Let the left rage; and, can our society be saved?
You asked: “Are Obamacrats’ bullying tactics hurting them?”
- end of initial entry -
It is simply beautiful to observe.
The practitioners of Islam cannot help themselves from killing infidels and pushing cultural limits on all fronts. The practitioners of “black power” cannot but pursue the Trayvon case to their fullest. And the left/liberals, with Obama in the White House, absolutely need to express their madness in full public view, what with Occupy last year and now the attack on the Supreme Court.
These tactics are extremely helpful in illustrating, for regular wage earners of all classes of society, what group politics is all about. It is sad to say, but without the 9/11 attacks, without black mob rage, and without a tongue-out-of-control POTUS, many of us would not be aware of the severity of the situation in the West, myself included.
Therefore, let them rave, let them speak their minds, let them march. Unfortunately, and deplorably, they will also continue to destroy innocent civilians in “random” attacks. However, it seems that these kinds of actions are far more effective in raising awareness and consciousness than any number of intellectual treatises on these subjects.
Bjorn’s thoughts are powerful.
Bjorn’s line, “let them rave,” reminded me of the below line of Yeats’s, “let the fools rage,” which I paraphrased in the title as “let the left rage.”
Let the fools rage, I swerved in nought;
Something to perfection brought.
However, it seems that these kinds of actions are far more effective in raising awareness and consciousness than any number of intellectual treatises on these subjects.
Awareness and consciousness? Until the heat from one of their fires actually touches our straw homes, at which time it will obviously be too late; we will continue to fiddle and talk among ourselves, knowing full well that at this very moment they are burning near-by parts of America down.
Bjorn in previous communications has spoken of his concern about the deep sleep of Western peoples, particularly of the regular people as distinct from the political and intellectual classes, and he is always looking for something—whether it’s within our power, such as right-wing activism and education, or outside our power, such as, here, the evils committed by the left—that will wake them up.
In this time of little or no real national leadership that recognizes the danger we face,—indeed, most Western leaders are philosophically more or less in agreement with the direction in which we are heading—our only hope is an awakening of the general working-class and middle-class populace, those sections of society that still care about work, thrift, family, religion and culture, and who still feel a sense of identity and pride in what they are. And since we cannot simply commandeer these masses to rise and rid themselves of 50 years of cultural erosion, only persuasion can be used. And lastly, since our side is seldom heard in the mainstream media, it remains my hope that a sufficiencty of atrocity from the anti-Western groups identified will serve as another lightning rod for popular opinion. It is, after all, difficult even for the mainstream media to hide outrageous presidential statements and terrorist attacks, even though the media continue to obfuscate the underlying reasons for it all.
An escalating level of violence, now occurring in most Western countries, may serve as another tipping point from which popular movements can be mobilized, using local levels of leadership coupled with continued activism in various forums, such as churches, freedom parties and movements, Tea Parties, and others.
Does Buck have further suggestions for how one can mobilize people who are still busy going to work and raising families?
Does Buck have further suggestions for how one can mobilize people who are still busy going to work and raising families?
No. No one does. That’s the point. We need more violence from the violent? To accomplish what, wake the dead? Leadership to lead us to what, the voting booth?
It’s been said a thousand ways in countless discussions right here. There is nothing civil, NOTHING CIVIL, that we can do. Civil discourse is pointless. As traditionalist conservatives we play by the rules. Modern liberals have no rules. Modern liberals have no constraints. We don’t take over government buildings or city parks for months on end, standing up to The Man, even in the face of withering criticism and polite negotiations. We don’t burn and destroy. We don’t lie about absolutely everything. We won’t mobilize to do anything.
We hold Tea Parties in the park, with a permit of course.We bake cookies and say prayers. We leave the park cleaner than it was. God forbid that we be caught littering. We tread lightly on the grass, or we repair it. Then we leave as quickly and as orderly as we arrived. We want to be in church the next morning, and at the kid’s soccer game in the afternoon. We rest up so we’re sharp for work the morning after that. We make civil, well reasoned, thoughtful, thought-pleading, and always well tempered speeches. “Vote the bastards out!, oh my, forgive me for saying that, please and thank you.” Really. We bring spoons and napkins to a knife fight.
