Quote of the Day – Berlin Wall Edition

Twenty years ago I breathed a sigh of relief. I honestly thought that with the demise of the USSR and their lackey regimes in East Germany and elsewhere in Eastern Europe, we’d finally secured the world that would be safe and shining bright for my children.

Today I’m not sure at all. It was easier in 1974. There was a fence. One one side was us. On the other side were the enemy. Them. A line. Us. They wore different uniforms to make it easy.

Today, the enemy isn’t on the other side of the line. The shining days I thought I’d secured for my children, those days are being torn away by a socialism administered by elites, as socialism always does. In East Germany, things were pretty darned pleasant if you were at the top, looking down at the people. For the people, though, it was grey, drab and hopeless.

That’s the America that the Left has for us. Oh, you won’t hear them actually SAY that, but that’s because they’re so wrapped up in the layers of sophistry and academic prose that they fail to read history, to see that such is the end of EVERY government that heads down the path our own Leftists are choosing.

I’m sitting here thinking how glad I was that the Warsaw Pact never crossed the line, and I’m doubting that the American Left has that much sense.Mostly Cajun, Reflections on a wall that isn’t there

[sarcasm] But Dale, this time the RIGHT people will be in charge! [/sarcasm]

Yes, Exactly

Yes, Exactly

I don’t like to say I told you so, but I’ve been saying for months now that the trick is to drag this thing across the finish line with 50.0000000000001 percent of the vote as soon as possible. From my “Happy Warrior” column in NR back in July:

Obama believes in “the fierce urgency of now”, and fierce it is. That’s where all the poor befuddled sober centrists who can’t understand why the Democrats keep passing incoherent 1,200-page bills every week are missing the point. If “health care” were about health care, the devil would be in the details. But it’s not about health or costs or coverage; it’s about getting over the river and burning the bridge. It doesn’t matter what form of governmentalized health care gets passed as long as it passes. Once it’s in place, it will be “reformed”, endlessly, but it will never be undone.

Right now, they can trade anything — abortion, death panels, whatever. The trick is to plant the seed and let the ratchet effect of Big Government take care of the rest. I said on Rush’s show on Friday that if Barack Obama had been Bill Clinton he’d have woken up on Wednesday morning and begun triangulating. Instead, Obama woke up and figured that he needed more fierce urgency, and right now. The short-term hit in 2010 is worth it for the long-term benefits: Obscure congressmen will be just as happy as obscure ambassadors or obscure chairmen of obscure agencies. And the prize of permanent irreversible statist annexation merits the risk: Governmentalized “health care” puts us on the fast track to Euro-sclerosis and redefines the relationship between citizen and state in ways that make genuine conservative politics all but impossible. — Mark Steyn, National Review Online, If It Were Done When ‘Tis Done, Then ‘Twere Well It Were Done Quickly

(My emphasis.) It’s not about health care, it’s about POWER. It always has been. That’s all it’s ever been.

And Now We Wait for the Imperial Senate

So Nancy Pelosi, in the dead of night (natch), managed to twist just enough arms – by apparently abandoning support for federally-funded abortions – to squeak the “Health Reform” bill through the House. Just three representatives would have been enough to change the vote from 220-215 to 217-218, but she pulled it off. And it was a BIPARTISAN victory, because ONE (1) Republican – Anh Cao of Louisiana – crossed the aisle and voted “YEA”.

Now it’s up to our Imperial Senate, where the necessary 60 member majority means that the Democrats can pass anything they wish, if Harry Reid can armtwist as effectively as Pelosi. Of course the Senate also contains “Republicans” like Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, George Voinovich and others, so it will probably be easier to get the bill passed in the Senate now that it’s gotten through the House.

We have unemployment above 10% for the first time in decades, our government is printing and spending billions of dollars it doesn’t have and no one wants to loan us, and now our Fearless Leaders, after producing a Department of Education that doesn’t educate, “No Child Left Behind” that can’t get out of the driveway, a “War on Poverty” that’s cost trillions but still has millions in perpetual poverty, a “War on Drugs” that the drugs are winning, want to convince us that spending a trillion dollars and forcing thousands of new regulations down our throats will improve “health care” in America.

