Counter-Currents
2,759 words
The Demonization of Gun Owners
“In light of recent events, I’m really concerned about your safety. So for your birthday, I bought you a pistol. It’s relatively small caliber, features a safety, great for a beginner. I also bought you some lessons from a qualified instructor so you can get your concealed carry permit. Happy birthday!”
Consider the above. Many of us can think of friends, spouses, or significant others who would be delighted—indeed staggered—by such a generous gift. However, it’s not difficult to think of others who would be offended, outraged, or even sickened by it. With the effortless uniformity of thought and action characteristic of North Korean mass games or a typical sociology class, progressives are rejoicing that they have found a white shooter in Newton, Connecticut, so they can try to disarm the American people. Accompanying the political posturing and concern trolling by the likes of sinister clown Joe Biden is a hate campaign against gun owners as inherently dangerous, unstable, and even unpatriotic.
Whites who don’t favor the active genocide of their own race are used to being demonized as “racists.” Progressives exposed to something as uncontroversial as racial differences in intelligence simply reply with moral outrage and priggish posturing (“I have to take a shower,” and so forth). Inanimate objects are now creating the same kind of reaction. Like Victorian hysterics, progressives now blanche, swoon, and vapor at the very thought of people owning guns they don’t “need.”
A relative at Christmas, unaware that I own several firearms, blithely commented that “Only the police should have guns. Gun owners are crazy and dangerous and should be in jail, to protect the rest of us.” Concealed carry permit holders, who are far less likely to commit crimes than the general population, are charged with secretly lusting to murder children. Meanwhile, the Left, operating, as always, without irony, is merrily tweeting away death threats to their political opponents.
I’ve written elsewhere that the Left’s current campaign against guns is closely linked to its overall anti-white agenda. The current debate has been refreshingly frank about the use of firearms by whites to defend against non-white crime. The Left simply charges that whites have a duty to die as a form of penance for past sins against egalitarianism. However, what is occurring is something broader than the usual genocidal impulse against the hated white male. The progressive reaction to Newtown reveals that the utopian impulse at the heart of the modern Left is the desire to escape responsibility itself.
Rights, Not Duties
The end of responsibility is really the end of citizenship. Back when America was a real country, citizenship was a duty owed to the larger society. A citizen is a member of the political community who enjoys certain guarantees in exchange for fulfilling various responsibilities. In a republic, each full citizen has a public role. At the time the Second Amendment was written, the armed defense of the country was held to be a responsibility of the citizen, harkening back to the Germanic conception of the right to bear arms as the key indicator of both freedom and at least some political authority.
Today, citizenship is a burden, offering punishment and censure rather than full participation in political life. The founding stock of the country is actively discriminated against in jobs, education, and financial aid, and is utterly cut off from meaningful political participation in many of the nation’s largest cities on account of our race. Meanwhile, immigrants and their advocates protest that they are “second-class citizens” when in actuality they are not citizens at all. As recipients of free medical care, tax exemptions, state-sponsored ethnic solidarity, and a vast system of patronage and welfare set up for their benefit, those who are not part of the political community are more assiduously courted than actual Americans. The vote is an all but meaningless privilege, for, even if votes are counted, elections lead to results exactly opposed to what voters say they supported.
The reason this is tolerated is because being part of a people is a duty that white progressives do not want. The mark of adulthood is taking responsibility for both one’s own support and the continuation of one’s line and (it follows) the larger folk of which one is a part. This is no longer a societal expectation. Indeed, it’s practically immoral. Diana West notes in The Death of the Grown-Up that the very concept of the “teenager” free from adult responsibility is a modern invention, and the definition of teenager now seems to be extending into the twenties and thirties. It is no accident that this coincides with the rise of racial egalitarianism in the West.
Whatever the intents of the Founding Fathers, the mistake of ascribing “self-evident” and “inalienable” rights to individuals qua individuals undermined the very republican virtues needed to sustain the experiment. The premise of classical liberalism is that each person is autonomous, equal in some cosmic sense, and ideally unburdened by any tradition or restriction upon his or her sacred “choice.” The problem is that Man in the abstract, as Joseph de Maistre observed, is a creature that does not exist. After the promises of the Declaration of Independence, which even the slave-owning, white supremacist founders did not really believe, any limitations imposed by culture, history, location, family, and nature itself became tyrannical.
Of course, once you’ve liberated yourself from an organic society, you’ve also liberated yourself from any concrete loyalties or responsibilities. If the purpose of life is the pursuit of “happiness” through freely chosen obligations, any kind of “duty” rankles. Why should a deracinated individual care whether his line continues? Why should it be his job to bear arms for the state (or against the state, as the case may be) when he could be making money? Indeed, as long as technology and economic circumstances permit, why shouldn’t the accumulation of belongings and pleasurable sensations proceed for the entirety of one’s life, unencumbered by any restrictions?
