape.
For all the complaints that we need leaders, leaders may be the one thing that we do not need. The sort of people that we associate with leaders tend to be self-willed men with their own agendas. Christie and Bloomberg are both leaders, but their version of leadership is to pursue their private agendas without any accountability or regard for anyone else. What we need are not leaders, but organizations that are better at holding politicians accountable.
Hunting for principled politicians is like searching for buried treasure. It’s nice if we find some, but we can’t assume that we will.
The professional politician excels at pretending to have principles and then selling them out. Finding an honest one is like trying to buy a Rolex watch at a folding card table near Times Square. You may get the real deal, but the odds are that you will be ripped off because the people you are dealing with are trained con artists. They have pulled the same scam a thousand times. They are better at reading you than you are at reading them.
What politicians really do is move money around. They push pork for their friends and supporters who then reward them by making sure that they get reelected. It’s a simple financial transaction and any principles can only get in the way of it. They are salesmen for government spending and like all salesmen, they need a pitch strategy because “I’m going to give 10 million dollars of your money to the people who contribute to my campaign and organize groups that support me” is not a winner.
We may have reached the point where it’s smarter to ignore the pitch strategy, the stories, the speaking style, the declaration of principles, the Heritage approved reading list, and reduce everything back to a simple business transaction free of any hero worship or commitments.
It’s not smart for small government conservatives to believe in politicians anyway. If politicians were worth believing in, then one of the main arguments against small government trickles away. If there were a breed of politicians that weren’t hungry for power and able to find the balance between rights and regulations, why shouldn’t we trust them to run things? Such a breed of philosopher-kings doesn’t exist. And will never exist.
Most people, of all factions, rightly hold politicians in contempt and are suspicious of governments. The Tea Party would have done better to keep its distance from politicians, instead of allowing too many of them to wrap themselves in the Tea Party brand. Too much energy was wasted in getting behind politicians, instead of getting on top of them.
“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”was the old Roman question. Who watches the watchmen? Politicians are a poor accountability method. They aren’t going to hold themselves accountable. Trying to play Diogenes hunting for an honest politician in Washington D.C. is an even bigger waste of time. There are hardly any and they may not be the ones you think are.
Politicians are tools. They were meant to be wielded by the people. A good politician understands that he is being held accountable. A bad politician doesn’t. Politicians don’t pay attention to people. They pay attention to organizations. The only way to lock in good behavior by a politician is to lock them into an organization that is capable of rewarding or punishing him.
The organization can’t just be money. There is an entire political class built around activism that consumes money and does nothing. The 2012 campaign should have been an education in that.
The left isn’t just successful because it has billionaires, but because it successfully organizes people. The successful organization of people is the difference between 2010 and 2012. If 2014 and 2016 are going to be any different, it will come down to building organizations that can transform the process.
Single-issue organizations like the NRA can be very effective. So can larger scale organizations. Many of them exist, but what they really require is ground level organizing. Money is cheap. People are hard to come by.
If conservative policies are going to win out, the decentralized conservative presence of the internet is going to have to be more directly leveraged in the real world. The people already exist. Bringing them into play in a structured way is what is missing.
The 2010 elections showed what is possible when the people get involved. And the 2012 elections showed what happens when the political class leaves the people behind. Sometimes the people class can win on its own, but even when it does, its victory, like all political class agendas, is a prelude to another sellout.
Principles can’t come from politicians because politics is now largely an economic transaction. They can only come from people who do not benefit from those government class transactions. The left has built a shadow government of organizations, but it has done so while linking those organizations to small, but sizable numbers of organizers and activists, who can rally the base. The right will have to duplicate its accomplishments if it doesn’t want to see the politicians that it wastes money and energy electing constantly “evolve” to the left.
Some readers have complained that this blog is too hostile or negative toward Republican politicians. If anything it’s not nearly negative enough. Cheerleading for favorite politicians is a waste of time. The solutions will not come from messiahs in suits. It will come when the number of conservative issues that politicians come to see as the third rail expands beyond gun control. It will come when the professional political infrastructure is contained by a conservative activist infrastructure that is as least as effective and powerful as its counterpart on the left.
It will come when we stop believing in electing the right man and accept that the honest politician is the one who stays bought. It may not be romantic or idealistic, but it is far more practical than waiting for the next Marco Rubio to come around.
Found at The Daley Gator
From Mad Medic: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/