Wednesday, April 1, 2015

War Assets

The Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney lays it out for you:

After millennia of marriage being uncontroversially a union between one man and one woman, and after a decade of electorates in most states (and President Obama in 2008) upholding that traditional definition, the Left has used the courts to redefine the institution. People are fired for having taken the losing side. On college campuses, the current fights are about banning even the articulation of traditional views.

Amidst this culture-war dynamic, the Hobby Lobby decision and Indiana's RFRA don't represent any slide down a slope towards religiosity or individual liberty. Instead, our culture is speeding down the icy Left slope of the cultural mountain, and a few conservatives are now dragging their hands on the ice to slow the acceleration — and the Left is crying that this will send us catapulting back uphill.

Religious liberty is the terms of surrender the Right is requesting in the culture war. It is conservative America saying to the cultural and political elites, you have your gay marriage, your no-fault divorce, your obscene music and television, your indoctrinating public schools and your abortion-on-demand. May we please be allowed to not participate in these?

But no. Tolerance isn't the goal. Religious conservatives must atone for their heretical views with acts of contrition: Bake me a cake, photograph my wedding, pay for my abortion and my contraception.

Please read it all, and reflect on this: even during the years when virtually every young man was drafted when he reached 18 years of age, the Selective Service Act permitted exceptions on the grounds of “conscientious objection.”

Some total wars are more total than others. One side in this war intends to leave no survivors.


Remember Donald Rumsfeld saying, some what ruefully, that “you go to war with the army you have” -- ? Well, as it happens, that observation only applies at the very start of a war. If the war is at all protracted, “the army you have” can change dramatically, and in several ways. Look at the transformation of Britain’s army over the course of World War I for an excellent example.

Few of us in the Right would have predicted that the Left would succeed in turning victim status into a war asset. Yet it is so – so much so that even after having won on the legal battlefield, the Left’s forces continue to wield that status as a most potent weapon. It’s the bayonet with which they’re busily killing off our wounded.

Indeed, victim status is so greatly cherished by the Left that even to speak against it is regarded as intolerable. Take note of what the despicable Ed Schultz, having somehow inveighed Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson onto his contemptible program, feels he must do to prevent his opponent from scoring with the audience:

It’s not just on college campuses that the Left seeks to prevent the expression of contrary views. And it will get much worse before it gets better.


John Conroe’s remarkable recent novel Forced Ascent contains an early, high-impact depiction of a confrontation between protagonist Chris Gordon, who is literally an angel sent among men to protect us from being overrun by demons, and representatives of the federal government:

    “What we have is a national threat to security wielding unknown abilities or technology, operating at random inside the borders of the United States with no checks or balances. Mr. Gordon here has served his country well over the last few years, but there is nothing preventing him from going off the deep end and assaulting that very same country. How do you think the people sworn to protect this nation from any and all threats feel about a rogue operator who can do the things he can do? It’s frankly worse than allowing test tubes of Ebola to be carted about at random by any federal employee that wants one,” Alexis said.
    “Again… what is it you want?”
    “We want controls in place to ensure Mr. Gordon’s compliance,” she said.
    “And those are?” Darion asked while my stomach got tight and twisted.
    “We want young Miss Velasquez in Federal custody. We want a… monitor implanted in Mr. Gordon’s body to track and isolate him. We want him shadowed by government agents at all times.” She sat back, watching us for reaction. I had plenty but I somehow managed to control my initial reaction—or more importantly, Grim’s response. The images in my mind were bloody. Very, very bloody.
    “No, no, and no,” Darion responded. “Why would Mr. Gordon acquiesce to these ridiculous demands?”
    “Because failure to comply will constitute a declaration of intent to commit further acts of terrorism and war against the United States,” McFeeney interjected. He paused for dramatic effect, which was ruined when footsteps thundered down the hallway outside accompanied by howls of pre-teen laughter.
    “And once you’ve decided you’re at war with my client, how do you see that playing out?” Darion asked, smiling at the sounds of the kids.
    “The only way it can, Darion. With the death of Mr. Gordon and all he holds dear. Nobody can hold out against the full weight and power of the United States Government.”

Mind you, Gordon had committed no “acts of terrorism.” He’d exorcised demons, executed werewolves and vampires that had conspired to wreak slaughter among humans, and had destroyed a corrupt, quasi-governmental organization that had kidnapped several innocents, his goddaughter among them. That was of no interest to the federal government; what it wanted was control of his powers. The rest of the novel depicts the consequences of Gordon’s refusal to accept the federal leash.

