Showing posts with label totalitarianism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label totalitarianism. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 8, 2020

Sow Wind Reap Whirlwind Dept.

     There’s an attempt in progress to perpetuate the “lockdown psychology” the media and the CDC bureaucracy inflicted on us over the Wuhan coronavirus. It’s a multi-pronged thing, with components derived from the Wuhan virus (“there could be a second wave!”), the possibility of a new strain of the infamous “swine flu,” and a general drive to inculcate Americans with mutual fear as the default social condition. It’s made little headway so far, thank God, in part because of the blatant hypocrisy of the political elite and the media in tarring religious gatherings and Trump rallies as unspeakably dangerous, while Leftist “protests” – i.e., violence, vandalism, and looting – are deemed quite safe. That having been said, don’t expect the Establishment and its media annex to give up easily. The WuFlu lockdowns gave them a taste of the totalitarian power they dream of each night, and they want more of it.

     But there are signs that the reaction to their gambit might refute it utterly:

     Like it? I do. I’d advise spreading it around. You might garner some useful new acquaintances. You might also get a few nasty comments, but that’s part and parcel of anything pro-freedom or pro-American today.

     The point, of course, is that private citizens have also had their taste of totalitarianism, and they’ve been revulsed by it. They want their country back the way it was. If this was a deliberate attack by Red China – a possibility I refuse to discount – that makes it especially galling that our political elite and media should have fallen in line with it. If it was a collaboration between Red China’s masters and ours – another possibility I refuse to discount – the hour for action is upon us: it’s time to break out the muskets and march.

     In either case, it must be tolerated no longer. Further rationales for the reimposition of the lockdown regime must be rejected with prejudice. States where it hasn’t actually ended – New York is one – must experience a full course of “Irish democracy:” that state of affairs in which the government can decree and orate to its heart’s content, while ordinary folk ignore it and go placidly along with their affairs.

     I say this despite being a member of the “high risk group” according to the CDC. It’s important enough for those of us who understand and love freedom to take the risks involved.

     Approximately 88,000 governments ride Americans’ backs. If the laws, regulations, taxes, and fees they impose upon us don’t produce measurable improvements in our society, our environment, and our nation’s prospects, why submit to them? Especially when some persons are openly defying those laws, including the most serious of them, and getting away with it with official connivance. What else can it mean that the BLM / AntiFa “protests” are winked at while the rest of us are sternly counseled to keep our masks on and stay at least six feet apart?

     One good rebellion deserves another. In the face of officialdom’s attempts at tyrannizing decent Americans, while they look the other way as anti-Americans pledged to our destruction loot, burn, and kill, the rebellion we commemorated just this past Saturday deserves a rerun.

     Buy guns and ammo. Verbum sat sapienti.

Tuesday, August 13, 2019

Alert To The Contradictions

     There are several components to any industry, however conceived. It’s normal for outsiders to see that industry as a unitary entity, while insiders are aware of its several, cooperating parts. If we view the advancement of a totalitarian state from that perspective, and work to separate its various subassemblies, we quickly see all the following:

  • The strategic / tactical apparatus: This component designs the totalitarians’ campaign, both in terms of its ultimate objectives and the tactics best suited to advancing toward them.
  • The promotional apparatus: This component uses propaganda to persuade as many people as possible that what the totalitarians seek is “what the people really want.”
  • The counteractive apparatus: This component focuses on identifiable elements among the totalitarians’ opponents and works to impede or defeat their initiatives.

     Those are the pieces easily identified in a fledgling totalitarianism industry. Should such an industry gain some degree of traction, others will become visible:

  • The subornation apparatus: This component works on elected officials to turn them toward the totalitarians’ goals, whether intermediate or ultimate.
  • The anesthetic apparatus: This component operates to ensure the compliance of government functionaries responsible for enforcing compliance with totalitarian enactments, and to reassure elements in the population that might be moved to resist.
  • The suppressive apparatus: This component uses marginally illegal methods to defame and / or suppress political adversaries’ operations.

     Should the totalitarians achieve political dominance, the whole force of the State is turned toward their aims, and the components named above are subsumed into the structure of the government as “official organs.”

     During a totalitarian campaign, logical clashes between the representations of the various components will occasionally appear. Here are a couple of illustrative ones, from our favorite Bookworm:

     And of course, when observers note those contradictions for others’ consideration, the totalitarian response is predictable:

     ...because ultimately, freedom of expression is the totalitarians’ greatest enemy.

     The totalitarians’ tacticians know they cannot conquer the U.S without inducing Americans to fear one another. Their promotional machine has done its level best to inculcate that fear in us. It makes heavy use of atrocities such as the recent ones in Dayton and San Antonio, of course without reference to the individuals who committed them or the influences that drove them. When opposed organizations point out the flaws in their “logic,” their counteractive apparatus springs into action with slanderous defamations and the promotion of falsehoods.

     When the totalitarians achieve some inroads, we begin to see the subornation component exercise its sway over elected officials desirous of remaining in power or increasing it. Government functionaries, as David L. Burkhead observes, rationalize their compliance with “the law” by saying “it’s just my job,” with the implications left unspoken. The suppressors work to disrupt any organization that fights for the maintenance of individuals’ rights, whether by “deplatforming” them or by outright violence and intimidation.

     I don’t have much more to say just now, Gentle Reader. I’m still in a highly frazzled, somewhat fragile state. But it struck me as important to elucidate, schematically, the way in which an anti-freedom movement plans its moves and strives to enact them.

     Remain alert to the contradictions. Make sure others are aware of them, too. It’s part of the “eternal vigilance” thing: your job, as a citizen of these United States.

Sunday, July 14, 2019

No Escape

     If you aren’t familiar with the works of the late Jean-Francois Revel, repent of your sins and become so. Revel was among the best thinkers to arise in France in the years after World War II, yet he remains largely unappreciated – indeed, practically unknown – among his own people, to say nothing of the rest of the First World. Those of his works that have been translated into English and remain non-extortionately available include How Democracies Perish, The Flight From Truth, and Anti-Americanism, all of which have valued places in my library.

     One of his books, The Totalitarian Temptation, was until recently unavailable in English. In it, Revel discourses at length on the tendency among “progressives” to champion policies that are totalitarian in nature: i.e., policies that force their vision of “the good” on all of us, willy-nilly. Their combination of intellectual arrogance with an assumption of moral superiority leads them to infer that it is legitimate, even morally obligatory, for them to coerce the rest of us. After all, if the rest of us are so stupid, or so venal, that we won’t embrace “the good” freely, what else can they do?

     The attitude should be familiar to anyone who follows American politics in the present day. It manifests in virtually every statement any “progressive” politician or “thinker” makes – and certainly in every legislative proposition a “progressive” advances. They never show the slightest hesitation or uncertainty about it.

     Given the characteristic American attitude of defiance toward would-be dictators, how such persons can command anyone’s respect is a mystery. Yet they have, and they do – and on issue after issue, including completely fabricated ones, they presume to dictate how it must be – it’s a matter of RIGHTS!

     No one is more creative than a “progressive” at inventing “rights” that Almighty God would blanch at. But as rights is the Ace of Trumps in all political discourse, that’s their immediate claim about everything they demand, from free abortions to a law protecting the zyzzyva.

     (What’s that? They haven’t demanded a law protecting the zyzzyva? Probably because they can’t spell it. Anyway, we shouldn’t give them any ideas.)


     Today, Rod Dreher quotes Catholic Czech thinker Vaclav Benda:

     There are times when Christians do not realize that the idea of the forced establishment of paradise on earth and the emancipation of man with regard to any kind of higher authority comes from the same crucible as the idea of the improvement of sinners (or elimination of their occurrence) with the help of draconian laws, the idea of Christian dictatorship (totalitarianism): rebellion against the Creator stands at the root of all this, the same longing arbitrarily to correct imperfections in His work of creation....

