German translation here
Are conservatives going to start shooting people?
The Beltway Right is defending so-called “assault weapons” because they are the final check on government repression. After Alex Jones’s typically bombastic performance on Piers Morgan, Breitbart.com contributor and controlled opposition Ben Shapiro appeared to play the “reasonable conservative” across from the C-list celebrity hacker. He argued that the American people need AR-15s because they provide a concrete way to resist the state. Piers Morgan was of course indignant, arguing that the military could easily kill any Americans that dared oppose them.
Let’s leave aside the obvious conclusion that the likes of Piers Morgan are fantasizing about the military mowing down conservatives. We already know that progressivism has grown to love the police state. What is more interesting is even the simpering castrati of the Beltway have taken a break from denouncing the “black genocide” of abortion, condemning Nazis like Chuck Hagel, and urging more immigration to indulge in their own dreams of righteous violence.
They are, after all, correct—the Second Amendment, is, as they say, not about deer hunting. As America’s military is well into year 11 of the War in Afghanistan against illiterate tribesman armed with antiquated weapons, the likes of Shapiro seem to have a better grasp on the potential of insurgency and guerrilla warfare than Field Marshal Morgan.
That said, even though they’re right, what are conservatives really saying here? Let’s spell it out. Resisting government tyranny with rifles means that Americans will someday shoot the servants of the state when some line is crossed. This means killing police officers, soldiers, security personnel, and, presumably, politicians. Forget euphemism: are conservatives willing to say what they are actually proposing?
Of course, a typical American conservative would protest that he’s not saying we should shoot people now, but at some future point when a line is crossed. Some of my more dedicated libertarian colleagues are fond of saying that “we are at that awkward point where it is too late to work within the system but too early to start shooting the bastards.” Fair enough. Who do we shoot and when? Where is the line?
Is it when the government starts telling you what you can do with your property? Well, we haven’t had that right since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and various additions, court rulings, and regulatory expansions have restricted it further. While the abuse of eminent domain hasn’t quite reached Chinese levels, the Kelo ruling from the Supreme Court gives government the right to confiscate your property for minimal recompense, in order to help the investments of the rich.
How about government taking your children from you? Well, they can do that. It can be because you lost a divorce case. It can be because the government doesn’t like the names you gave them. It can be over your political beliefs. It can be over your religion—assuming they don’t just kill your family in order to “protect” them, like they did at Waco and Ruby Ridge. It can even be just for the hell of it.
Shutting down your business and destroying your livelihood? Well, that happens all the time. It can be because of the “environment.” It can be because of “racism.” It can be because of regulation. It can be because they just don’t like you.
Waging wars of aggression based on faulty information? Well . . . conservatives, at least some of them, tend to like that. But yeah, we do that too.
That’s it! God! People fight in the name of God. Will the dreaded American Religious Right rise in righteous fury against the Babylon on the Potomac that sanctions infanticide, celebrates gay marriage, and wages unrelenting war against Christianity in the public square? Actually, evangelicals are more likely to die for the Beast, though they are despised by their masters. And the main concern of evangelical leaders right now is that America doesn’t have enough Mexicans.
What about freedom of speech? It’s true that the United States still has the First Amendment. While it is used to defend pornography, obscenity, and various other filth, in theory it should actually protect political speech. In this country, it does. You won’t be arrested for saying something politically incorrect. The state will just help your enemies have you fired, threatened, stripped of property, defamed, and physically attacked.
Arbitrary taxation? Sending “swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance”? Hounding people to the grave so the government has more money to give to powerful bankers? Yup, yup, yup.
Ah! Discrimination. We can all agree the oppressed should rise up against that. Well, whites are discriminated against in jobs and education. Schools defame them as a group. Minorities and immigrants receive preferential treatment when starting a business, making it difficult to compete. And the real problem the country faces is . . . white privilege.
Well, at least you can vote your way out. Like when Michigan outlawed affirmative action. Oh wait . . . actually the courts threw that out because they said it would hurt minorities. The law is the law, unless a Leftist says it will make blacks feel sad. Then it doesn’t count. So that doesn’t work either. Same with Proposition 187 in California a decade ago. Good thing that immigration never had any bad impacts on California.
Well, there is one thing which definitely serves as the definition of tyranny. If government can seize you, without trial, without charges, without counsel, and then have you killed, that is tyranny.
Here’s the problem. You have a country where whites are officially discriminated against by the government and have their earnings savaged by taxes and inflation. They work long hours if they are lucky enough to find a job so they can subsidize people who hate them. They send their kids to schools that teach them they are evil. Meanwhile, other laws are openly ignored so non-white immigrants can displace them from jobs, resources, and political power. If, out of desperation, they join the armed services, they will be sent to die in wars fought for the benefit of someone else. In fact, one of the people they are supposed to be fighting “for” will probably be the one who shoots them. And there’s no way out.
All of this exists today in what used to be our country. Elsewhere in the Western world, it is actually worse. What is more likely—that National Review publishes a call to take up arms or that it pushes a new editorial about how conservatives can win minority voters with talk about the economy?
That said, there is an answer as to when people will finally be ready to start shooting back. People will use their guns against the government . . . when the government comes to take their guns.
Of course, this has it all backwards. The guns are supposed to protect something other than themselves—property, family, liberty, anything. Instead, Americans are only willing to use their guns in order to defend their guns.
The fact is this country is far more repressive, tyrannical, and totalitarian than anything we revolted against the British for. As James Mason points out about His Majesty George III, “This man could have been called a lot of things, but he couldn’t be called evil.” The American government, as a collective entity, is evil. Yet here we are, pretending we are free, defending our revolutionary heritage when all of the critical battles have already been fought and lost. If self-government means anything, we’ve already lost it. If tyranny means anything other than “scary uniforms,” it’s already here.
Conservatives aren’t going to shoot anybody. They soil themselves when someone calls them racist, and we are supposed to believe that they are going to take the “God bless our troops” stickers off their SUVs and start mowing down Marines?
Even though I despise gun-grabbing liberals, let me give them some unsolicited advice. Call conservatives’ bluff.
Let’s have progressives ask conservatives when they think it is right to start killing people. Let’s cut the nonsense. Let’s see what conservatives actually think they are fighting for and what they think is important. My guess is they don’t even know.
Perhaps it is better if they take our guns. At least then the Beltway Right won’t have any more excuses. We’ll be serfs, but at least we’ll be serfs without illusions. Then, maybe, we can do something about it besides bluster.
Thomas Rohkrämer’s Martin Heidegger: A Political Biography
Memelord Dalí Remembering Salvador Dalí (May 11, 1904–January 23, 1989)
Sam Francis’ Beautiful Losers
A D+ Examination of America’s Political Situation
Is “Uncle Tom” a Racial Slur?
Every Man His Own Burnham: Samuel T. Francis’ Leviathan & Its Enemies
Remembering Sam Francis: Francis & the Fire Bird
Humorous Masquerades: The Rise of Anglo-Franco Melodrama