We should just trust them. They know what’s best, as the oxymoronically titled, but perfectly named “Representative” Massa explains:

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXWmVBadWvU&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&w=425&h=344]Once again I will quote Rev. Sensing:

I predict that the Bush administration will be seen by freedom-wishing Americans a generation or two hence as the hinge on the cell door locking up our freedom. When my children are my age, they will not be free in any recognizably traditional American meaning of the word. I’d tell them to emigrate, but there’s nowhere left to go. I am left with nauseating near-conviction that I am a member of the last generation in the history of the world that is minimally truly free.

A Brilliant Bit of Analysis

Reader Phil B. (not Phil R. who attended GBRIV this year, but another Brit reader) has posted a long comment that deserves front-page status. Here it is, in its entirety. Pay particular attention to his analysis of our resident “useful idiot.”

I must disagree with Kevin regarding the ability of anyone to convince the voting public that anything to do with guns is acceptable or normal. I personally do not believe that it is possible to peacefully reverse the restrictions and negative image of firearms in the UK for various reasons. Let me start from first principles to outline why I have come to this conclusion.

You must understand the nature of the Politicians, Quangos (Quasi Autonomous Non Governmental Organisations) and the Civil Service (which is neither civil or a servant but a Master). Ministers come and go and are briefed by the civil servants but it is the Civil Service which effectively runs the country.

It is overwhelmingly Marxist/Leninist in its ethos and has been infiltrated so successfully by the left that the average citizen (or even a group of such citizens) does not even understand the rules of the game.

Communism can be simply and easily summarised : “A group of PROFESSIONAL Revolutionaries, taking over the levers of power of a Country and running the country for their own benefit”. How will they mange this? By organisation and eliminating opposition by whatever means is necessary.

Briefly, the left wing intent is to destroy the existing society and replace it with a society of its own design.

Lenin proposed five conditions for successful “Revolution”, namely :

1) The weakening or destruction of the existing State and its institutions

2) The destruction of the existing society so that it can be replaced by the type of society required by the “new” post revolutionary society

3) An inability of the existing institutions to govern or bring about change .

4) The armed forces must be demoralised and rendered ineffective (including the Police).

5) The “proletariat” must be in a mood for change.

He also stated that Freedom and Liberty is precious and therefore must be strictly rationed. All power must be accumulated to the State and freedoms and rights will be permitted ONLY if the State allows.

Once you understand that mindset and these principles, then you can use them as a template to see how many of the trends in society fit the pattern and “advance the cause”. The destruction of marriage, the recent posting on this blog about the way all parents are to be treated as paedophiles, the wrecking of the education system, “equality” legislation, gay and minority rights etc and so forth ad infinitum all assist one or more of the five principles. Try matching the attack to the principle.

Interestingly, Lenin did not prescribe what form the revolution takes or how it is prosecuted. Everyone thinks of the “Revolution” as armed people storming the Winter Palace in St Petersburg (or Leningrad if your atlas is a bit older). However, he also said that ALL aspects of society should be attacked simultaneously and if an opportunity arises to spring the revolution, then it should be taken. If the communists can actually take over the Government of the day and run the country for its own use, then that is also considered as “revolution” and equally valid.

The left wing has infiltrated and hollowed out from within just about every organisation – including the Conservative party (“Right” wing or Republican) which is “Blue Labour” – their policies and attitude is a milder version of the Left policies and attitudes. As a “for example” I will quote from Mary Ellen Synons blog “Euroseptic”

(original here http://synonblog.dailymail.co.uk/2009/11/dave-pétain.html )

Tony Blair promised the British people a referendum on the European Constitution. Then, after the text was renamed the Lisbon Treaty, Blair broke that promise because he said it was no longer a constitution, it was a treaty, and he had only promised a referendum on a constitution.

David Cameron promised the British people a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Now, after the text has been signed by President Klaus of the Czech Republic, Cameron has broken that promise — he has sent out his Tory spokesmen to say there will not be a referendum because Lisbon is not a treaty, it is now European law, and he only promised a referendum on a treaty.

Do you spot the similarities?