     Totalitarianism devotes all its strength, all its technical know-how, towards a single goal: the unimpeded exercise of absolute power. It is capable of the most bizarre tactical somersaults imaginable, but it can never, under any circumstances, admit that anything is more important, more sacrosanct, than “the leading role of the party.”...

     One has either to submit oneself unconditionally to the violent and totalitarian power which sees a threat in every shadow and every free breath, or to confront it and to pit real strength against it (even if this is “mere” moral strength, for even that has shown many times in the history of Christian civilization how effective it can be). What is without any sense at all is to try to persuade the power that we mean well, and that we intend to limit its monopoly (its very essence!) only in its very own interest.

     Absolutely! The totalitarian is unappeasable; he cannot be bought off with a compromise. Moreover, he’s never really “finished.” There’s always just a little more “improving” he can do; wait while he searches for it. Note that totalitarians in power never voluntarily relinquish it. They depart from their palaces feet first, always. I made note of this in Shadow of a Sword:

     The moral dimension of arranging the assassination of a popular politician didn’t trouble Wriston at all. Living in the public eye had always entailed increased risk. Historically, whenever some troublemaker had roused the rabble to a greater pitch than the Establishment of that time and place could tolerate, it had disposed of him with no compunction and extreme prejudice. There were parts of the world where that was still the inevitable price of rising to power—places where a dismissal from high office was always administered with high-velocity lead. Power seekers in such lands arrived in their palaces with their death warrants already signed and sealed; they merely awaited delivery.

     If there is any Christian moral imperative that arises from politics, it’s to resist totalitarianism with all our might. God did not give us wills of our own just so we could be subjugated to the will of another...even “just a little.”


     David Thompson, in his pithy way, adds a grace note:

     Put another way, “State education is generally sub-optimal and often shockingly bad. Let’s make sure that’s all there is available.”

     That is the true core of the Left’s totalitarian-socialist agenda: there shall be no escape. It’s not about anyone’s “needs.” (Sure as hell it’s not about anyone’s “rights.”) It’s about the Left’s determination to eliminate every last vestige of individual choice in favor of a fabricated Utopia imposed top-down by “our betters:” a scheme guaranteed to produce widespread misery and a privileged caste of commissars.

     Yet there are people who condemn Donald Trump, the first president in many years to openly condemn socialism – to proclaim that “socialism is slavery” and that “America will never be socialist!” — for daring to say so. With the Left slavering for total control of every occupation, every choice, and every word or thought, supposedly conservative commentators have condemned Trump for daring to speak his mind openly and fearlessly, and for putting America first.

     “Collegiality” be damned. Trump in 2020.

Friday, September 9, 2016

This Is How Bad Things Are Getting

     The Center for Disease Control (CDC) is asserting the power to suspend all Constitutional rights at its own discretion, without review or due process:

     I think I'll answer the door with my shotgun in my hands from now on.

     “Before all else, be armed!” – Niccolo de Macchiavelli

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

Your Early Morning Outrage

     Note, please, that it’s coming from a Republican:

     NEW ORLEANS – The Good Samaritans who rescued hundreds, maybe thousands of people during the Great Flood of 2016, are not happy after a state lawmaker announced that he wants government regulations on future actions by the citizen heroes.

     Some of those Good Samaritans, a loosely-organized group called the 'Cajun Navy,' are being interviewed by media around the country, but that attention is nowhere near the pushback lawmakers are discussing when it comes to possibly breaking the law in the future if they save lives again....

     Republican State Senator Jonathan Perry of the Vermillion, Lafayette area, is working on legislation that could require training, certificates and a permit fee to allow these Good Samaritans to get past law enforcement into devastated areas. He said some were turned away.

     “At the end of the day, there are going to be two things that are going to be the hurdle when you approach it from the state’s standpoint,” said Sen. Perry in a radio interview. “Liability is going to be number one for them. They don’t want the liability of someone going out to rescue someone and then not being able to find them (the rescuers) and, secondly, there’s a cost.”

     Jonathan Perry deserves to be tarred, feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail. At the very least the Louisiana Republican Party should drum him out of its bosom, disavow any concurrence with his obscene notions about requiring a license to save catastrophe victims, and make an unambiguous proclamation of its support for the now nationally famous “Cajun Navy” that leaped into action in flooded Louisiana while the state and federal “emergency management” agencies were still pulling their thumbs out of their asses.

     I would hope that if some officious “public servant” were to obstruct a private-citizen Good Samaritan under like circumstances, the Samaritan would thrash him to within an inch of his life. Considering that Supreme Court decisions have held that the State owes you nothing, such a “public servant” (“If there’s anything a public servant hates to do, it’s something for the public” – Kin Hubbard) would be a de facto accessory to the negligent homicide of unnamed persons. Horsewhipping would be too good for him.

     I’ll be back later, after my blood pressure has gone down a bit.

Friday, April 8, 2016

Carrots, Sticks, And Great Heaping Mounds Of Dollars

     Into what sort of investments does your IRA or 401(k) plan – I assume you have one or the other – put your contributions? Stocks? Mutual funds? Corporate bonds? Possibly a little goes into an interest-bearing money market fund? They’re all quite common in such plans. Most of the ones an investment advisor is likely to recommend are pretty good: that is, they won’t make you rich, but they’re unlikely to crash and burn and take all your money with them.

     But then, your investment advisor is a private party, probably the employee of a company that specializes in that sort of work. A private company or self-employed financial advisor must perform or go under. One that underperforms for two or three quarters is likely to get a serious talking-to by his management. One that underperforms for two or three years is likely to take up residence in a cardboard box. And by “underperform,” I don’t mean “lose money;” I mean “doesn’t keep up with market averages,” at the very least. The ones that advise so poorly that they actually lose their clients’ money are in much worse trouble than that.

     Now imagine that instead of that private advisor and his supervisors if he has any, your retirement savings were managed by a state government...or perhaps by the federal government itself.

     Changes the whole picture, doesn’t it?


     I’ve written before about an attempt to seize your retirement savings (and your pension plan, if you’re one of the fortunate few who still has one). It wasn’t a new idea then, and of course it isn’t now. The Ghilarducci proposal was too barefaced to pass muster. It was an outright proposal to steal from approximately half the population of the United States; it couldn’t possibly command enough support to pass Congress...though I have no doubt that were Congress to pass it, Obama would sign it, cackling with glee as he did so, and put it into effect upon the instant.

     But have a gander at this:

     President Obama’s regulators aren’t slowing down, alas. And on Wednesday they unveiled another part of their plan to push Americans out of private investment accounts and into government-run plans.

     The Department of Labor says its so-called fiduciary rule will make financial advisers act in the best interests of clients. What Labor doesn’t say is that the rule carries such enormous potential legal liability and demands such a high standard of care that many advisers will shun non-affluent accounts. Middle-income investors may be forced to look elsewhere for financial advice even as Team Obama is enabling a raft of new government-run competitors for retirement savings. This is no coincidence.

     Labor’s new rule will start biting in January as the President is leaving office. Under the rule, financial firms advising workers moving money out of company 401(k) plans into Individual Retirement Accounts will have to follow the new higher standards. But Labor has already proposed waivers from the federal Erisa law so new state-run retirement plans don’t have the same regulatory burden as private employers do.

     This competitive advantage could be significant. Last month the board of California’s new “Secure Choice” retirement plan wrote to state legislators about their “exciting win” in Washington. They reported that employers enrolling workers in the new government-run plan “would have no liability or fiduciary duty for the plan.” Score! The California bureaucrats added that “we have been given the green light to auto-enroll workers into an Individual Retirement Account (IRA).”

