A New Aristocracy

     I’ll be away from my keyboard most of today – the world-famous author and social analyst must occasionally venture forth from his palace to press the flesh and distribute boons among his adoring fans, don’t y’know – so allow me to leave you with a bit of brilliance from Ace, who’s established himself as one of the most perceptive and thoughtful writers of the DextroSphere:

     It is imperative we begin emulating the left in its tactics.

     A couple of years ago, I suggested a completely different strategy: I wanted to pursue a kinder path. I wanted an end to the speech wars and social media mobs and boycotts and all the rest of it.

     But that path has been tried, and it has failed. Passive resistance -- moral resistance -- can only work when dealing with opponents with morality and honor, or who, at least, see you as more than subhuman....

     We don't seem to notice that we are always defending, and even the best possible outcome for our attempts at defense only means that we have avoided harm -- for a month.

     Please read it all – and then review this recent Kurt Schlichter column, which points to the only path forward.

     The Left has asserted a privilege. It has made itself into a privileged class, with the rest of us subject to an increasingly straitened regime. When I wrote:

     A class is defined by its legal and social privileges. The aristocrats of medieval times were not distinguished by their lineages or their deeds, but by the things they were allowed to do, without penalty, that commoners were not. There is reason to believe that the majority of medieval aristocrats were fairly responsible stewards of their lands and of public order within them. That does not justify the creation of a class of men who could wield high, middle, and low justice over others, but who would normally escape all consequences for deeds for which a commoner would be severely punished.

     The American response to the failings of traditional aristocracies was the Rule of Law: the fundamental principle that the law must treat all men impartially, regardless of their identities or station in life. The old shorthand for this principle was "blind justice," meaning that the law must not see one's person, only one's deeds. In a society that respects the Rule of Law, a king would stand in the same dock as a trash-hauler, were the two accused of the same offense. All that would matter would be the evidence for their guilt or innocence.

     In the absence of a scrupulously observed Rule of Law, classes with differing degrees of privilege will emerge. The flourishing of the members of each class will be influenced, often heavily, by the class's privileges and how effectively they can be exploited. Men being what we are, we will be moved to use those privileges in our own interest, both against competitors within our class and against other classes.

     ...I was of course referring to the way American Negroes who break the law receive uniquely more gentle, more indulgent treatment from both the press and the justice system. But the analysis is equally applicable to the Left’s resort to coercion: intimidation and violence.

     If the media and the justice system should continue to treat Leftist agitation and outright violence as privileged, the Right must respond in kind. Else we will have tacitly consented to the elevation of a new aristocracy.

     The prospect is ugly. People will be hurt. Blood will eventually be spilled. But the alternative is our reduction to voiceless serfs of an order implacably hostile to freedom.

     I’ll be back later with further thoughts. Just now it’s time for Mass. Enjoy your Thursday.