In the UK. The brothers Milliband (both professional politicians who have never had a job outside of Politics) and are the sons of Ralph Milliband, an ardent and active communist, are holders of significant power in the UK. David Milliband is Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Edward Samuel Miliband is Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. Ralph Milliband was attacked by David Horowitz in an essay called “The Road to Nowhere” and Kevin blogged this a while back.

Examining the political credentials of the rest of the Government Ministers reveals a similar catalogue of “ex” Marxist/Leninists in significant positions of power and influence.

A revolution? I believe it certainly is and all the conditions listed above have been very largely been achieved.

The Daily Mail newspaper reported that Labour has deliberately encouraged “multiculturism” and unlimited mass immigration to destroy British society and forever change Britain to spite the right wing. As the newspaper concerned has not been sued by the Labour party or the Government or forced to issue a public retraction of the statement that I can only assume that it must be true.

(See here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debat…telling- us.html

and

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/…sed- racism.html for details. )

However, there has been a deafening silence from the rest of the press and as the majority of people rely on the TV for news and the BBC (the state sponsored broadcasting organisation) in particular, very few people are aware of this.

This addresses Point 2 above Examining the relentless attacks on marriage from a myriad of different directions (removing tax breaks for married couples, elevating the “single parent family” by favourable benefits so that it is financially more beneficial for a married couple with children to LIVE APART, the elevation of gay “Marriage” etc.) add to this.

Constant change and bogging people down in pointless activities contributes to points 2 and 3 – Markadelphia is expert at this. Consider the amount of time that the readers of this blog have wasted in rebutting in detail his postings – while you are busy researching facts, carefully editing replies and spending your time and effort concentrating on the garbage he writes, you are not concentrating on other, perhaps much more important things. “Make the enemy do useless things” is one of Sun Tzu’s maxims. And while you are doing this, he, like a butterfly, flutters off onto another topic, equally as pointless and you respond …

What you must bear in mind is that for a professional revolutionary, infiltrated into an organisation, IT IS THEIR FULL TIME JOB to work towards the destruction of society. Kevin, all the rest of the bloggers and I must devote our spare time to this – a revolutionary can work 8 hours a day at the office and then go home to carry on in their leisure time.

My point is that, regardless of your arguments, no matter how detailed your research, no matter how much you can demonstrate that your point of view is reasonable, it will be ignored, dismissed and trivialised. Critical Theory so well developed by the Frankfurt school of Communism will be brought fully to bear to render your arguments invalid (“You are wrong”)

The existing State holds the levers of power and they certainly are not going to give it up – remember, rights will be allowed if the State is convinced that it will not be harmed by the relaxation and can be withdrawn at any time.

You might as well try to persuade by sweet reason a hungry grizzly bear to turn vegetarian and not eat you. It is not interested, its mind is made up and you are wasting your time.

Now, having outlined the methodology of the Left and given some examples to illustrate the way that the left operates, let us examine how they have used Critical Theory in particular to shape the way firearms are viewed in the UK.

Since 1920, the propaganda output by all the British media, both State controlled and privately owned, has been that Guns are evil. Gun “Nuts/Fanatics/Crazy” people have been (and still are) the target of all the insidious destruction of their reputation and character which the left practices so well.

Using Critical Theory, firearms and owners are attacked and trivialised at every opportunity.

Rich, upper class people shooting grouse and pheasants (I am neither rich or upper class but have shot both pheasants and grouse on a very modest budget) can be dismissed using the “Class Enemy” approach and vilified as brainless, moronic bloodthirsty destroyers of the environment (when not clearing the peasants from their land so that a privileged minority can lord it over the country for their own sadistic pleasure, of course).

So inculcated are the populace and so selective are the reports presented by the media (“Look what happens in America” ) that anyone would think that an intelligent, sober, sensible, law abiding person merely touching a gun would instantaneously be transmogrified into a drooling, crazed murdering chimpanzee on acid and not to be trusted with a gun.

The press and media are so left wing leaning and biased against firearms that getting the message out will be virtually impossible.

The Police have actively campaigned for the restriction on firearms since the beginning in 1920. Their mantra is “We wish to reduce the number of firearms in the hands of the population to the absolute minimum” – and if you believe any number north of zero is “the minimum”, then you are as gullible as Markadelphia.