So also with the Left. If you refuse its leash, its minions will bend all their efforts to destroying you, one way or another. And at this time, the Left is in full and unopposed control of the federal government of the United States.


There is only one countermeasure to the Left’s steady elimination of every right except the rights to sodomy and abortion. It’s a costly one, one that most persons – even most persons reading this screed – will recoil from, on the grounds of self-preservation.

We must rehabilitate and reinvigorate discrimination.

To discriminate is to apply a standard and make a consequent choice. It’s to say “That isn’t acceptable,” and to act on one’s verdict. It’s the ultimate expression of individuality, for no one can set your standards for you but you.

Do you make love to your spouse but not to your garbageman? You’ve discriminated against your garbageman.
Do you prefer lettuce and spinach to kale and collared greens? You’ve discriminated against the growers of the latter vegetables.
Do you drink wine but not beer? You’ve discriminated against Amstel, Coors, Heineken and Anheuser-Busch.
Do you choose your own friends? You’ve discriminated against people you find insipid or annoying.
Do you prefer FOX to MSNBC? You’ve discriminated against Leftist propaganda.

This is anathema to the Left. You’ve deviated from its dogma. You’ve dared to chart your own course. You’ve proclaimed yourself a free man. Who could possibly know what you might choose to do next? Off with your head!

John Conroe’s bit of fiction above is coming ever nearer to reality as we speak, except that every free man in America sits in place of Chris Gordon. And none of us have the powers or longevity of an angel. As far as I know, anyway.


They who worship power and are determined to have it all – the very definition of the Left – cannot and will not tolerate your individuality. What if it were to infect others? Who knows what might follow? Their entire program could totter and fall. You must be brought into line; failing that, you must be eliminated as a threat to the body politic.

Take it seriously, folks. This is what they intend. It’s what they’ve always intended. And it’s become so clear that to deny it constitutes a willful refusal to see the world around you.

Resist while it’s still possible. No matter the cost.

3 comments:

  1. Telling people what to do is a deeply satisfying experience.

    10/10/09 - Robin Hanson: Denying Dominance
    ( www.overcomingbias.com/2009/10/denying-dominance.html )
    === ===
    [edited] Humans attend closely to status, an important part of status is dominance, and we show dominance when we tell others what to do. Telling someone what to do affirms status.

    We do not notice most of our status moves, and we attribute them to other motives. When possible, we claim our motive is altruism. We think we are directing others in order to help them, not to dominate them.
    === ===

    The most enjoyable of status moves is to command the peasants in service to a higher good which only you and your colleagues truly understand.

    George Orwell was a British socialist/communist in the late 1930's. He awoke to the truth about the motivations of his party, of which he was deeply familiar. He published his brilliant book "1984" in 1949.

    Quotes from "1984" ( http://alternativereel.com/cult_fiction/display_article.php?id=0000000008 )
    Full text online ( http://msxnet.org/orwell/1984 )
    About George Orwell ( http://msxnet.org/orwell/ )
    === ===
    [edited] (A party leader in the book describes the future.) There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. When we are omnipotent there will be no need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. All competing pleasures will be destroyed.

    But always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.
    === ===

    Orwell stated in an interview: "We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men."

    ( pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2014/04/22/elites-sacrificial-victims/ )
    In November of 2009 at the New Criterion, Anthony Daniels (aka Theodore Dalrymple):
    === ===
    My collection of books has led me to the conclusion that the Soviet Union was valued by contemporary intellectuals not for the omelette, but for the broken eggs. They thought that if nothing great could be built without sacrifice, then so great a sacrifice must be building something great. The Soviets had the courage of their abstractions, which are often so much more important to intellectuals than living, breathing human beings.
    === ===

    The destruction of a few innocent peasants is a necessity in educating them to be better, ready for the utopia to come. Any pain for the individual person or family is paid back a thousand-fold in the proper education of the populace. Due process is not needed when the aim is improve all of society

    How many eggs does it take to make a socialist omelette? All of them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Bad People are mortal and they bleed.

    That will be enough.

    Resist.

    No matter what.

    ca
    wrsa

    ReplyDelete

Comments are moderated. I am entirely arbitrary about what I allow to appear here. Toss me a bomb and I might just toss it back with interest. You have been warned.