Unfortunately, limitations do exist. The story of modern liberalism is the rebellion against these limitations, with the glorious victories against discrimination by race, sex, age, national origin, sexual preference, physical status, appearance, and other facts of life serving as the Stations of the Cross for the new progressive litany. The latest frontier is the rebellion against gender identification, as progressives who refuse to say they are men or women seek to trump Nature, the ultimate Fascist. This is not some crazy liberal scheme, but the logical conclusion of the very founding principles that Glenn Beck blubbers about on his internet channel each night.
Of course, as equality and the demands for unencumbered choice are defined more broadly, state power is required to enforce the ever-expanding mandates. An army of academics, lawyers, and subsidized “activists” are also on hand to document prior incidents of “privilege” that the government must ameliorate in order to ensure equality of opportunity. Thus, a business owner’s decision about whom to hire, a joke told at lunch, or the establishment of gender-segregated toilets suddenly become matters of urgent public concern, with legislation, lawsuits, and punitive action following in the wake of each new step towards equality. The quest for individual liberation culminates in an almost unlimited expansion of government, as every business, personal, sexual, or even romantic interaction must be carefully regulated by all the powers of the state.
Guns, “Freedom,” the New Class, & Social Control
On the surface, guns are actually a step towards equality. Guns give the physically weak a way to defend against the strong, as neuroscientist and pop intellectual Sam Harris has described. A world without guns is not a more peaceful world, but a more savage one, where brute strength allows bullies to exploit people incapable of fighting back.
Nonetheless, Leftists oppose guns at a primal level because they provide a way for citizens to exercise power without going through their managerial state. Since the rise of the New Class described by James Burnham, political power in the West has not rested so much on religion or even money but on the ability to regulate behavior. Americans are ruled by a whole system of administrators based in courts and bureaucracies that mandate and enforce through state power what forms social interactions may take. With their apologists in the media and academia and control of credentials and licensing, the “managerial class” can regulate everyday behavior more totally than any king. Minorities and the various victim classes are invaluable because they provide both the justification and ideological support to maintain the political class.
What does this mean in everyday life? It means that you know, instinctively, that if the wrong person sees something you wrote, overhears a joke, misinterprets a comment, or just feels like destroying you, there’s nothing you can do about it. The tyranny of the New Class is why there are certain situations that you instinctively steer clear of, because there is no way you can win. You know the System is against you.
More importantly, in a life or death situation, the System is far more concerned with protecting itself than protecting you. It’s not just that “When seconds count, the police are minutes away.” It’s that it’s better to commit a crime than actually punish the criminal yourself. The entire network of human rights, constitutional guarantees, and all the rest are a way for the state to criminalize attempts at self-protection. Make no mistake—the horror stories from Britain of robbers suing homeowners for attacking them is not a system out of control. It’s a system operating precisely as it was designed to.
The case of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin is instructive. At this point, it is beyond dispute that Zimmerman was actually attacked. However, Leftists argue that he never should have approached Martin to begin with. The fact that he was a “neighborhood watchmen” only makes it worse; Zimmerman was “untrained” and committed a dire offense by trying to enforce social order himself rather than relying on the police. The failure of the police to stop repeated (and reported) criminal activity over a period of months is irrelevant. It’s precisely because Zimmerman did his job effectively that he should be punished.
A gun allows a citizen to take responsibility for his own security and the security of his family. To a Leftist, this is frightening because it means that a person is acting without ideological supervision. Leftist demands for “training,” “education,” and “licensing,” in guns and most everything else is simply a way of asserting dominance over uncontrolled social interactions. In the modern context, “freedom” does not mean freedom to act without restriction on your own property or to interact with others provided you don’t violate their basic rights. Instead, “freedom” means the right to act only in accordance with government-determined social norms.
Permanent Childhood
What’s this all leading to? A kind of permanent childhood. The citizen is relieved of his duty to protect the political community, protect his family, and protect himself. If anything, he’s actually discouraged from having a family or any kind of loyalty beyond himself, as even institutions like churches or civic organizations like the Boy Scouts are viewed with suspicion. All mediating forces between the now powerless individual and the managerial Leviathan are to be stripped away.
