Posts
The first thing that came to mind is a line from Anna Akhmatova, one of my favorite poets. I found my last reference to her by doing a google search, as below.
My question is often to ask at what point is government illegitimate. We cannot rightly go around overthrowing governments just because we don't like the folks elected. It's not my business who people elect to represent them. They can vote for Hitler for all it matters to me. But what happens when the people vote for a number of little Hitlers, and the Hitlers take power? What if they take power and use it to destroy the lives and property of the citizens, those who did or didn't vote for the Hitlers? If the people speak and vote for Hitlers, what do we do? Should we leave the nation to the Hitlers to do with as they please? It's the will of the people, and who am I to say this or that about their free choices? If people in Michigan wish to vote for a Muslim fascist, what is that to me? If they wish to vote for another in iraq, what's my concern in it? Who am I to tell the majority they can't vote for crazed fascists?
People in Russia loved Stalin. To this day he is much loved by many there. If it's not my business to interfere in whoever Russians vote for there today, then what business is it of mine to care about the vote in Michigan yesterday? If the majority of Americans decide in their infinite wisdom to vote for a majority of Left dhimmi fascists who promote Islam and who destroy the Constitiution, then it's the will of the American people, and not about me at all.
I'm big on obeying the law-- for the most part. Unless it interferes with my life in some concrete and obnoxious fashion. But let's forget about that and look only at my positon as a law-abiding guy who values law in itself. Our law is based on tradition and reason. If we decide to base our laws on whim and revelation and Islamic jurisprudence, then such is the will of the people, and it must be for the minority to accept dhimmitude and death. Well, since that's not realistic, at what point do we rebel? Our Constitution is open to ammendment, and rightly so; it is amended often and ignored even by activist judges. At what point do we say the Constitution is so vitiated that it is not our las anymore, and we are not bound by revisionist interpretations to the point we are rightly impelled to rebellion and the overthrow of the state? We've got a big mess in a number of states now, some folks so evil and corrupt that they should be imprisoned in Cuba wiothout any swift trial. Oh well.
In the comment below I respond to someone who complains about my imperialist sympathies and my calls for filibustering in the greater world because I don't give a damn about the sensitivities of savages. My postion is fairly clear: that those who do not obey the Rational and codified common law of basic Human decency, then they are illegitimate laws and illegitimate nations. Sudan? Iraq? Mexico? Overthrow their evil governments and rule their lands and people by force of arms and men, intermarry and colonise and make the whole of the world one big America of the mind. But what do we do about Michigan?
****
War on terror? Hey, even for the right-wing religious bigot that am I have a sense of humor. Here's one I truly like, and because it's not so right-wing, please excuse the source:
"A revolution without firing squads is meaningless." V.I. Lenin.
Don't think highly of William Walker? Well, since I don't travel with a library on my back trust me that Eduord Bernstein remarks somewhere that continued settlement is contingent upon the natives behaving like civilized people. Yes, that Bernstein would be Engels' writing partner after Marx died.
But today my favorite thought on Iraq and our dealings with the jihadis comes from a comment from Anna Akhmatova, who wrote that once Stalin got upset over something, (and who really cares what,) and she noted that "The vegetarian years were over, and the meat-eating years began."
Stalin for Secretary of State.
Red, Black, White, Green. I can't see the difference.
Can you see the difference?
I'm hungry. I also appreciate Robert's intellectual approach to this problem. What do we get if we become like them? As a right-wing religious bigot, let me mention that Tatian compares the Romans to the Christians by writing that the Romans produce men who kill each other for fun, what he describes as the "cannibal banquet of the soul." When I look at shredded people I see that they look too much like pork. It increases my appetite for Spencer's reasonableness.
Let's try to get smart and rid ourselves first of our governments in our local elections. Educate some voters. Let's get some Spencers into office so we can win this war on jihadist terror properly. Then we can make omelets.
Posted by: sonofwalker![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 29, 2005 04:16 PM****
Stalin spent many vegetarian years as dictator before the meat-eating years began. We might end up with such a leader in our lands if we do nothing now to promote decent men instead of those we have now. These are the vegetarian years for us. If we do nothing to prevent the rise of the cannibals, then we will suffer, as will the whole of Humanity, not just murder but the shame of having been able to prevent it if only we'd bothered.