     Into what sort of “investment” do you suppose the state of California, now many billions of dollars in the red, would put the money thus entrusted to its “management?” Given that its “advisors” would suffer no penalty for losing every last dollar? Given that the account “owners” would have no recourse regardless of developments? Remember also that state governments are thralls to Washington, kept docile and submissive to federal demands by threats to which a Fidelity or a Vanguard are not exposed.

     Scared yet? If not, check your pulse: you may have died but failed to notice.


     The total invested in pension plans, IRAs, and 401(k) plans, in current dollars, is about $19 trillion. The total federal debt is slightly more than that. The aggregate of all state and local governments’ debts is about $4 trillion. Moreover, those figures don’t account for the famous “unfunded liabilities” represented by Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and government pension programs.

     To say that America’s 88,000-plus governments are eager to find new sources of revenue is quite an understatement. There’s a reason most of the revenue from state lotteries doesn’t go anywhere near the educational institutions they supposedly fund. It’s the same reason the Supreme Court ruled against Suzette Kelo.

     The stick the Department of Labor’s new rule brandishes at private investment advisors in the form of enhanced legal liability will nudge them toward government-approved investments: state and local bonds and Treasury bills. The carrot it offers to the state governments will be eagerly snapped up. The consequence will be a diversion of a significant part of the flow of retirement funds toward loans to governments. The debtors can default on those loans without consequence, leaving the “investor” with no money and no recourse.

     The Soviet Union did that several times.

     A government bond is a certificate of guaranteed confiscation. – Franz Pick


     Gradualism has eroded the core out of the Constitutions’ provisions for limiting government. It’s also bled the purchasing power out of the dollar. Today it’s at work on the remnants of liberty: freedom of expression; freedom of association; freedom of religion; freedom of movement, both intranationally and internationally; the security of one’s person and possessions, real or movable, against arbitrary search and seizure. The one significant retardant to our descent toward complete, rightless subjugation is the cost of enforcement.

     I think those for whom totalitarianism is the end in view might have found the financing they’ll need. I think they might have found a technique for putting it over on us without alarming us into resistance until the seizure is complete and irrevocable. That technique would also leave the elderly completely dependent on the good will of the Omnipotent State.

     I’m already elderly; thus I fear both for myself and for the investment advisor who’s served me loyally and well for many years. What about you, Gentle Reader? Feeling a chill just yet?

Monday, November 30, 2015

The best part of waking up used to be a cup of coffee...


I'm betting a lot of readers here have been as "obsessed" with the invasion of the EU as I have. Well, same goes for Matt Bracken. Only difference? He's done the hard work of connecting the historical and contemporary dots and churned out a magnum opus of an editorial. (Without cutting & pasting & WordCounting I'm betting it reaches 10,000 words.) A few choice paragraphs follow, but of course it's a must-read. Find it here, at Western Rifle Shooters.

The current open-border policies of the European international socialists were intentionally designed to allow hundreds of thousands of culturally and religiously aggressive Islamist fighters and colonists to flood into Europe. The European traitor elites understand exactly what they are doing. They know what will happen. But why do it now?
 Um-m-m, can you say, "Follow the money?"
The accelerated pace of the 2015 Muslim hijra invasion was conceived, planned and executed by Quisling traitors comprising the elite leadership of the European branch of the international socialist movement, headquartered in Brussels. To paraphrase British nationalist patriot Paul Weston, if a farmer deliberately inserts a fox into the henhouse, who is guilty of killing the hens?

Now, today, across Europe the stage is being set for the genocide of the weak, confused and defenseless European hens. Former East German Communist functionary Angela Merkel achieves high marks at both Muslim fox insertion and German hen repression.
We think "Sanctuary Cities" and churches protecting Mexicans is scary? How about all the mosques in the U.S.A. which have already proven to incite/incubate jihadists like the Boston-Marathon bombers and the Garland, Texas (Draw Mohammed) shooters? Oh, and the new ones breaking ground as we speak...
How many mosques have already received a truckload of shotguns or Kalashnikovs? Run the numbers again: eight jihadists per terror attack, eight hundred weapons per truck, 80,000 Viet Cong fighters in the original Tet Offensive, and an estimated 800,000 muhajirs flooding into Europe. Using radical mosques as clandestine armories is S.O.P in the Middle East, so why would the jihadists not use the same tactics in safe and docile Europe? Out of a sense of fairness and respect for European laws? Please. In the words of Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers…” And bear in mind that anyplace an AK-47 can be smuggled, so too can a few kilos of Semtex.
I could go on but I'll let you read it in its entirety. In conclusion I'll swap Bracken's final lines with one of Aaron Zelman's:
"Never give up your Life Preserver."

Thursday, July 9, 2015

Movements

     The tendency to oppose rather than support – i.e., to react against something you dislike, rather than moving toward something you like – is commonplace in politics. It’s a lot easier to be against than for, because the former is less limiting, and thus less risky. Many persons select the candidates they’ll vote for on that basis: they choose the “least of the evils.” In a way, the tendency is implicit in a system where only a limited group of parties can propose candidates with a plausible chance of victory. It’s one of the strongest arguments for a “None Of The Above Is Acceptable” option that would leave the office unoccupied and its powers unexercised.

     With that as our preface, please ponder the cleavage described this article:

     Simply put, authoritarians merely want obedience, while totalitarians, whose rule is rooted in an ideology, want obedience and conversion. Authoritarians are a dime a dozen; totalitarians are rare. The authoritarians are the guys in charge who want to stay in charge, and don’t much care about you, or what you’re doing, so long as you stay out of their way. They are the jefe and his thugs in a brutal regime that want you to shut up, go to work, and look the other way when your loudmouthed neighbor gets his lights punched out by goons in black jackets. Live or die. It’s all the same to the regime.

     Totalitarians are a different breed. These are the people who have a plan, who think they see the future more clearly than you or who are convinced they grasp reality in a way that you do not. They don’t serve themselves—or, they don’t serve themselves exclusively—they serve History, or The People, or The Idea, or some other ideological totem that justifies their actions.

     They want obedience, of course. But even more, they want their rule, and their belief system, to be accepted and self-sustaining. And the only way to achieve that is to create a new society of people who share those beliefs, even if it means bludgeoning every last citizen into enlightenment. That’s what makes totalitarians different and more dangerous: they are “totalistic” in the sense that they demand a complete reorientation of the individual to the State and its ideological ends. Every person who harbors a secret objection, or even so much as a doubt, is a danger to the future of the whole project, and so the regime compels its subjects not only to obey but to believe.

     Rather frequently in the recent past, the U.S. has judiciously supported various authoritarian regimes on the grounds that at least they were opposed to the totalitarian regimes and movements adjudged to be the “more serious enemy.” This is Realpolitik in a nutshell: do the best you can for the present, and let the future take care of itself. It’s not always wrong, given the menaces of the moment, but considering how much injustice, privation, and suffering an authoritarian regime is capable of creating, it must always be tentative and subject to revision or revocation.

     But wait: there’s more! Nothing prevents an authoritarian regime from transforming into a totalitarian one. Indeed, that’s the usual progression of events: the eventual totalitarian successor appeals to the popular revulsion against the authoritarian one’s misdeeds for support, while it conceals its intention of preserving the regime’s coercive mechanisms for its own use. Review the history of the Twentieth Century if you doubt me.

     In political dynamics, the hand often moves more quickly than the eye. While those who cheer the transition celebrate the downfall of the hated regime, what was bad is replaced by something worse. It should be the watchword for all those dissatisfied with their political system that “Revolutions, as long and bitter experience reveals, are apt to take their color from the regime they overthrow.” (Richard Tawney)

     This is the case even with the sort of “peaceful revolution” conducted entirely at the ballot box.