Thanks to the Police, taking anyone to a range to introduce them to the sport is lengthy, tedious, bureaucratic and intended to put people off. Journalists have stated that they want to infiltrate a gun club and “prove” how easy it is to steal a gun. (A few years back, a journalist smuggled a gun into the UK to “prove” how easy it was … and was not prosecuted for breaking the law). The penalties for having a gun stolen are severe and you can bet your bottom dollar that you will never own a gun again. Any Gun Club where the firearm is stolen will be shut down. More ammunition will be provided to “prove” that firearms owners are a danger. As you must vouch for anyone you take to the club, very, very few people will risk things and even fewer clubs will encourage visitors.

Gun ownership is being attacked and strangled from many directions and few people will be willing to risk introducing anyone to a club, or even discuss that they are firearms owners in case loose talk leads to a break in and theft of a firearm.

Samizdata has a blog entry describing the evolution of the “no right to self defence (link here http://www.samizdata.net/blog/ ar…ay_we_were.html ) and it summarises how and why it is impossible to use a legally held firearm in self defence (besides the conditions on the firearms certificate will state “Only to be used on Approved ranges”, or a named piece of land for shooting rabbits etc. so you will be breaking the law by doing so).

So to conclude, the decline in forearms ownership in Britain will only continue, and indeed accelerate as people are forced out of the sport and no new people come into the clubs etc. and those in charge of the system will be quite content to allow this BECAUSE it is what they want. Chairman Mao stated that “Power comes from the barrel of a gun” and there is no way in the world that these people will allow power to be given to the population.

So will there ever be a change in this status? I believe so but as I said at the start of this essay, it will not be PEACEFUL.

There is an interesting book called the War of the Flea by Robert Taber about revolutionary guerrilla warfare. It was published a while ago in the 1960s and the CIA bought up the entire first printing – not because it was so dangerous that the Public couldn’t be allowed access to it but it was so good it was issued as a standard text to their operatives. I often used to see it in second hand bookshops in the UK.

One of the questions Taber asked was “Why do people, when the risks and dangers are so great, both to themselves and their families, resort to armed revolution?”

His answer was quite simple – they cannot get any redress to their grievances either through the ballot box or through the Courts.

In the UK such topics as the Lisbon treaty, law and order, taxation, the deliberate encouragement of immigration to destroy the nature of the country, loss of liberties, ID cards, etc. etc. are occurring at an accelerating rate and the average citizen is bewildered by this. The torrent of legislation and the pettiness and disproportionate penalties for trivial transgressions of the law is proceeding unabated. The labour government, through “Enabling Acts” (i.e. under existing legislation a Minister can introduce a law without it being scrutinised or voted on by parliament) has introduced one new criminal offence for EVERY DAY they have been in power since May 1997. Such legislation has given the state unprecedented power to snoop and spy on the population and now it is more expensive to obey the law than to be a criminal.

The citizens do not understand the rules of the game being played by the left. They try to understand and reason their way to a solution – and while they are trying to address and counter the arguments and problems in detail and try to lobby their “representatives”, they are overwhelmed by the new legislation coming down the pipeline. The representatives will ignore or trivialise the citizens letter or enquiry – they are driving the process – and will divide and conquer using Critical Theory, accusations of Racism, Homophobia, Islamophobia etc. No matter, it helps destroy and fragment society and isolate people, engender suspicion and any “problems” can be sorted later (such as declaring sections of the population as counter revolutionaries, class enemies, etc. The solution involves firing squads or Gulags but it must be kept firmly in mind that the purpose of it all is for a SMALL group of PROFESSIONAL revolutionaries to run the country for THEIR benefit. See any communist country and the way the leaders behave.

Is there any redress through the ballot box? All political parties are singing from the same hymn sheet and Europe is gaining greater and greater (unelected and unaccountable) powers – see the quote by Mary Ellen Synon above.

Is there any chance of the Law Courts siding with the people of the country and reversing the Governments policies? Again, no. Rather they uphold stupid and malicious legislation. And any situation where it costs you more to obey the law than to disregard it is a dangerous situation. Some of the judgements are frankly bizarre and perverse to say the least and discriminate in favour of “minorities” and against the law abiding (as a “for example” search for “Travellers” on the Daily mail website for dozens of examples of this).