Wondering what happened to Anna Akhmatova? She survived Stalin's meat-eating years. Will you want to? I know too much about Stalin. If we need our own Stalin as Secretary of State, then count me out. We still have a democracy, and we can still use it to make rational sense of our societies. We still have right law and Human decency. If we do nothing until it's too late, then our choices will be bitter indeed. I don't want to overthrow our government. I want to make our government better than it has ever been before. I want to vote for you. I don't want to see you lose to Stalin. I don't want to witness the meat-eating years that will come if you do nothing. Act before it's too late.
7 comments:
Come home and help us soon, SonofWalker.
Some of us still believe in the Dream.
Well, one thing to say about those who vote for your enemy is that it provides more justification, not less, for going to war with them.
The bottom line, I believe, is that no one has the right to vote in a government that will radically change the constitution. If a majority does, the minority have every right and duty to fight to preserve the constitution, especially when the opponents are gnostic fascists, living a utopian or apocalyptic fantasy ideology, just as someone should have stood up to the Nazis. But we aren't there, yet.
I got onto this issue a while back in reading Thomas Sowell's run-down on Supreme Court activist judges from the 50s and even until our day. We have a living and organic Constitution our Supreme Court is supposed to base its decisions on, and whatever they do that offends against the Constitution is unconstitutional and to my mind, layman that I am, not legitimate law in the land. I'm not about to offend against the nation even if the laws are unconstitutional, leaving that for those who care to shoot it out with the FBI and ATF if they wish to die for a cause. I look at our courts and wonder at what point we can claim we are betrayed. If the Supreme Court offends agains the Constitution once without reversal, I can live with it; but if it happens often and nothing reverses, how long can we tolerate it? At what point is orgqanic development a total vitiation of our nations's law and being? I like the illustration of this in the Rolling Stones: at what point are they not the same group? If Mick stays and Keith goes they're still the Stones; but if Keith goes and Charlie takes Mick's place... and so on. Scholars can spend their working lives on questions like these and not come up with better answers than the average man. The difference is that the averqaage man relies on the intelligentsia to lead our intellectual rite, and if they fail us, as I believe they have, we must either rid ourselves of them or suffer the consequences of our apathy. If the courts betray the being of the nation, and if the majority don't care or support it, then we'll find ourselves in the situation of the French and the Swedes. By the time we arrive at that in North America we might well be used to it and look on in horror at the conditions in France and Sweden without realising we will be as they in time. When the wreckers use our laws against us, where do we draw the line?
If the Muslims vote for jihadis and dhimmis in Michigan and Quebec and Ontarion and California, what are the rest of us to make of it in a democratic state? My postion has been and seems to remain this: that Muslims are a police matter, but Islam is an issue of interest to all citizens who care about their nations. It's neither here nor there what Muslims do, so far as the private citizen is concerned; but Islam is something we must all address as a menace as evil as Nazism. The fascist poligion that is Islam is not and should not be a police matter. I like to think that if we as societies work out our problems with Islam then the issue of the law will be moot. If we do nothing, if we refuse to meet and organise for social restoration of our democracies and our republicaqn values, then our democracies and our republics will become our enemies. Not yet here, but soon in France, in Sweden, in other falling nations. And then our own.
Where do we draw the line? I think when we can no longer take certain fundamentals for granted: freedom of speech, association, etc.; the divisions of church and state, morality and ethics, nation and monotheism.
When alternatives to Gnostic fantasy ideologies cannot be heard and discussed, that is when we have to fight. No one is stopping us today from voicing our minds on these issues; the question is rather what do we make of the fact that so much of the academic, journalistic, and political "intelligentsia" simply ignore what conservatives (including the intellectually most innovative and transformative ones) have to say, choosing instead to indulge the tired myths of "the progressives" and of the "White Guilt" that erodes respect for our national foundations, because this indulgence appeases the angry people, gives them state succor, and keeps the ship of state floating, for a time.
Well, if our problem is just that we are ignored, then it is our responsibility to see if we can create a new and freer market for new ideas and politics; and if no one can use the state to stop us, we can have no violent beef against the state. Our beef, then, is with the people.