     In recent weeks I’ve been troubled by the rising popularity of a movement that calls itself The Iron Legion:

     The Iron Legion is a military order. The Way of Iron is the arduous path. It is the militant path. It is not a path for the weak or fearful. It is the path of men who set out as outlaws and rebels and who return from their journey as heroes....

     The modern idea of freedom is a myth. Today’s freedom amounts to no more than the freedom to work and consume for the benefit of the oligarchs. I speak to men like us and they tell me what they want, what they feel is missing from the modern world, and it isn’t this nebulous concept of freedom. They want a brotherhood. They want order, discipline and tradition. They want old-world masculinity. They want to explore. They want to build something. They want a mission. They want to be part of something which has a great purpose, and they want the simple things like a home and a family, all of which are gradually being taken from them as this broken society dissolves. [Emphasis added by FWP.]

     The rhetoric is almost identical to the neo-Prussian “blut und boden” rhetoric of the early Nazis. The outright dismissal of freedom, with no interest in what freedom means or why so many millions throughout history have valued it, is particularly ominous.

     Beware those who would suck you into “a great purpose.” Your automatic and immediate question should be: “Whose purpose, Bubba? Yours, mine, or Fearless Leader’s?”


     There are many reasons to oppose the status quo. There are no free societies remaining on Earth. The last holdout was Hong Kong, and the Chinese Communists have put an end to that. Authoritarian regimes control all of the landmass of the Earth except for the portion controlled by totalitarian regimes...and in each and every polity of the West, totalitarians are waging an intermittently successful campaign for the levers of power. Mankind is as endangered as it has ever been.

     It puts me in mind of this passage from C. S. Lewis’s That Hideous Strength:

     "You're still thinking about that?" said the Ulsterman.
     "I am thinking of almost nothing else," said the Director. "It may be the greater danger of the two. But what is certain is that the greatest danger of all is the junction of the enemies' forces. When the new power from Belbury joins up with the old power under Bragdon Wood, Logres-indeed Man-will be almost surrounded. For us everything turns on preventing that junction. That is the point at which we must be ready both to kill and die."

     For it is also the case that, as none other than Adolf Hitler has told us, “The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it.”


     Movements are always fraught with danger. When the movement is explicitly purposeful, the danger is at its maximum. This has given rise to a veritable industry of “deprogrammers” who specialize in rescuing converts to various cults.

     Yet even a dangerous and explicitly totalitarian movement can exert a powerful pull upon the soul. What else could explain the tens of thousands of vocal and active adherents to fascism and Communism in their heydays? Those movements were born in nations with authoritarian regimes. They capitalized on two things: the need of many persons to belong to something larger than themselves, and the tendency to oppose that which is visible and objectionable without thinking too deeply about the nature of the movement that opposes it. And for many years they wholly owned the lives of those subject to them.

     Our time features many dangers...and many opportunities. Select your direction with care. For myself, I remain committed to freedom, and to Christ.

     Food for thought.


     UPDATE: Commenter KG, the worthy proprietor of long-time favorite Crusader Rabbit, objects as follows:

     With respect, being "committed to freedom" is meaningless if that commitment extends only to casting a vote via the ballot box. The enemy now owns the box and freedom will have to be bought at a much higher price than the ritual, minimal effort of voting.
     Oh, and The Iron Legion does not dismiss the idea of freedom outright but rather the modern idea of freedom "which is no more than the freedom to work and consume for the oligarchs".
     Not at all the same thing as the outright dismissal of freedom.

     The thinking man's fear of ushering in something worse is reasonable -very useful to those who would prefer that this frog be brought slowly to the boil.

     To which I reply:

  • I’d be wary of someone who interprets freedom that way, inasmuch as most of us on the Right have a far different interpretation. Come to think of it, where does the proprietor of the site have anything good to say about political freedom – including freedom from coercion into some “great purpose” chosen by others? The martial, fascistic quality of his rhetoric seems to leave no room for it.
  • If there’s something wrong with either working to satisfy one’s wants or consuming that which one enjoys, I have yet to discover it. Granted that these are parts of life, and not its whole.
  • “The thinking man’s fear of ushering in something worse” has been validated far too many times to dismiss it fliply as merely an endorsement of the status quo. In any case, fear is an inducement to caution, not a reflexive, paralytic preference for the status quo. Nor is the willingness to embrace a movement against the status quo without pause for reflection praiseworthy, in light of the history of the century behind us.
  • “Beware” – alternately, “Be wary” – has two meanings:
    1. Be aware;
    2. Be skeptical – i.e., disinclined to accept important propositions entirely on faith when evidence can and should be proffered for them.

     Choose according to your tastes.

Friday, May 8, 2015

Constitutional Math

Oops! Sounds like it was a "Shooting & Cartooning" contest.

My husband and I had the "interesting" fortune of attending Pamela Geller's Mohammed Cartoon event in Garland, Texas, Sunday night, May 3rd, 2015. As you probably know, Bosch Fawstin was the double prize winner, making my entry a loser. (No worries, though, I'm already planning next year's entry and it's sure to be a winner.)

It was a very long night, with no physical injuries to either of us, just some stretching of our patience (towards its limits). Monday afternoon, after the long trip back to Garland, we retrieved our vehicle. Immediately we rushed back towards D/FW airport to get my husband off on a business trip he wasn't actually sure he could complete until finally stepping into the terminal in the nick of time.

Once I got back home - alone - it all hit me fairly hard, but in a way that quite surprised me. I was what I can only describe as despondent. I took a couple of days, during which I talked to my husband of course, but only briefly, after all he was "soldiering on" so I needed to as well.

But as my mood refused to budge I wondered, "Where online might I find people who've been in stressful situations, events that didn't go the way they'd planned...yet they'd made it through a little bit wiser for it?" And so I sought and recieved some timely advice from readers over at westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com.

I got my thoughts on the totality of Sunday's events together only after letting those readers' good advice sink in. I put it in a video for my YouTube channel which is as much confession as it may be advice for others. YouTube is where I keep up with many of the issues I'm interested in and so it's a natural place for me to share a lot of my "deeper thoughts" these days (sometimes attempting a tounge-in-cheek delivery style). I hope you'll let me know what you think of my thinking.




Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Creeping Totalitarianism Part 2: Present And Future

“Romney didn’t win, did he?” – The Dishonorable Harry Reid

     Yesterday’s emission was one of many that started from the David French article about Wisconsin’s persecution of conservative activists. The DextroSphere is generally up in arms over it; grass-roots conservative activists were the targets, so grass-roots conservatives everywhere sense the dimensions of the threat.

     The big guns are lining up as well. Hearken to Rush Limbaugh on the subject:

     I mean, it's incredible. They could literally set out to destroy you, and the only thing standing in the way of it is the honor system. If you have a corrupt prosecutor (which this story has), and if you have a corrupt judge, (which this story has), and if you have a police department that is also corrupt (this happened in Milwaukee, mostly), then you can pull this off.

     There's even a quote from a couple police officers who were forced to participate these midnight raids on innocent people who had not done a thing other than support Scott Walker. That's all they had done, and cop car after cop car, cop after cop, SWAT teams, you name it, show up with battering rams to break into these people's homes! They're kicked out of their homes at midnight, at one o'clock in the morning. They're not allowed to take anything; they're not told why.

     They're not allowed to explain to anybody that this has happened besides the neighborhood which can see it. Years after the fact, mothers are reporting their young kids that were at home when this happened are still traumatized. People are reporting today that they get scared and traumatized and panicked when they see a uniformed police officer just walking a beat. They hightail it away.