The mood of the people when I left in late January 2009 was becoming increasingly frustrated and angry. Society is so fragmented now that there is no longer a sense of national identity and people now have nothing to lose.

If you accept that Taber was correct (regarding ballot boxes and the law courts) then you must conclude that Revolution in the UK is inevitable.

I learned that to avoid trouble, don’t be there when it kicks off and I believe that Britain is heading for a revolution of one form or another because the pressures and change in society are so great that it is at breaking point. What will replace that particular version of society is anyone’s guess but I can guarantee it will be a less benign, harsher and more impoverished existence. Revolutions destroy wealth and stability and I’m getting too old to start from scratch again. That is why I am writing this in New Zealand.

HOW the revolution starts (without guns in the hands of the people it will be difficult, but not impossible) and what direction it takes I would not like to predict. It will be bloody, long and protracted – but sweeping away of the old regime and the replacement with a new form of governance will be something to observe from afar.

You can bet that those people who have put their life on the line to get rid of the corrupt, non representative and self serving system will not meekly hand in their weapons to those in the new authority. Instead, they will be as brutal as the Communists and quite a few of the existing Politicians, Civil Servants and others will meet an untimely end in one form or another.

So is there hope? That’s a strange way of looking at it but perhaps there is.

As usual, you will want to know where the information comes from.

For a concise and easily read summary of the aims and principles of communism, Geoffrey Fairbairn’s “Revolutionary Guerrilla Warfare The Countryside Version” is as good as you will get. One chapter on Leninism sums it up completely in 19 pages of a paperback.

Chairman Maos quotes are found in my copy of “Mao Tse Tung – Selected Writings” which is surprisingly readable and well written. Not that I would be persuaded to subscribe to his philosophy.

Lenin’s works are too numerous to list in all their gory detail but the following are worthwhile to understand the way communist organisations are set up, organised and run. Note that Lenin had experience of the Army and organisation so if his writings seem to be written as a military textbook, referring to “This Army”, now you know why. His acceptance and insistence on the use of overwhelming violence stems from his Military Training and may give an insight into the tactics of the left wing political parties. Try these two as a primer.

On Organisation
Selected Works

Incidentally, if Lenin DID write this stuff, he was an excellent technical author ..

Sun Tsu – The Art of War. I prefer the translation by Samuel B Griffiths (a former US Marine) but there are plenty more out there.

The Daily Mail is a large circulation newspaper with over 3 million readers per day (see the Audited Bureau of Circulation Website for exact figures. Make sure you enter the full title as there are thousands of newspapers with Mail as part of the title) and covers some of the stupidities of the various laws passed over the last 13 years. Try entering BNP as a search string in the website and read some of the comments under the articles. Or “Travellers” for the way the law abiding are second class citizens in their own homes.

Samizdata is, I find, patchy and does not cover a single topic (as Kevin’s Blog does) but in the right hand sidebar, you can search under TOPICS for self defence etc. Plenty of British points of view.

I’ve been reposting other people’s words a lot recently, but just DAMN! When they’re that good, it would be a crime not to.

UPDATE: Phil added this, in comments:

For anyone thinking that I’m paranoid and seeing “Reds under the bed” at every turn, these links should give a ring of truth to the article

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ …oliticians.html

and

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/…B-45- years.html

It is rare that such information is publicly and explicitly stated which makes it all the more startling.

Those articles are chilling.

Reality Bites

Reader Bilgeman thought this was important enough to email to me. He was right:

Health Care Speechwriter for Edwards, Obama & Clinton Without Insurance Now

For the first time in my life, I am without health insurance and it is a terrible feeling.

In the past, I paid attention to the health care debate as a speechwriter who prepared speeches, talking points, op-eds, and debate prep material on the topic at different times for John Edwards, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and others. Now, I’m paying attention because I’m a citizen up the creek without a paddle.