The reward is a life free of responsibility. Paradoxically, as the state grows in power, its expectations of the individual decrease. It’s absurd to imagine the government today rallying the “militia,” because the average American would be incapable or unwilling to respond. Instead, citizens of a modern democracy can live their lives knowing that every product they buy, service they use, or group they participate in has been carefully registered and licensed by state authorities. Eventually, as in Europe, this will extend even to ideas they may hear, or, as in the workplace already, conversations they may have. This is an attractive vision for Last Men. It removes the obligation to have to think about politics, about the future of the community, or about anything other than consumption. As Alexis de Tocqueville predicted in Democracy in America in 1831:
I wish to imagine under what new features despotism might appear in the world: I see an innumerable crowd of men, all alike and equal, turned in upon themselves in a restless search for those petty, vulgar pleasures with which they fill their souls. Each of them, living apart, is almost unaware of the destiny of all the rest. His children and personal friends are for him the whole of the human race; as for the remainder of his fellow citizens, he stands alongside them but does not see them; he touches them without feeling them; he exists only in himself and for himself; if he still retains his family circle, at any rate he may be said to have lost his country. . . . Above these men stands an immense and protective power which alone is responsible for looking after their enjoyments and watching over their destiny. It is absolute, meticulous, ordered, provident, and kindly disposed. It would be like a fatherly authority, if, fatherlike, its aims were to prepare men for manhood, but it seeks only to keep them in perpetual childhood; it prefers its citizens to enjoy themselves provided they have only enjoyment in mind. It works readily for their happiness but it wishes to be the only provider and judge of it. It provides their security, anticipates and guarantees their needs, supplies their pleasures, directs their principal concerns, manages their industry, regulates their estates, divides their inheritances. Why can it not remove them entirely from the bother of thinking and the troubles of life?[1]
Therefore, the only freedoms that are allowed are ones that further “enjoyment.” There’s a reason why Prohibition of alcohol has become unthinkable even as prohibition of guns is now debated. Certainly, alcohol kills more people than guns. Alcohol also provides no concrete benefits beyond pleasure, whereas a gun can save someone’s life. Alcohol, like guns, can be dangerous in the wrong hands. Nonetheless, Americans accept beer commercials on TV in a way they would never accept rifle commercials precisely because the product is an amusement, an anesthetization against adult action. It doesn’t remove power from the managerial state or question the moral basis of the System in the same way as gun ownership. An addict is tolerated, even coddled by our society. A responsible gun owner is feared.
Our system relieves a person of having to suffer moral responsibility for anything. The decisions have already been made. Thus we have black progressive Ta-Nehisi Coates admitting that since he knows he will die someday, he would rather be shot than own a firearm and take the power of life and death upon himself. It is literally better to die—better even to let one’s children die—than be armed.
As Lawrence Auster points out, to kill is the ultimate act of discrimination, because it involves the value judgment that my life and the lives of those I love are more important than the life of another. While gun owners are stigmatized as “fearful,” it’s actually progressives who seem to be trembling at the thought of white people who don’t go along with the program. As Nietzsche said, “No shepherd and one herd! Everybody wants the same, everybody is the same: whoever feels different goes voluntarily into a madhouse.”[2]
Or in our version, you get forced into the playhouse. Alcohol, perverted sexuality, video games, and all the rest are simply blocks for big kids. The adults of the economic and financial elite make the big decisions, but you get to run around with toys and not have to worry about anything. “Freedom” in this sense is the freedom to play.
Gun owners are proof that people can exist and survive outside the managerial state’s system of control. As with homeschoolers, traditional religious communities, and, well, “racists,” guns present a greater moral danger to the Left than a physical danger. When the people are disarmed, it does not mean that insurrection suddenly becomes impossible because the military equation has changed. It means that insurrection is impossible because psychologically Americans will have admitted they cannot live without an egalitarian bureaucracy informing them how to behave and what to think, and they will not allow others to do so. Gun owners are hated because they say that playtime is over. We’re hated because we say it is time to grow up.
Notes
1. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America and Two Essays on America, trans. Gerald E. Bevan, ed. Isaac Kramnick (New York: Penguin, 2003), p. 805.
2. Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, in The Portable Nietzsche, ed. and trans. Walter Kaufmann (New York: Penguin, 1954), p. 130.
24 comments
In my thinking, contemporary Liberalism is a seven-spoked ideological wheel. The three fundamentals are, as Leftists easily admit, race, sex and class. Multiculturalism, feminism and redistributionism: each of which is a program based on envy, resentment and hatred, of Whites, of men and of wealth-creators. The four derivative wheels are transnationalism, secularism, environmentalism and pacifism. Pacifism, or quasi-pacifism, lies behind the current gun control hysteria. It combines hated of men/masculinity/male force with hatred of Whites. As you say, it’s about disarming White men.
Of course the regular day-to-day slaughter and maiming comes from Black and Latino guns, but these folks are all victims, etc.
great article. i’m from argentina and one thing i don’t understand. why do you say “the left”? is there such thing in north america? i mean: at least in other countries “the left” use to refer to communist, revolucionaries, etc. people who wanted to destroy capitalism.
or do you refer to the left wing of the face of the sistem? because most gun owners aren’t willing to fight the sistem either.
Dear Mr.. