The day after
JHoward
Following up on a comment I made this week saying, in part
This is not a problem of elections. This is not even a problem of ideology or its messaging. This is a problem of results on the ground, which come from the spirit of man moving in herds just like it always has. This is ultimately a problem of choice, as in where shall you move once it becomes too bad to endure.
What I didn’t know was that as early the day after the election citizens of the States of Louisiana, Missouri, and possibly Texas moved for independence.
Interesting. Evidently these bitterclinging Walmart shopping rednecks are done debating. I’m surprised they could find the Internet, much less use it.
Yet in seriousness succession efforts will be soundly ridiculed, including (and perhaps especially) from the right, because they will be judged by their perceived likelihood of success in moving against the aging nationalism of a dying but once great and proud nation of traditional freedom and liberty, instead of being promoted by an originalist, structural ethic and a thoroughly contemporary need. In this the right will return to its failed path and rhetoric, every two years or every four years publicly introspecting about how it lost its messaging, how to attract interest groups, and how to cajole itself to finally widen its appeal and regain its place at the collective table.
All this it aims to do, naturally, by first proving that it too is part of that collective.
While bitterclinging Walmart shopping rednecks just quietly preempted the shit out of it.
In fact, the right lost and will continue to lose because it did not create the intellectual equivalent of a free state: It stopped offering choice when the only choice for a land overrun by regressive illiberalism relabeled Progressive Liberalism is to find the exits.
And in order to find exits they have to exist.
There have to be new shores.
We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.
The younger generation doesn’t want equality and regimentation, but opportunity to shape their world while showing compassion to those in real need.
That was the maligned and cartooned Margret Thatcher, decades ago pointing to not only various TEA, Liberty, and constitutional movements, but verifying for us that if our messaging does in fact succeed somewhere it must succeed to the young. (This should include convincing Occupy that their relatively minor misdeeds are forgiven if they reform them into lawful and intelligent mindset and policies aimed at defeating Leviathan, a principle the establishment right has apparently forgotten while anarcho capitalists have not.
No? Okay, then I’ll say that I find that “messaging” a far sight more likely to work than convincing American neo-communists that their Dear Leader is a fraud on their ostensible purpose.)
Like those Missourians, those Louisianians, and those Texans, I too decline arguments to reform the existing, thoroughly progressive system — it has charted its course and made its bed and to do so it has had no interest in truth or liberty, save to invoke original principles wrongly for false effect and to invert their clear purpose in order to continue that system’s falsehoods and oppressions and thefts. And to roll over you and I every last chance it gets.
Do you see any break in that trajectory whatsoever?
Yet we know that left is obsolete! (By its bloody record the greater left has been obsolete for a hundred years and more.)
This tells us that left simply has no coherent message, which naturally explains the eternal absence of its American manifesto but the tenacity of its principles, which are envy, covetousness, theft, and the lies and empty sloganeering that keep them propped up until their current host dies. If it has no form but its substance is killing a nation, do we really think the problem is messaging?
Or is the recourse clear, confident, proven choice; a bedrock made of original, structural principle and nothing more?
The message of liberty and choice must issue from a consistent, unimpeachable, and bulwarked entity and it must not adopt even a syllable of the left’s rhetoric. It must be thoroughly and convincingly about choice — an intellectual Free State — even if that choice needs to stand for twenty or thirty or forty years before it’s selected by the majority; if a majority ever select it, bearing in mind the minority that created the American experiment.
Consider that through our last hundred years, such a choice hasn’t stood at all. I ask you, how will you and they select change when the state (and State) of that change does not exist?
Consider too that when the establishment right twice cannot front a sound candidate or configure their election, and when the establishment right cannot parse the campaigns in that election on relative strengths and declines to qualify them by structural principle, there are only two conclusions: Either it is that right that has failed, or it is the nation that right, by some profoundly odd, concealed means, foolishly seeks to somehow rescue and redeem that has failed it.
The right either stands on the conviction of valid principles or it does not stand on the conviction of its principles, admitting that those principles do not hold, in this nation, certain truths to be self evident after all.
Comments (24)
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I want, therefore I take.
Seriously I have come to the same conclusions. Our current system is fucked in principle, what the majority wants, and whether your side can muster a majority, doesn’t matter.
The American government’s role is to protect freedom and the rights of the individual, not represent the interests of the majority.
Louisiana will need a lot more roads
Space, the final frontier.
The more time passes the more it becomes clear that the Establican approach proposes to secretly manipulate the majority of voters into reelecting it on soft-progressive grounds so it can then, on the hopes of a relatively few classical liberal insiders in on the trick, finally get to the work of disassembling Leviathan.