Throughout my life, I have been very lucky because my insurance has always been there whenever I had a crisis. When my 10-speed hit a patch of leftover winter sand, and I went flying into a telephone pole, it covered the x-rays and stitches and concussion diagnosis. When a half a ton of sheet rock fell on me, my insurance paid for the cast on my foot. When my depression kicked in and I was hospitalized and painting ceramic pieces in art therapy to boost my self-esteem (sheesh), it made sure that when I got home my medical bills didn’t make me reach for a razor. And when there were growths in my uterus, it covered that medical procedure and every regular check-up, lab test, broken bone, sports injury, and antibiotic prescription in between.

Since I care more about my country than my personal pride, here’s how I lost my insurance: I moved. That’s right, I moved from Washington, D.C., back to Massachusetts, a state with universal health care.

In D.C., I had a policy with a national company, an HMO, and surprisingly I was very happy with it. I had a fantastic primary care doctor at Georgetown University Hospital. As a self-employed writer, my premium was $225 a month, plus $10 for a dental discount.

In Massachusetts, the cost for a similar plan is around $550, give or take a few dollars. My risk factors haven’t changed. I didn’t stop writing and become a stunt double. I don’t smoke. I drink a little and every once in a while a little more than I should. I have a Newfoundland dog. I am only 41. There has been no change in the way I live my life except my zip code — to a state with universal health care.

Massachusetts has enacted many of the necessary reforms being talked about in Washington. There is a mandate for all residents to get insurance, a law to prevent insurance companies from denying coverage because of a pre-existing condition, an automatic enrollment requirement, and insurance companies are no longer allowed to cap coverage or drop people when they get sick because they forgot to include a sprained ankle back in 1989 on their application.

Even if the economy was strong and I was working more, I still couldn’t afford my premium.

READ. THE. WHOLE. THING.

Remember, kids: insuring everyone will bring costs down!

And fine her $950 for not having health insurance!! (It’s cheaper than $550/month!.)

For the record, my portion of the health insurance that covers me and my wife is a bit over $400/mo., and my employer picks up the rest. I’d love the opportunity to pay only $225/mo. for the whole thing, myself, and carry it with me no matter where I live or who I work for. But the current insurance laws prohibit that.

Reality bites, doesn’t it? That is, unless you’ve mastered the ability to deny it. (Our chocolate ration is about to be increased!)

Entropy Happens

Monday’s scoop of free ice cream has drawn some traffic, some links, and some comments, and last night’s gun blogger roundtable at Gun Nuts Radio has provided another spark of inspiration. Unfortunately, twelve-hour days and 2:30AM cat fights in the kitchen are conspiring to smother that spark, so I’m afraid this piece isn’t going to be quite the quality I’d prefer, but I want to keep up with Rule of Blogging #1 as best I can.

One of the comments left at Restoring the Lost Constitution was this one:

“Thus perish all compromise with tyranny!”

(William Lloyd Garrison, setting fire to the constitution on Framingham Green, Massachusetts, July 4, 1854)

Word.
Billy Beck

Immediately followed by this one:

The Necronstitution.

Why try to restore a thing so instrumental in the death of America?

“The American Revolution in fact died with the ratification of the US Constitution.”

http://tinyurl.com/n6xyo5

It was only a matter of time to arrive at this point. That was clear before the ink was even dry on that thing.
Matt

Obviously neither Beck nor Matt are particular fans of the Constitution, but the fact of the matter remains that there are a significant number of us who want what we believe that document promised us restored. We far outnumber those of the Anarchist bent, but (as I have been cataloging here at TSM for the last six years) we’re both overrun by people who have been fed Rousseau (the overwhelming majority unknowingly) for their entire lives.

And that feeding has been deliberate. I strongly recommend you watch Bill Whittle’s 13 minute piece on “The Great Liberal Narrative”. As commenter “jb” put it in his linking post,

Gramsci saw it correctly, although he was a minor marxist of his time. Jailbirds rarely get recognition.

“Gramsci rejected the state-worship that results from identifying political society with civil society, as was done by the Jacobins and Fascists. He believes the proletariat’s historical task is to create a ‘regulated society’ and defines the ‘withering away of the state’ as the full development of civil society’s ability to regulate itself.” (Wikipedia)

He was a communist’s communist–he kept the end goal in sight at all times. Lenin and Stalin were more deadly, but Gramsci was more consistent. Give the proletariat the essentials of life, or even a bit better and they (the proletariat) will let the marxist masters do what they wish.