I won’t say what I know has to happen. That would bring hell down on the house. We’re past the feckless attempt to persuade liberals to stop being liberals. Try to think of one single public or government institution that’s on our side. One. There is not one single ascending element of traditionalist principle. Religious, educational, judicial, legislative, executive, cultural, societal, military, foreign policy, science … where is our power center? It’s in the cloud. It’s in our minds. It needs to be on the street. But we’re lost on the street, we’re frightened deer in the headlights.
Of course I’ve said many times that traditionalists have zero power in America. And since last autumn I’ve been saying that there is no prospect of our society turning away from liberalism—not within the present order of society, which is now so thoroughly dominated by liberalism, both institutionally and within people’s souls. In my view, that order will have to break down at least somewhat, before there can be any realistic possibility of a turn of the society (as distinct from a turn of individuals and small groups) away from liberalism.
Yet I would not argue against someone, like Bjorn, who hopes for a change in a better direction. Based on my own experience, in which I consistently held out for years the hope for a turnaround (and against many correspondents who disagreed with me), I know that giving up that hope and that view is not something that one can be pushed into by argument. It is something that one must come to see for oneself, in one’s own way and in one’s own time. To lose the expectation and hope that one’s beloved country and civilization can be saved is a heavy thing. No one should be pushed into it. And, as long as a person has that hope in him, it is right for him to continue fighting for it. I would never argue with anyone that he should not continue a righteous fight for the things he believes in, which are also the things I believe in.
Also, even if a change of the whole society cannot be reasonably hoped for in the foreseeable future, we must still work for those smaller changes that are possible. Consider the efforts of states to get control over illegal immigration, and Wisconsin governor Scott Walker’s courageous crusade to restrain the power of public unions.
Laurence B. writes:
It saddens me to say that I agree with almost all of what Buck says. At times it was tempting to lose hope because that was easy, because then all one really had to do was look out for oneself and one’s family while the rest of the doomed world ate itself to death on its own just desserts. If there’s nothing we can do to save it, that’s less to worry about. Despite all of the concerted conservative effort left in America, the rot is too deep, try as we might to remove it.
However, I think it is worth mentioning that there is one small conservative/non-liberal insurgency, and that is in the Catholic youth. Of course, modern Catholicism has its many problem in the United States, and it is constantly under attack from the liberals even as it strives to appease them. Nonetheless, the number of young, faithful, and energetic Catholics is increasing, as is the push against abortion. The abortion issue is one area where liberals are increasingly on the defensive, where the liberal word is no longer law. Considering that the liberals corrupted America not in a single wave, but institution by institution, I think the pro-life movement is a good start, even if it does create too many-single-issue voters.
At least the Pro-Life movement is one that’s self-perpetuating. Liberalism is a culture of death. What better contrasts with it than young people working for a culture of life?
Thanks for hosting this discussion.
Alan M. writes:
I thought this post was auspicious in its timing given the death of our Lord who came to save us.
We have no power to save our society. Nor do we have the power to save ourselves. All we can do is to make our best efforts to align ourselves with our Lord Redeemer in all that we think and do.
Recognizing our failings but maintaining hope and joy is a bittersweet place. It gives us the energy to continue to move forward while being true to the reality of the current situation—whether at a personal or societal level. It is in that quiet place where God softens our hearts and works miracles. It is the essence of Christianity.
This musical piece perfectly captures that for me—Adagio for Strings by Barber
Rick Darby writes:
There is one possible game changer, although it doesn’t have anything to do with virtue or political wisdom. That is the economic debacle we face. Millions of words have been written about “what is past, or passing, or to come” in the American financial disaster. For the sake of brevity I’ll quote James Quinn:
The explosive mixture of the five D’s will provide the spark for the next phase: Debt; Derivatives; Default; Devaluation; and ultimately Depression. There is no way to deny the $15.6 trillion of debt this country has accumulated, with $10 trillion of it added since 2000. The debt ceiling of $16.4 trillion will be breached in October 2012 at the current rate of extreme spending.
This isn’t some crackpot end-of-the-world theory; it’s essentially what many sound financial commentators are saying.