Heh. <- Attributed to a prominent “Libertarian” who recently linked conservatives imploring voters to abandon true classical principle and vote Romney. Apparently it happens to the best of us.
Or you can believe that the Establicans haven’t an ounce of integrity and won’t reform anything. They’re nothing more than Jeff’s analysis: The Party of Losing More Slowly.
Which judged by the last election is working like a charm.
Locked and loaded. Hopefully it won’t come to that.
How else ya gonna make the takers stop taking after the money runs out?
I stumbled across a show on NatGeo last night I hadn’t seen before, called “preppers” … and while it appears they were trying to be evenhanded (and while my husband and I as Californians participate in earthquake preparedness) even we found that the people came off as a little bugcrazy.
Maybe I considered one guy crazy because after all the expense of building a “secret foxhole” underneath his house, here he’s giving a tour of it on TV.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/11/this-is-what-fear-of-the-state-looks-like/
It’s starting.
Not sure I agree with his conclusion, I think some of the lay offs are coming because of who got elected.
beemoe
IMHO it was a mixture. Some knew early annoucements would subject themselves to DC thuggism and howling left-libs demanding punishment. Others just had contingency plans in place knowing ObamaCare and “pay your far share you evil rich guy” taxes were going to smack ‘em if O! was relected.
Consider him a metaphor for Republican operatives, Darleen, and NatGeo is the classical liberal network whose coterie of viewers are all hoping that after The Big Won’s second coming his Republican foxhole will fit a newly resurgent crop of liberty-minded survivalists.
There is no “establishment right.” They aren’t right politically, and they certainly aren’t right.
Other than that I agree wholeheartedly, and it felt good to sign those petitions.
I just saw an ad for “Doomsday Preppers” on the NFL network. These guys know their audience.
I’ll bet the ratings increase substantially.
Sadly, yes.
StrangernFiction, I use “right” to define the Republican establishment, currently populating the top, rightish segments of a political identity wheel with an authoritarian vertical axis, from nil to the south to complete to the north.
Given that this has been its comfort zone for decades, outside of prefixing “conservative” with “constitutional”, we should be relieved to just abandon any references to “right” and start talking exclusively in terms of anti-authoritarianism.
–
I’d also suggest recognizing that that same wheel has a logical no-man’s land to the southeast, that being right-libertarianism. While it probably self-identifies nearly everyone reading, that region actually cannot exist because there is no central authority — sound currency and national defense and a just legal system are not domestic authorities, they are rights-preserving structures — that the “right” can promote and remain libertarian or that the Libertarian can promote and likewise remain libertarian. In both cases all “conservative” anti-authoritarianism is a reactionary effort to a preexisting authoritarian condition, not a conscious choice to carefully select one or six or fifty federal, socially-conservative programs and yet profess to be anti-authoritarian.
Conversely, the opposite northwestern hunk of the political color wheel makes nothing but sense: Scratch a liberal and find a fascist.
Hence my rants against the federalizing of everything from youth to death, with no allowances offered for pragmatist solutions to the major problems of every domestic program ever devised.
Pingback: State Secession, or State of Mind? | Daily Pundit
In the trackback above, Bill Quick links and offers this:
Of course I took pains to point out the “right’s” likely opposition to secession in the original post, saying “…succession efforts will be soundly ridiculed, including (and perhaps especially) from the right, because they will be judged by their perceived likelihood of success…”
Note that Bill quotes a passage about a new intellectualism of liberty and that my post was aimed at that mindset, not at packing your bags. I mean, I’d still pack my bags, but a location hasn’t been offered.
Hence the need to form the impetus. The choice. The thinking.
Carts and horses, Bill.
Like the Declaration, Bill?
we should be relieved to just abandon any references to “right” and start talking exclusively in terms of anti-authoritarianism.
And on this spectrum the GOP establishment is on the Left or pro-authoritarianism side.
Lie back and think of
EnglandWashington DC.If we can get this movement to cross the Atlantic it might spur things on a bit.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/22/femen-topless-warriors-global-feminism
It would definitely help our side with recruitment, I would think.
A prayer:
My fellow Outlaws, I am pleased to announce that my bitter-clinging state has passed a measure to eliminate affirmative action in hiring.
I expect the ACLU to be here any day now.
Okies are OK in my book!
Let’s see the courts try to mandate discrimination against the people’s will.
While I am currently still of the opinion that we should [as I wrote in the Comments section of a post by Jeff recently] ‘designate a section of the country to move to, take over the governments of those states, and expel those who believe government is the solution from said states’, perhaps we should consider replicating what the petition of the citizens of Haverhill, Massachusetts sought to do in 1842 [it was presented to the House by Representative John Quincy Adams]. It read:
Sounds like we wouldn’t have to alter the text in any way.