     It is the fear that I think a lot of innocent people experience when law enforcement is pursuing them. I know. I've been there. I know a number of things. Law enforcement's never doubted, other than the civil rights community. The media doesn't doubt them. Law enforcement can leak anything they want about anybody, and the media writes it, and it becomes fact. Even average, ordinary Americans say, "Why would the cops lie? Why?" I mean, they take it on faith.

     However, there has still been no notice taken of this atrocity by the Main Stream Media. Worse, the Democrats have rallied to defend such practices:

     One of Texas’s acute corruption problems is the fact that the Travis County district attorney’s office, which prosecutes corruption cases, is absurdly, comically corrupt—by which I do not mean the “Hey can you get my dopey kid into UT law?” level of corruption that is commonplace in Texas, but Boss Hogg levels of corruption. You wouldn’t know it from the typically witless and servile reporting of the Austin American-Statesman, but the drunk-driving conviction of Travis County district attorney Rosemary Lehmberg is the least of that office’s problems—much more significant is the fact that is she recorded on camera threatening legal retaliation against the police who booked her. She is as explicit as can be about this: “You’re going to be in jail,” she said.

     The same prosecutor is trying to put former governor Rick Perry in jail for having vetoed funding for her office. Why did he veto the funding? Because the corruption prosecutor is grossly corrupt and a convicted criminal to boot. She went to jail, for pity’s sake.

     The Texas state house understandably has passed a bill that will curtail the Travis County district attorney’s special role in prosecuting ethics and corruption cases against elected and appointed officials. Instead, those cases will be investigated by the Texas Rangers. (Old punishment: jail. New punishment: Ranger roundhouse kick! Okay, not really, but that would be kind of awesome.) Naturally, Texas Democrats have sought to block that reform. And a handful of Republicans have, to their discredit, joined them, which is inexplicable.

     Please read the entire article; it’s brief (which Kevin Williamson seldom is) and piercing (which he always is). But don’t stop with being outraged. Do something Democrats and other leftists seldom do: think about second-order effects.


     You cannot have social stability where there is privilege for the rulers and subordination for the ruled. That’s a Society of Status (Isabel Paterson, The God of The Machine), in which the “Emmanuel Goldstein dynamic” will operate until it collapses:

Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low. They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude towards one another, have varied from age to age: but the essential structure of society has never altered. Even after enormous upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always reasserted itself, just as a gyroscope will always return to equilibrium, however far it is pushed one way or the other.

The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim -- for it is an abiding characteristic of the Low that they are too much crushed by drudgery to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside their daily lives -- is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal. Thus throughout history a struggle which is the same in its main outlines recurs over and over again. For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves or their capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High. Presently a new Middle group splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and the struggle begins over again. Of the three groups, only the Low are never even temporarily successful in achieving their aims. It would be an exaggeration to say that throughout history there has been no progress of a material kind. Even today, in a period of decline, the average human being is physically better off than he was a few centuries ago. But no advance in wealth, no softening of manners, no reform or revolution has ever brought human equality a millimetre nearer. From the point of view of the Low, no historic change has ever meant much more than a change in the name of their masters.

[George Orwell, 1984]

     When the High’s brazenness about their special status leads to the outright dismissal of the laws they claim to have passed “for the general good,” while they simultaneously exercise the full weight of their powers to oppress and silence their critics, the conditions for their overthrow have been established. The sequel is likely to be extremely unpleasant:

     [America is] becoming a nation where an elite that is certain of its power and its moral rightness is waging a cultural war on a despised minority. Except it’s not actually a minority – it only seems that way because it is marginalized by the coastal elitist liberals who run the mainstream media.

     Today in America, we have a liberal president refuses to recognize the majority sent to Congress as a reaction to his progressive failures, and who uses extra-Constitutional means like executive orders to stifle the voice of his opponents. We have a liberal establishment on a secular jihad against people who dare place their conscience ahead of progressive dogma. And we have two different sets of laws, one for the little people and one for liberals like Lois Lerner, Al Sharpton and Hillary Clinton, who can blatantly commit federal crimes and walk away scot free and smirking.

     Today in America, a despised minority that is really no minority is the target of an establishment that considers this minority unworthy of respect, unworthy of rights, and unworthy of having a say in the direction of this country. It’s an establishment that has one law for itself, and another for its enemies. It’s an establishment that inflicts an ever-increasing series of petty humiliations on its opponents and considers this all hilarious.

     That’s a recipe for disaster. You cannot expect to change the status quo for yourself and then expect those you victimize not to play by the new rules you have created. You cannot expect to be able to discard the rule of law in favor of the rule of force and have those you target not respond in kind....

     What is the end game, liberals? Do you expect these people you despise to just take it? Do you think they’ll just shrug their shoulders and say, “Well, I guess we better comply?” Do you even know any real Americans? Do you think you’ll somehow be able to force them into obedience – for what is government power but force – after someone finally says “Enough?”

     Kurt Schlichter and I are asking the same question.


     The Party in 1984 strove to cement itself into permanent power by exerting that power to the utmost. The conditions to which the proles (“the Low”) were subjected were so crushing that they couldn’t even conceive of rebelling. The Outer Party (“the Middle”) was kept almost as poor materially as the proles, was regimented to the hilt, and was watched continuously for the merest hint of deviation. The few Outer Party members who dared to deviate were remade psychologically, in a fashion that would break them of the will to resist. The Inner Party (“the High”) was composed entirely of fanatic loyalists willing to do anything whatsoever to retain their hegemony. Thus the Party attempted to solve the age-old problem of political stability.

     1984 is fiction, of course. But at least one element of it has crept into American reality:

     [C]onservatives already do outbreed the left — which is why the left is so determined to maintain its iron hold on education, K-through-12-through-infinity. If they can’t (or won’t) breed more lefties, they know how to make them.

     That’s why homeschooling frightens them so much. That’s why they fight so hard against their own strongest constituents in the effort to prevent school choice and teacher accountability.

     Twelve years of endless harangues about “social justice” and the like will leave a mark on a child that’s near to indelible. It lacks the intensity and focus of O’Brien and Room 101, but it compensates with duration. Many parents find themselves helpless against it.

     Winston Smith wrote that “If there is hope, it lies in the proles.” A few moments later he added, “Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.” The proles of our place and time are utterly dependent on the State. The State is their father: protector and provider both. they will never even imagine that their protector / provider is really their owner, to be overthrown if they are to advance. There is no hope in them.

     We are the Outer Party. Not in material matters – even a “poor” American lives a life of riches undreamed by emperors of old – but in the view of the political elite. They don’t have the technology to watch us continuously, though with their drones, license plate readers, and the proliferation of “smart” appliances” they’re advancing on it. They haven’t yet disarmed us, though they’re working on that as well.

     The political class, regardless of Democrat or Republican affiliation, is our Inner Party. It uses its tools to subjugate where it can, and to propagandize where it cannot. With the recent, unabashed resort to political prosecutions to destroy its opponents, its consciousness of itself has become complete. Do not doubt that it will go on as it has begun, and to ever greater intensity.


     Somewhere in the future lies a point of no return, at which all prospect of deliberately ejecting the political class will have vanished. Somewhere nearer to the present lies a point at which the possibility of doing so non-violently will have been extinguished. The Spoonerites waited too long, and were forced to flee. Unless there’s a planetoid wandering through that I haven’t heard about, we won’t have that option.

     It’s not enough to complain to one another. It’s not enough to vote. It’s not enough to support this or that promising-looking candidate. We’ve tried all that.

     What, then, must we do?

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Creeping Totalitarianism Report

     This disturbing article from David French demonstrates factual reporting as it was once practiced:

     “They came with a battering ram.”

