Note: The piece below was submitted by Kakistocrat, DNPoolside, whose quality contributions in the combox are plainly no fluke. If blogging paid more than counting the hypocrisies at an ADL meeting I’d be looking over my shoulder right now.
Those on the left and of the left are more naturally given to hysterics and hyperbole. An example we’re all familiar with is how the overuse of the “Hitler” descriptor has made the leap from A-bomb insult to grin-inducing meme in just the last few fruit fly generations. Like a gay hick who has moved to the city and discovered his inner lisp, lefties can’t even remember the time they spoke in deep and even timbres. The gay hick at least has the excuse of affecting an in-group behavior that could help him get laid. The shrieking progressive’s only excuse is lack of imagination in employing other effective rhetorical tools (PhD level snark aside). And rhetoric is really what we’re talking about here since we all know that the only persuasive facts they have are those associated with their plans for the distribution of gimmedats.
A specimen that exhibits this perfectly is the more-than-likely insane Andrew Sullivan. He’s gay; so what. He’s HIV positive; so what. He took out a pre-Grindr ad looking for “uncut” men; hilarious, but so what. The “what” here then is the fact that this foreign born schoolmarm has a forum in some of the mainstream’s most popular venues. Since flaming out of the blogging business, he’s started writing at New York magazine and making guest appearances on MSNBC. Enamored with Englishmen whose petty takedowns come with a royal twang, he’s also been breathlessly interviewed about Trump by the Huffington Post, NY Times and probably many others I’m disinclined to visit.
Perhaps Sullivan truly believes that we “have to hold our heads up high as we defend the values of the old republic, even as it crumbles into authoritarian dust.” Perhaps he didn’t vomit all over his keyboard as he gushingly recalled Obama as a man “whose grace now feels almost painful to recall.” He’s certainly saying these and other things that indicate he is in it to win it, though. If he truly believed that Trump is “a proto fascist cult leader,” a “future strongman” with a “disturbed, unstable and uncontrollable psyche” he’d be the bravest dissident since Sakharov. Of course he’s not, though. What he is is a leading figure in what he rightly sees as a war for the course of the country. He and others are willing to say anything and perhaps do anything to get it back on the trajectory they see as the righteous one.
I use Sullivan only as the starkest of examples. Others abound. Another personal recent favorite is Anne Applebaum. Anne fits all the right Obama-era DC checkmarks; Sidwell Friends, Yale, Washington Post and Pulitzer Prize. Now married to a Polish politician, she spends ample time throwing rhetorical shit on the wall to see what will stick. The object of her perpetual derision is Vlad Putin and the scary Russians. Anne breathlessly tweets things like “Western democracies have not yet come to terms with Russia’s increasing influence in their politics and societies.” She also retweets headlines that should be reassuring to anyone who understands history and the glorious vacation we have enjoyed from it, but with which she intends to scare us non-Sidwell grads: “Trump’s bleak view of the world is just like Putin’s.”
Part of all this is her role of dutiful wife to her Polish husband, and Poles don’t call Russians “Slavs without hearts” for nothing. The bigger part by far for her is her absolute investment in the global order. She has massive credibility with the DC set, the Davos set, and the Brussels set. Those are her people, and she is them. If Trump can bring any measure of prosperity and stability to the US without the adult supervision of this self-appointed ruling class, that will have serious financial consequences to them in the zero sum game of power, and that’s beyond the pale. Yup, Anne is in it to fucking win it too.
Viewed through that prism, then, I respect Sullivan and Applebaum a bit more. I’d rather they just come out and say that they will say anything to undermine the possibility of a successful Trump administration, but I also admit that wouldn’t suit their purpose. Concern trolling won’t work if you admit you’re not really concerned. They are fighting the only way they know how. All of us could relate hundreds of more examples of our cuck and SJW antagonists employing the same tactics. Whether declared or not, it’s a true war of words.
But if this war escalates, what lengths will we go to win it? Two haunting examples from the past can starkly highlight what’s at stake. The first is the story of Chile in the second half of the 20th century. You can read all about the intricacies of the signal event here. What’s important to know is that this was an escalating conflict of rhetoric, election rule navigation, economic policy and finally, raw power. At each stage the right could have thrown up its hands in their best aw shucks Mitt Romney imitation and had the trajectory of their country forever changed. Like so many leftists of stunted imagination, Allende was enamored with Cuba, and hoped to replicate its political and economic model in Chile.