We are accumulating debt at a rate of $3.7 billion per day, or $154 million per hour. No politician of either party, other than Ron Paul, has any plan to even moderate the spending, let alone make actual cuts. The CBO projections rolled out by these congressional weasels aren’t worth the paper they are printed on. The National Debt is on track to surpass $20 trillion in 2015 and $25 trillion by 2018. And this is before the Medicare and Social Security costs blast into orbit in 2020. Kicking the can down the road works until math catches up with you. It is insane to believe we can dig ourselves out of this debt induced mess with more debt, but empires tend to act insanely in their death throes.
When the wheels come off, we will all be in a tough situation. But the biggest change will be the collapse of the Welfare Establishment. The subsidized, nonproductive classes will be high and dry. Blacks and Hispanics aren’t the only ones who will be affected, but they will make up a good percentage.
What will happen when third-generation welfare recipients suddenly find their “food stamp” cards don’t scan anymore? When they can no longer use hospital emergency rooms as their primary care physician?
It’s hard to say, since such a situation has never been seen in this country before; there were serious protests during the Depression but they were by whites, essentially law-abiding and almost entirely nonviolent. Odds are that this will be different; civil conflict on a grand scale.
At that point, self-preservation will rule. And when it’s a matter of self-preservation, ideology can go out the window jolly fast.
It’s awful to think that such a crisis is possibly the only chance of turning the country around. But it’s better than no chance.
Buck is of course right, right in his assessment that “it needs to be on the street.” And Larry is equally right, that “there is no prospect of our society turning away from liberalism,” within the present order of society. Should one therefore resign oneself to the inevitable—a new world order, run by the UN under Agenda 21?
I say no and will continue to maintain hope when I can observe, and be part of, some of the following:
- Geert Wilders, a liberal, started a new party in an extremely liberal society and now negotiates government policy; he has recently recommended a return to the Guilder, Holland’s national currency.
- One of the greatest hoaxes of all time—environmentalism and global warming—is facing a serious backlash, along with the collapse of most of the over-subsidized green industries in the West (solar, wind); England’s Lord Monckton is going stronger than ever.
- Various U.S. state legislatures are actively seeking “U.S. Laws for U.S. Courts” legislation, as well as various anti-Sharia initiatives; certain states are seeking to limit immigration forced upon them by the State Department’s refugee policies.
- The EU as currently constituted, and the euro, may actually collapse.
- The English Defence League in England is actually “on the street” and is being noticed more and more; chances are that the EDL force will be turned into a political force in the near future.
- The hate speech trial against Lars Hedegaard in Denmark is causing “civil disobedience” with Danish citizens openly challenging the law to arrest them by—publicly—speaking the words that got Lars prosecuted during private speech (Muslim rape statistics).
- There is actually a chance that the U.S. Supreme Court may find Obamacare unconstitutional.
- Allen West was elected to the U.S. Congress.
- Organizations such as the Tennessee Freedom Coalition, ACT for America, Center for Security Policy, The United West, The Horowitz Foundation, the International Free Press Society and many others, are laying their lives and careers on the line fighting for our future.
There is no hope of convincing the existing political elite, nor the academia, nor the mainstream media—we can only hope to reach people somewhat insulated from the current political reality. In America this can only happen in the (mostly) evangelical Christian churches, where a real “sense of life” still exists. Working class and middle class folks mostly, probably more in the southern part of the U.S.
But first they have to become angry, hence my opening argument of “Let the left rage.”
Then the main question will be answered—can the recovery be accomplished using “civil society’s” tools or will Europe, for example, descend into another war? Those in my camp believe in the ballot box, witness Geert Wilders.
Can we then save ourselves within the current national frameworks or will various camps choose the way of fractured former Yugoslavia or Soviet Union?
I hesitated to send this, not wanting to be seen as attempting to refute or challenge Laurence B.”s hope and faith, because I’m not. I would love to share it. I am seeking faith. I don’t know God, but I am seeking Him. I’m certain of His work, but so far, only in the physical realm. I’ve no doubt of our Creator. I’ve ample doubt of His spirit.
I know what day this is. I wish that it meant more to me. I’ve nothing but reverence and respect, something I’ve retained and somehow embraced from the beginning. It’s not simply a wager. It did not come by way of family or during my infrequent adolescent church attendance.
Everywhere I look there are countless houses of worship. There must be a new sign a week on the road from DC. I don’t believe that God is building them, though I don’t recall ever seeing one of them go out of business.
This is another reason why I have no faith and little hope:
Research and publications from the Alan Guttmacher Institute in America illustrate some contradictions in the Catholic stance against abortion:
Catholic women in the United States are as likely as women in the general population to have an abortion, and 29 percent more likely than Protestant women.
Catholic countries, even where abortion is illegal, have high levels of abortions: in Brazil, the estimated number of abortions ranges from one million to two million per year and in Peru, five percent of women of childbearing age have abortions each year, compared to three percent in the United States.
64 percent of U.S. Catholics disapprove of the statement that abortion is morally wrong in every case (Survey of 493 Catholics, designed by Lake Research and Tarrance Group, for U.S. News & World Report, Sept. 1995, margin of error ± 4.5 percent.)
72 percent of Catholics in Australia say decisions about abortion should be left to individual women and their doctors. (Survey for Family Planning Australia and Children by Choice, Melbourne, AGB McNair, Aug. 1996.)
That was from a Planned Parenthood sister organization. But, this Catholic site only disagrees in degree, but not in kind:
There are countless sites offering various statistics and claims.
I searched “Catholic youth against abortion.” The first result was Cathlotic Youth Ministry.
After reading quickly through this site, I entered “abortion” into its search engine. It displays a handful of entries over two plus years. “Abortion” is mentioned. One is actually about abortion, and one was only about a one-night fundraiser for something that others were doing.
Anything is possible. Perhaps small local groups of Catholic youth can coalesce into something more. They have a huge task. The Pope himself seems to be preaching only to the choir, which as many will concede, are only a very small number of devout.
Just the other night, a married father of two, characterized himself as a “cafeteria Catholic,” to knowing nods from others; as if that was the most reasonable approach in the world.
From this discussion I think of my own views as consisting of a bit of Bjorn’s message and Buck’s as well. A few points:
Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 06, 2012 01:03 AM | Send
1. Buck alludes to the solution to the liberal takeover consisting, at least in part, in our presence in the streets and in public life. I agree that we mainly exist in “the cloud” now. It seems fairly obvious to me that the reason such a turnaround has not occurred, even by way of ideas in the mainstream awareness, is that the middle classes have simply not been caused enough discomfort by liberal society. This lack of sufficient pain is both economic and social and the evidence we do take note of, such as the mortgage crisis, black-on-white crime, feminist ideology, etc., only produces superficial wounds, at most, for the general population. People do respond to pain and the first response is a new sense of being awake. It hasn’t happened yet on a large enough or deep enough scale.
2. Buck says: “There is not one single ascending element of traditionalist principle. Religious, educational, judicial, legislative, executive, cultural, societal, military, foreign policy, science … where is our power center?”
There are traditionalists and traditionalist sympathizers throughout these institutions. Liberals know this and that is one reason they are still gnashing their teeth in broad daylight. Even as they hate their right wing enemies, liberals are defined by their existence. I find this single notion to be cheering. Related to this is the mannered and normal society that both Bjorn and Buck spoke of—it maintains a role not as a weak counter force relative to the revolutionary and powerful leftists, but as the very center of our culture. The fact alone that the center of our political and cultural being does not flex its muscle should tell anyone paying attention that we are severely off-balance.
3. I have been hearing for most of my life and from all quarters the idea that there will be at some sudden juncture a “crash” of epic proportions due to our evil ways. (This would be in a non-Biblical sense). The blame is heaped by liberals on corporations, Big Banks and evangelicals, while the right says it will be an inevitable result of Government Gone Wild, atheistic debauchery and Socialist ideologues. About the same time I was first hearing such daydreams, a friend said we would be lucky to experience such a merciful and sudden fate. Much more likely, said he, would be an excruciatingly slow and horrible decay, like some Boschian revelation over a period of decades or centuries before we hit bottom.Â
I get the impression that Buck and many others envision an outcome that would be relatively quick and decisive. I see no reason to believe a turnaround will be either expeditious or drawn out. I do believe leftism will burn out at some point and when it does morph into something more humane the transition itself will be relatively swift. The time required for the preceding maturation is anyone’s guess.