Cindy Archer, one of the lead architects of Wisconsin’s Act 10 — also called the “Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill,” it limited public-employee benefits and altered collective-bargaining rules for public-employee unions — was jolted awake by yelling, loud pounding at the door, and her dogs’ frantic barking. The entire house — the windows and walls — was shaking.

She looked outside to see up to a dozen police officers, yelling to open the door. They were carrying a battering ram.

She wasn’t dressed, but she started to run toward the door, her body in full view of the police. Some yelled at her to grab some clothes, others yelled for her to open the door.

“I was so afraid,” she says. “I did not know what to do.” She grabbed some clothes, opened the door, and dressed right in front of the police. The dogs were still frantic.

“I begged and begged, ‘Please don’t shoot my dogs, please don’t shoot my dogs, just don’t shoot my dogs.’ I couldn’t get them to stop barking, and I couldn’t get them outside quick enough. I saw a gun and barking dogs. I was scared and knew this was a bad mix.”

She got the dogs safely out of the house, just as multiple armed agents rushed inside. Some even barged into the bathroom, where her partner was in the shower. The officer or agent in charge demanded that Cindy sit on the couch, but she wanted to get up and get a cup of coffee.

“I told him this was my house and I could do what I wanted.” Wrong thing to say. “This made the agent in charge furious. He towered over me with his finger in my face and yelled like a drill sergeant that I either do it his way or he would handcuff me.”

They wouldn’t let her speak to a lawyer. She looked outside and saw a person who appeared to be a reporter. Someone had tipped him off.

The neighbors started to come outside, curious at the commotion, and all the while the police searched her house, making a mess, and — according to Cindy — leaving her “dead mother’s belongings strewn across the basement floor in a most disrespectful way.”

Then they left, carrying with them only a cellphone and a laptop.

     Disturbing? Indeed, terrifying. But why?

     Wisconsin, the cradle of the progressive movement and home of the “Wisconsin idea” — the marriage of state governments and state universities to govern through technocratic reform — was giving birth to a new progressive idea, the use of law enforcement as a political instrument, as a weapon to attempt to undo election results, shame opponents, and ruin lives.

     That’s why.

     To the best of my knowledge, the Gestapo-like raids above, all of which targeted conservative activists in Wisconsin, have not been reported by any major media organ. There’s been no mention of them in the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the Philadelphia Enquirer. Why?

     I’m afraid you already know why.


     The raids above were conceived by Milwaukee district attorney John Chisholm, a highly partisan Democrat whose wife is a shop steward in a Wisconsin teachers’ union. They were judicially approved by Judge Barbara Kluka, another Democrat. And of course, they were carried out by unionized Wisconsin police.

     The motivation could not be clearer. Democrats only believe in free speech for Democrats. They’re particularly disturbed by the ascendancy of conservative Republican governor Scott Walker. That Walker has rationalized the state’s budget, turning a habitual deficit into an annual surplus, and his actions to reduce the bargaining privileges of Wisconsin’s municipal and state unions, have enraged Wisconsin Democrats beyond all description.

     God help the conservative who dares to challenge the power of Wisconsin unions.

     Will district attorney Chisholm face any legal penalties for his utterly unfounded “John Doe” investigations and the terrorization of Wisconsin conservatives by use of police power? Will Judge Kluka face any penalties for facilitating those SWAT-style raids? What about the happily cooperative Wisconsin police? For that matter, now that National Review has publicized the affair, will the Main Stream Media take an interest in this blatant use of political power to suppress the free speech and organizing rights of Americans?

     Don’t bet the rent money on it.


     I’ve written before about the evils attendant to prosecutorial discretion and sovereign immunity.

     The combination of grand jury biddability and prosecutorial discretion has given rise to an assembly-line character in the criminal justice system. Prosecutors tend to be as ambitious for advancement as anyone else in "public service," and in their case the road to higher positions is paved with copious convictions, whether or not those convicted deserve their fates. Inasmuch as the luxuriance of criminal law has created a state of affairs in which every one of us, whether wittingly or not, is "guilty" of something, an aggressive prosecutor can "rack 'em up" by pursuing a simple strategy:
  1. Look around for "suspicious" behavior -- i.e., behavior on the part of a private citizen that can be made to appear suspicious;
  2. Ruthlessly probe every element of the "suspect's" life, using the effectively infinite resources of the State, until enough "suspicious" behavior has been amassed;
  3. Assemble a huge list of charges to place before a grand jury;
  4. Present the case in such a fashion as to promote the more plausible accusations and obscure the less plausible ones, thus securing a grab-bag indictment;
  5. Offer the indicted person a plea bargain that will spare him centuries in prison and complete pauperization at the bargain price of a few years and/or a few thousand dollars.

     There is no brake to this strategy. Excessive law plus complete prosecutorial discretion plus a competent prosecutor's ability to lead a grand jury by the nose combine to put even a simon-pure citizen at the mercy of the criminal justice system. And what a system it is! Had it been consciously designed to put the maximum number of persons in prison regardless of guilt or innocence, it could not have been done better.

     Those evils are on vivid display in David French’s article. Yet it would be foolish to expect any correction to them. The State never willingly surrenders power. It only takes; it does not give. And when persons whose ideology tells them that:

  • Their politics makes them morally superior to those who disagree; and:
  • The ends justify the means; and:
  • They will face no penalties for whatever they do;

     ...have the opportunity to wield State power for their political benefit, no Earthly force is sufficient to restrain them.

     I’ve ranted about this more than once:

     Prosecutorial discretion, when coupled to sovereign immunity -- doctrines absolutely anathema to the Anglo-American legal tradition -- make it possible for statists to conceal evil motives behind a cloak of righteousness. No one can come out against "law enforcement" without exposing himself to pillory as an "anarchist." Worse, when the evil motives are revealed and the pressure is removed from the statists' targets, no remedy is applied and no restitution is offered to the victims.

A long time ago, in commenting on a similar case that occurred in Florida, the legendary Russell Baker wrote that "When the government says it is going to get you, it is going to get you." It appears that nothing has changed since then, except for the identities and political orientations of the prosecutors and their targets.

     Need I say more?


     A number of the bloggers who entered the fray around the time I did have gone silent or near to it. Consider Mike Hendrix and Emperor Misha, two old favorites of the DextroSphere. Several others have gotten by mostly on reposts.

     I miss their regular emissions, but I can understand the trend. We’re tired. We’re getting old. And we’ve been repeating ourselves rather a lot.

     That’s what happens when outrage follows outrage with neither redress nor remorse. We’re still angry, but we’re beginning to feel that there’s little point to continuing on. And we dislike to think we’re huddled in an otherwise empty room, with no one listening to us but one another.

     The American people appear to have been enervated to the point of surrender. The Howard Beale character in Paddy Chayevsky’s screenplay for Network captured my sense of it perfectly:

     I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a depression. Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's worth. Banks are going bust. Shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter. Punks are running wild in the street and there's nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there's no end to it. We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat, and we sit watching our TVs while some local newscaster tells us that today we had fifteen homicides and sixty-three violent crimes, as if that's the way it's supposed to be.

     We know things are bad — worse than bad. They're crazy. It's like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don't go out anymore. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we are living in is getting smaller, and all we say is: 'Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials and I won't say anything. Just leave us alone.'

     Is it really this way? Are we unwilling to rear up on our hind legs and roar defiance into our oppressors’ faces?

     Do you want your freedom back? Do you want to feel reasonably safe from “your” government? Voting every two or four years ain’t gonna do it, people. It will take actual resistance to the tyrants by persons brave enough to do so – and staunch support of those brave ones, political, legal, financial, and moral, by the rest of us.

     I know, I know: Who bells the cat? It’s the old question, the one we use to paralyze ourselves. It’s more effective than ever. The State in our time can target individuals with frightening accuracy, and can bring overwhelming power to bear against them, as David French has told us. The Redcoats didn’t even have rifled barrels on their muskets.