Meanwhile, men with stones fought this tide of history at every turn. Sure there was CIA money involved, but Soviet money poured in as well. As so many examples in history have shown, you can’t have a successful proxy war without willing proxies, and those on the right in Chile at the time were the perfect proxies. They fought with ideas, marches, parliamentary procedure and, finally, force. They tried everything else before force, but when it came to it, they were willing to go there, and it saved their country.
Those inclined to believe that time would have smoothed out the rough edges in Chile’s inevitable ascendance to 2nd world economy should take a moment to imagine Venezuela without oil as the template. Hell, even with oil, Venezuela is a living hell right now. Although intended as a piece of leftist propaganda, I would strongly recommend watching Patricio Guzman’s “Battle of Chile.” Part 1 is really all you need to watch to absorb the lessons of the struggle and what a close run thing it was. It’s 97 minutes long and you weren’t seriously going to waste another afternoon watching traitors play collision ball anyway, were you?
A far less uplifting example from history is the one of South Africa. This was a country with all of the advantages God can bestow upon a country except one; tribal Africans. Even though they hated each other until just after WW2, the core ruling stock was comprised of that sweet spot of western civilizations; English and Dutch with a smattering of French and Germans. If modern Germany has had the testosterone bred and bled out of it by two world wars to become an uber-cuck society, South Africa perhaps had the opposite effect of attracting bad ass adventure seekers who weren’t afraid of asserting their civilizational authority.
South Africa was not on a path to ethnic cleansing in the Nazi sense, but they were all about segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever. The plan was to set up self-governing provinces called bantustans. There were about 13 of them, generally created by tribe. Blacks were removed to these areas, stripped of their South African passports, and registered as residents of these quasi-states and as guest workers in South Africa, where applicable.
Every detail was accounted for in the effort to maintain control. Anti-miscegenation laws were strictly enforced. Traitors were hung into the 1980s. Freedom of press was tightly controlled. As the ANC and other resistance groups resorted to violence, the government vigorously pursued them, even if those pursuits crossed international borders.
No matter. With mounting international pressure stunting economic growth, the South Africans eventually lost their appetite for the fight. They had high hopes for post-apartheid normalcy, but the lessons of history and the not-too-subtle messages of tribal ascendancy should have been fair warning of what was to come, of course. Typical were ANC statements that seemed reasonable when heard impassively from the salons of the West that asked only that “we have every human and moral right to resist laws and policies which create a climate inimical to the full development of our personalities as individuals, and our development as a people.” Can’t you just imagine a room full of purple haired, gender-fluid, never-employed undergrads talking this way?
Dispossession was the inevitable and intended endgame. These same leaders lied with Sullvian-esque ease that “we have no designs to elbow anyone out of South Africa.” Whites since the 1960s have been learning that they’d be only too lucky with elbows, as machetes are the best way to dispossess them of their farms. With or without the weight of the international anti-apartheid movement, the whites knew that South Africa as constituted could not be maintained given demographic trends that forced them to live in compounds whose security features would be the envy of any Walking Dead survivor community. And yet…
The mind wonders at the path not taken. If a resourceless, isolated and embargoed hellhole like North Korea can continue as a sovereign nation-state, could South Africa have? They were on the path to building their own nuclear weapons, which might have protected them from the fate the Serbians suffered at the hands of virtue signaling Bill Clinton just a few years after the white regime in South Africa collapsed. With diamonds and minerals and hell, even ivory tusks, South Africa could have traded with unscrupulous regimes for quite a while before reaching even half the depths of North Korea.
Unshackled from the burden of trying to please the international community, South Africa could have effected near 100% segregation and seen an increase in their citizens’ personal security, if not their economic prosperity. If, maybe, but. The only question is; would the whites have been better off? The white ruling elite made the calculation that they wouldn’t be, but I’d wager that those who were given the authority to make that calculation and effect it are long gone. Only those with no better option are left, and they’re too busy walking around with their heads on a swivel to avoid an ANC-inspired necklacing to comment.
Luckily, we in the US still have the luxury of reflecting on the lessons of history, and preparing strategies for the various forks of it upon which we may be swept. Rhetoric and hyperbole might die down as a new normal is established, but I doubt it. More likely is that both sides will be unwilling to concede gains. The left doesn’t want to give up their new gender pronouns, and we don’t want to give up the red-pilling that has spread common sense to the mainstream through new media outposts. The genie is not going back in the bottle. Both sides can look to the rhetoric of supposed men of peace, who were central to the above conflicts, for clues to where we are probably going.
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable. These are not my words. I simply share the same opinion.” Salvador Allende
“When a man is denied the right to live the life he believes in, he has no choice but to become an outlaw” – Nelson Mandela