I think our judges do take the Gnostic kool-aid at times; however, they are hardly the supreme force under our constitutions with their divisions of power. The courts would not win in any true struggle with the legislative and governmental powers. It is hard to imagine the military deferring to the courts before parliament or president. SO, if our legislatures refuse to correct the excesses of the courts, it is ultimately the fault of the various players in the parliamentary game, including the sheepish voters.
As for gnostic evolution leading to a fundamental undermining of the basis for nationhood - this can happen but it is not the same thing as starting a new nation, which cannot be done quietly and gradually but would require a founding scene, sign, and covenant. One can destroy or erode a national covenant but this will only lead one day to making explicit the need for a (re)new(ed) covenant and then the forces of erosion will be revealed for what they are and they will have to justify what they have done by attempting to offer a renewed vision of the covenant, or they will have to shut up - and if they can't offer any fundamental covenantal or constitutional vision of the nation, as they probably won't, they will be pilloried by the angry people who will become aware of what damage has been done.
Consider the Nazis, the ultimate example. They undermined the German nation and were not able to found a new one, despite all their talk of a thousand year Reich. It only took them 12 years to reduce the whole country to rubble. They believed that if the German people performed a massive sacrifice, they would somehow be reborn, a new covenant would magically emerge. Well, they were wrong. Even if they had won the war, would they have had the knowledge or wisdom to found a new covenant that would survive long? I seriously doubt it; they were so deep into gnostic delusions, so sure that their resentment could be transcended simply by winning wars, that reality would have intervened sooner or later. Sometimes winning wars is necessary to survive, but the founding of new covenants is an act of humility, a deferral to the new sign that will substitute for the aggressive pursuit of human desires. And for this new ascetic discipline to work, the sign has to be sufficiently evolved and widely recognized. You can't build a modern nation around a few esoteric rituals performed by SS officers in the castle. It takes a much more sophisticated way of representing our reality.
It is our job to work on those representations; if many of our elites don't know how to do this, it is not enough just to condemn them if we can't show the way.
Sharia is the Islamic Constitution. It is the constitution of Saudi Arabia, which is the center of Islam in the world.
Because it is a constitution in and of itself, any person who advocates for the imposition of Sharia, in any Western state, is guilty of sedition.
Just coming into this debate from Oz, I do believe one of the difficulties you have in the US is voluntary voting.
We have compulsory voting, and I believe it is a lot smarter than giving people the choice to opt out.
Sure, you get the donkey voters who add their own choice to the candidates, but it also means that lazy people who just can't be bothered are enjoined to participate in deciding who rules the country.
I don't know what percentage of Americans are enrolled to vote, but if there was more awareness of the importance of elections in the democratic process, things could be turned around.
If we look at how close some states were in the recent midterms, we can see how vital it is that as many people as possible are mobilised for participation.
Nearly 10 years ago, I voted against the Liberal Party here in Brackistan (the Libs being the rough equivalent to the GOP). I was annoyed with Jeff Kennett, the then Premier, nicknamed the Chairman.
I made the mistake of thinking that my one vote wouldn't have any impact.
I couldn't have been more wrong, as there were a few other Lib voters who felt the same way.
As a result, I am living in what I call Australia's first Police State, where 3 kms over the speed limit gets you a $134 fine, quoting the quran in a manner likely to amuse will get you thrown into jail and safe seats are handed over to agents of the Syrian government.
It's not called Brackistan, Melbournistan or Brackstopia for nothing.
I've never been flippant with my vote since then.
Your people first need to be educated on the power of the people.
It's there, I have no doubt of that, just dormant. Too many people think that they can't achieve anything and so opt out.
If they had to participate, perhaps you would find that there are more people willing to vote in those who actually support your country rather than the whiteants (termites) who are trying to bring you down from within.
"The vegetarian years were over, and the meat-eating years began."
I was struck by this statement. It conjured all manner of thoughts and emotions.
Vegetarian years – years of peace, community, family. Life.
Meat-eating years – years of war, oppression, slavery. Death.
I am convinced within my heart that the world, the universe, the nature of man is cyclic. No way of life, or belief, or political system is perfect. Most governments only last a few hundred years anyway because the things that make it strong, in different conditions, also make it weak. Life must proceed to death, death to life, and it will always be so. The freedom to choose does not preclude the choice of freedom. Let us pray we, the people, choose wisely.
Post a Comment