So what about that inspiration from the Roundtable discussion last night? Hold on just a bit longer.

Back in October of 2006 I wrote an überpost, hoping to conclude my series on “What is a Right?” entitled The United Federation of Planets. If you’ve got an hour or two, you might want to go peruse that piece, but the key relating to this post is that what people believe drives the cultures they live in. At one time, the vast majority of this society believed that the Constitution protected our rights and our property. Many of us want that protection back. Apparently most people think they do, but honestly don’t understand that what they’re agitating for is its exact opposite. Those who do understand it are (IMHO) evil.

Last night, one of the questions we bloggers were asked was “what was our favorite or most popular post?” LabRat said one of hers was Parasite memes and monkeyspheres. It’s one of my favorites as well, and it starts out with this:

It was as if even the most intelligent person had this little blank spot in their heads where someone had written: “Kings. What a good idea.” Whoever had created humanity had left in a major design flaw. — Terry Pratchett, from Feet of Clay

She goes on to argue a convincing case that human evolution prewires us to hate rich people, and embrace “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”

Read it.

So if LabRat is even half right, it’s not really surprising that socialism is so seductive to so much of the population, and that the ideology laid down in the Declaration of Independence very well may have had the seeds of its destruction sown with the ratification of the Constitution of the United States.

Entropy happens, and it generally only goes one way without a huge influx of carefully directed power from outside the observed system: downhill. Our Constitutionally-oriented belief system has survived, mostly intact, for over 200 years – which is a pretty damned good run, historically. What the people of this nation have accomplished in that period is more than exceptional, it’s quite literally so extraordinary as to seem almost impossible.

But it’s not enough, apparently, to overcome the siren song of “we’ll take care of you!”

That major design flaw, it seems, is catching up to us.

Good night. I hope you sleep better than I probably will.

Restoring the Lost Constitution

Can we?

Don’t doubt that it’s been lost. A while back I struggled through Randy Barnett’s Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty, a college-level text on that subject. Barnett thinks we can, but first he spends some time detailing how we went from, in his words, “islands of government power in a sea of liberty” to the exact opposite – sinking islands of liberty in an ever-expanding sea of government power. For Barnett, a law professor, the changes are viewed through a narrow lens – that of legislation and court decisions. He views the path back largely as a reversal of that course, but I don’t think the courts can save us.

If you’re a hardcore Three-Percenter, you may believe that the Constitution might be restored by men fighting a 300 meter Second Revolutionary War with small-arms. I’m not so sanguine about that one, but I appreciate the sentiment. If I thought it could actually work, I’d be on the front lines pulling triggers.

Current pundits think the path back might be through a “throw the bums out” sweeping change of our legislative bodies. I’m not so sanguine about that, either, as I’ll explain.

But don’t for a moment doubt that whatever the government is operating under presently, it isn’t the Constitution of the United States that each and every elected and appointed public official still swears an oath to uphold and defend, and it hasn’t been for quite some time.

Back in October of last year, I posted a short video of a portion of an interview of Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov discussing the socialist strategy of “ideological subversion” of an enemy country. That interview was taped in 1985. As Bezmenov explained, the process of “ideological subversion” was:

To change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that despite of their balance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community and their country.

It’s a great brainwashing process which goes very slow, and it is divided in four basic stages. The first one being demoralization. It takes from 15-20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years it takes to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy.

In other words, Marxism-Leninism is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students, without being challenged or counterbalanced with the basic values of Americanism, America patriotism.

Recently I’ve been reading John Taylor Gatto’s The Underground History of American Education. Gatto states in no uncertain terms that from his perspective something changed radically in the American public education system in 1965. It did so in all the metropolitan school systems nationwide, and later spread to the suburban and rural school systems. Bezmenov states that “at least three generations of American students” had socialism “pumped into their heads” as of 1985 – that is, a minimum of 45 years of “ideological subversion,” dating back between 1925 and 1940, and putting the first generation subject to that subversion into positions in the educational system that enabled enaction of that widespread systemic alteration by 1965, and accelerate the process further.