     Is there a Patrick Henry in the house?

     Never mind. Forget I said anything. I’m just an old man who claims to remember what it was like to be free. We didn’t even have color TVs back then, so how good could it have been, really?

     All rise for Flag salute. Here are your internal passport, your work permit, and your ration card. Now sit down and pay attention to the political officer. He’s here to serve!

Thursday, January 15, 2015

A Tale Of Two Totalitarianisms

The esteemed Ace of Spades makes a striking observation this morning:

One problem with liberalism has always been that those promoting it are, and largely have been, cowards.

The creed is not inherently cowardly; in fact, most of it is brave....But a lot of the people championing it are morally uncertain and physically weak types. This has caused liberalism to be associated in the world with vacillation, compromise, and cowardice.

I knew someone who once told me he despised liberals as cowards. So you're conservative? I asked.

"No," he replied. "Communist."

And that is the knock on liberalism. Other creeds are dark, stupid, and murderous, but they appeal to young men because they seem to be espoused by strong men, rough men, ready men.

And liberalism, meanwhile, is mostly a collection of pious platitudes mouthed by sissies.

There is some justice in this. Moreover, it helps to illuminate an important commonality between the two most important totalitarian creeds of our time: Islam and Left-liberalism.


It’s a common observation that left-liberals, for all their pieties about “helping the poor,” do very little of it personally. They prefer to vote for politicians who will then enact programs – preferably federal programs, so that no one can escape – which will result in armies of bureaucrats spending oceans of tax dollars, the greater part of which will pay the salaries of “compassionate” types like themselves and a piddling fraction of which will become benefits to the officially recognized “poor.” That’s left-liberal “charity:” the sort that declines to dirty the left-liberal’s own hands or distract him from his enjoyment of the Chardonnay and Brie.

As anyone with three functioning brain cells knows, in practice this resolves to a program of totalitarian control of just about everything in the name of “compassion,” “social justice,” or what-have-you. My term for this is social fascism: the drive toward a totalitarian State that has first claim on all things, and regulates everything down to the smallest detail, under a rationale of “good intentions.” (Jonah Goldberg calls it Liberal Fascism, which has more immediate political application.)

Left-liberalism / social-fascism is currently on the skids with Americans, owing to their disgust with the current regime. (What we can and will do about it remains uncertain.) However, the ironclad will that animates its allegiants cannot be denied. They are determined to have their way; they will stop at nothing. They regard no strategy and no tactic as out of bounds.

I can’t cite many overt expressions of such an unbounded, absolutely determined political will. However, I can cite one:

In the Nazi leadership’s view, Rauschning (a one-time friend of Hitler’s) reports, “the more inconsistent and irrational is their doctrine, the better….[E]verything that might have gone to the making up of a systematic, logically conceived doctrine is dismissed as a trifle, with sovereign contempt.” “To all doubts and questions,” writes Rosenberg, “the new man of the first German empire has only one answer: Nevertheless, I will!” [From Leonard Peikoff’s The Ominous Parallels]

Are left-liberal policies inconsistent? Irrational? Left-liberals don’t care any more than the Nazis did. They know what’s best for us, and we’re damned well going to swallow it...at the point of a gun, if need be.


If Islam’s political culture isn’t yet plain to you, Gentle Reader, you must have skipped a few of the essays here. Islam is inseparable from its political program, and that program is totalitarian:

“Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! These are hundreds of other psalms and Hadiths urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.” – Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini
"The minarets are our bayonets; the domes are our helmets. Mosques are our barracks, the believers are soldiers. This holy army guards my religion. Almighty Our journey is our destiny, the end is martyrdom." -- Recep Tayyip Erdogan, prime minister of Turkey

The totalitarian mindset must be coupled to absolute will. People resist being ordered around, which is why the myrmidons of the State carry guns and forbid us to have them. (Note how many federal bureaucracies have armed themselves. Note how military hardware has been distributed to local police forces nationwide. And note how Obama’s Department of Justice has descended to the use of sub-legal means to throttle the supply of firearms and ammunition to private citizens. Do you really think that’s coincidence?) So to enforce a totalitarian program, the State must be willing to kill until the survivors have all submitted to its yoke: a program that requires the firmest will of all.

In that regard Islam is exactly the same:

The Qur’an contains detailed instructions and examples of how to meet unbelievers. The first instruction is that they should be called to Islam; in fact, the Qur’an says you cannot wage war against unbelievers until you have preached to them. The second instruction is that if they do not convert to Islam, then, they must be fought. The third instruction is that if they surrender, or convert, then you must stop waging war. The final instruction is that if they do not convert or surrender, then they must be killed. This is the optimum route for Islamist expansion: A tidal wave of war, subjugation and conversion.
While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let us go to the Jews" We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle." [ Sahih Bukhari, 53:392]
Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme. [The Koran, Sura 2, verse 193]

The sole difference between the Islamic mindset and that of the Leftist lies in their professed intentions. Their absolute determination to rule in all things – to compel, prohibit, and expropriate without limit – is utterly the same.


If you need a grace note for this comparison of today’s two foremost totalitarian creeds, consider how utterly ruthless both of them are toward critics. Islam decrees death for those who dare even to differ with its dictates. Left-liberals, currently without the legal authority to silence dissenters by force, use extra-legal means: vandalism, extortion, intimidation, hackery, slander, and whatever other tools are ready to hand. That they do so under a cloak of self-righteousness doesn’t alter the totalitarian will that powers their tactics.

A Christian will reject Islamic theology reflexively, as Islam denies the divinity of Jesus. Yet that same Christian might find some of the policies of left-liberalism appealing entirely on the basis of their supposed intentions. Yet should he press a left-liberal espouser of such a policy for its record in practice, or ask what evidence would cause the left-liberal to doubt the soundness of his policy, he’ll be answered with a flood vituperation likely to exceed his expectations. Given the proliferation of such tactics, is it reasonable to doubt that the left-liberal would resort to force, were he able to get away with it?

And given all the above, why would any man of good will award one iota more respect to either of these totalitarian creeds than to the other?

Saturday, December 6, 2014

The Cry Of The Left: “Eat Your Neighbors!”

First, a snippet from one of my books:

    Patrick Wolzman mounted the dais and addressed the crowd.
    “Things have been fairly quiet around here lately,” he said. “Quiet enough that you might be wondering why I called this meeting. It’s simple enough, really. Has anyone else been following developments at Morelon House?”
    Barton started. Althea came to full alert. The crowd murmured uneasily.
    Wolzman nodded. “I thought not. I have, for several reasons. The Morelons have turned their mansion into a fortress. They’ve mounted big guns at all points of the compass. Laser cannons like the ones here.” He waved at the Spacehawk laser turrets. “It got me wondering why, and about what else they might have planned for the near future.”
    His gaze fell directly upon Barton. “I see the Morelon patriarch has graced us with his presence. Perhaps he’d care to join me up here and explain the actions of his clan, which many of us might deem provocative.”
    Barton growled “Hold hard, Al,” moved to the front of the gathering, and hoisted himself onto the dais with some difficulty. He glared at Wolzman with unconcealed anger.
    “Refresh my memory, Patrick,” he said in his sweetest tones. “Your clan is in the weapons business, is it not?”
    Wolzman nodded warily.
    “Have you had a downturn in business lately?”
    “Not noticeably, no.”
    “Well, what moves you to question the desire of Clan Morelon to develop some weapons of its own? You don’t mean to claim a monopoly over the trade, do you?”
    In the perimeter lights around the battery, Wolzman’s face darkened visibly. Yet glimmering behind the mask of anger was a well-concealed smile of satisfaction.
    “Monopolies are why we’re here, Bart,” he said. “Just now, Clan Morelon wields a trio of them. And a few of us here and a few not so nearby are getting just a wee bit worried at the trend.”
    Barton frowned. “We have no monopolies. Everything we sell is available from other sources.”
    Wolzman produced a smile of triumph. He turned to face the crowd.
    “Who here gets his power from a source other than a Morelon fusion plant? Please raise a hand.”
    No one did so. Wolzman nodded. “And what clan, whether or not it’s represented here, possesses ground-to-orbit capability and an outpost on the Relic? Please! Don’t all answer at once.”
    The uneasy rustling from the crowd became more pronounced.
    “Monopolies,” Wolzman said. “Not engineered by the destruction of your competition, I’ll grant that. But complete enough that if you wanted to ruin any of us, for any reason, you have the wherewithal, either by cutting off our electrical power or by bombarding us from sperosynchronous orbit.”
    —Don’t interfere, Al.
    It’s hard.
    —I know. Don’t.
    “What would make anyone think we plan any such thing?” Barton was maintaining his composure with an all too visible effort. “We’re merely using technology to provide electrical power—a product, I might add, that derives completely from my kinswoman’s massive investments and embrace of enormous personal risks to achieve that bastion on the Relic, where she did the research that produced it.” He waved at Althea, who had moved to the front of the crowd. “There she is, Patrick. Will you castigate her for her industry, her bravery, or both?”
    “Neither,” Wolzman said. “I’m castigating you and your clan, for not sharing her breakthroughs with the community at large.”
    Barton snorted. “And what ethical principle would compel us to do that? Oh, by the way, I’m still waiting to hear about our third monopoly. You did say ‘trio,’ didn’t you?”
    Wolzman nodded. “I did. Show the crowd your left arm.”
    Barton stared at him in incredulity. “Are you serious?”
    “Please, Bart.”
    He skinned back his sleeve.
    The arm was essentially regrown. It hadn’t yet developed to a mature girth or muscle tone; that would take time, nutrition, and a long course of steadily intensifying exercise. Nevertheless, it was complete, all the way to a hand with fingers and a nail at the end of each.
    “A brand new appendage, ladies and gentlemen,” Wolzman purred. “For those of you unaware of it, Bart lost that arm in combat with forces to which my clan was allied. Forces that came together for the same reasons I’ve asked you here this evening: to break the Morelon stranglehold on facilities that no single clan should command. Facilities that simple justice demands they be shared with all of Hope.
    “There’s the third of them, Bart. With the adoption of Claire Albermayer—”
    “It’s Claire Morelon now, Patrick,” Barton spat.
    Wolzman nodded. “As you wish. With that adoption, Clan Morelon has acquired the power of bodily regeneration. The ability to replace any lost or damaged body part, as long as the victim remains alive. Do you plan to share that with the rest of us, Bart?”
    Althea had reached battle readiness. She restrained herself from leaping onto the dais by the narrowest of margins.
    “It will be commercialized,” Barton said.
    “Oh?” Wolzman snorted. “How generous! What you’ve received as a gift from your adoptee, we will have to pay for! Shall we bow to your majestic beneficence now, or would you prefer to have our obeisance choreographed?”

[From Freedom’s Fury, the third volume of my Spooner Federation trilogy.]

Hope, a world populated by the descendants of anarchists who fled Earth before the genocidal wrath of the States, has grown prosperous and well populated...well populated enough that some have arisen who envy their fellows’ superior achievements and seek power over them. They tried, earlier in the series, to take what they wanted by force, but failed. (That’s the reason Clan Morelon fortified its two mansions as described above.) In the above, we see one of their leading lights trying the other perennial tactic of the Left: inducing neighbors to distrust one another.

Eowyn of the excellent Fellowship of the Minds notes a smaller-scale example of the tactic:

Use of snitches seems instinctive to the Left....

B. Christopher Agee reports for Western Journalism, Dec. 4, 2014, that in response to a shooting incident last week in downtown Austin, Police Chief Acevedo held a press conference to emphasize the shooting could have been prevented had someone reported the gunman’s behavior to law enforcement before his rampage.

Saying that he stays awake at nights worrying about “these homegrown extremists that are lone wolves, that are mad at the world, that are angry,” Acevedo encouraged Austin residents to report to authorities anyone “who’s a gun enthusiast or is armed with these types of firearms and they’re showing any type of propensity for hatred.”

The police chief said: “It’s important for us as Americans to know our neighbors, to know our families. Tell somebody if you know somebody that is acting pecu—with a lot of hatred toward any particular group.”

Couching his instruction with the caveat that turning in a friend or family member for owning guns “doesn’t mean that we’re going to take them to jail,” Acevedo noted that “we might want to vet these people.”

By my lights, Acevedo’s words, if they were reported accurately in the above, constitute adequate grounds for removing him from his position and barring him from ever again occupying a position of public trust. But Austin, despite being the capital of gun-friendly Texas, is rather far to the left politically, so I doubt that any such thing will occur. However, it’s Eowyn’s first sentence that’s most thematic:

Use of snitches seems instinctive to the Left.

Not only is it reflexive on their part; it’s also highly revealing. Totalitarians of all stripes are aware that they can never command sufficient police power to impose their will on a whole nation, unless their subjects actively participate in the process of oppression.

But in a free, peaceful, prosperous commonwealth, that’s a very difficult thing to do ab initio. It requires an emotional infrastructure that must be carefully designed and laid down.

It requires a pervasive atmosphere of fear.


Among the Left’s recent losses of more than transient importance has been its loss of two tactics of longstanding importance: racism-shouting and “women’s issues.” Note how badly candidates who leaned on those traditional pillars were beaten in the recent elections. The implication seems obvious: it’s no longer sufficient for the Left to accuse conservative or libertarian candidates of wanting to oppress Negroes and / or women. Yet those tactics have been instrumental in its rise to political power and to its grip on what it still possesses. Therefore, it must seek new weapons to take the place of those it has unintentionally blunted.

The Left’s gropings appear to have landed on an approach no man of good will would have expected: accusations of sexual predation. Consider the following stories:

Each of these “rapes” was used by the Left as a tool for encouraging women to fear men – especially for young women to fear young men. If that doesn’t have you thinking about Rupert’s cri de coeur, check your pulse: you may have died and not noticed.

Pervasive mutual fear is the most fertile of all soils in which to germinate a totalitarian State.


Only by turning us against one another can the Left succeed in completing its campaign to extinguish all traces of freedom.

We already live under a cloud of fear, but at this time it’s principally fear of government. So many organs of government at all levels have been revealed as predacious exploiters of power and privilege that Americans’ trust in government has sunk to an all-time low. No one believes any longer in the restraining effects of the Constitution or the guarantees of the Bill of Rights. No one grants any agent of the State the presumption of benevolence. And no one with three functioning brain cells willingly allows a uniformed “law enforcement officer” into his home...especially not those of us with dogs.

I find myself wondering if there’s a wandering planetoid in our future...or perhaps, given the ESA’s recent achievements, a habitable comet.


The situation is grave, and becoming graver as we speak.The IRS has embraced its role as Censor of the Right to a degree even I could not have predicted. Other of the “alphabet agencies” are striving with all their power to suppress American enterprise, that the Left’s gains in reducing so many of us to dependence on State handouts not be reversed. And of course, we have the rampant use of militarized local police forces and their unConstitutional use of “civil asset forfeiture” to fund their operations and keep us all cowering behind our curtains.

Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley has several times spoken of a “tipping point,” passing which could put an end to any remaining semblance of Constitutional government. If we haven’t yet passed such a point, we’re surely teetering at the edge of it today.

Food for thought.

(Cross-posted at League of Outlaw Bloggers.)