Here we are in 2009, a further twenty-four years on, and we have elected as President a man whose supporters see Ché Guevara as a hero, who was surrounded by active supporters of socialism, who appointed at least one advisor who is an open communist, and his history strongly suggests that the President was heavily influenced by socialists throughout his life.

Many of his generation (which is mine) were.

I’m not saying that the entire population of the country has been brainwashed by an organized, orchestrated conspiracy of the Tuesday Night Socialist Club, far from it. But the evidence strongly suggests that the undeniably attractive “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” ideology has set deep roots in the American culture since Marx first cast the seeds of his philosophy to the four winds. In fact, a 2002 Columbia Law School survey found

. . . that sixty-nine percent of respondents either thought that the United States Constitution contained Marx’s maxim, or did not know whether or not it did.

The survey result cannot be dismissed as anomalous, for it parallels the outcome of a survey conducted by the Hearst Corporation fifteen years ago.

And law professor Michael C. Dorf, who I quote from above, next asks the real question of this essay:

These results, taken together, are troubling for a constitutional democracy in which popular consent underwrites the government’s legitimacy. How can Americans be said to tacitly ratify the Constitution over time when so many of them have a deeply erroneous idea of what it contains?

What Constitution would we restore? Sixty-nine percent of the survey respondents couldn’t even tell you that it didn’t contain Marx’s maxim!

I haven’t read the book, but Orson Scott Card, in a piece he wrote five years ago, reviewed a book by Jane Jacobs, Dark Age Ahead. In that review, he quotes this:

Jacobs sees us as being well down the road to a self-inflicted Dark Age, in which we will have thrown away many of the very things that made our civilization so dominant, so prosperous, so successful. We are not immune to the natural laws that govern the formation and dissolution of human communities: When the civilization no longer provides the benefits that lead to success, then, unsurprisingly, the civilization is likely to fail.
As she says in her introduction, “People living in vigorous cultures typically treasure those cultures and resist any threat to them. How and why can a people so totally discard a formerly vital culture that it becomes literally lost?”
Dark Age Ahead gives us a series of concrete examples of exactly that process.
“Every culture,” she says, “takes pains to educate its young so that they, in their turn, can practice and transmit it completely.” Our civilization, however, is failing to do that. On the contrary, we are systematically training our young not to embrace the culture that brought us greatness.
A civilization is truly dead, she says, when “even the memory of what has been lost is lost.”

A civilization is truly dead when even the memory of what has been lost is lost.

That quote has stuck with me ever since. (And I recommend you read the rest of Card’s post as well.)

For whatever reason, we have not passed on our culture. We have systematically discarded it, forgotten it, refuted it, and in some cases reviled it. Card himself, in one of his more recent novels, described America thus:

(America) was a nation created out of nothing – nothing but a set of ideals that they never measured up to. Now and then they had great leaders, but usually nothing but political hacks, and I mean right from the start. Washington was great, but Adams was paranoid and lazy, and Jefferson was as vile a scheming politician as a nation has ever been cursed with.

America shaped itself with institutions so strong that it could survive corruption, stupidity, vanity, ambition, recklessness, and even insanity in its chief executive.

But can it survive enmity?

The Constitution is the fundamental legal document of our nation. It is the philosophy of John Locke laid down as the basic law of the land: Life, liberty, property. Protect all three against attacks from both private individuals and governments – including our own.

But socialism is based on the philosophy of Rousseau, and the two are totally incompatible. As Jonah Goldberg put it during an interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt back in February of last year:

Rousseau says the government is there, that our rights come from the government, that (they) come from the collective. Locke says our rights come from God, and that we only create a government to protect our interests. The Rousseauian says you can make a religion out of society and politics, and the Lockean says no, religion is a separate sphere from politics. And that is the defining distinction between the two, and I think that distinction also runs through the human heart, that we all have a Rousseauian temptation in us. And it’s the job of conservatives to remind people that the Lockean in us needs to win.

And I’m afraid we’ve already lost that fight. There aren’t enough Lockeans left, and we awoke too late. Rousseau’s beautiful but flawed philosophy has, like the pied-piper, led our children to the pier, and the Endarkenment cometh.

And there’s your free ice cream for the day.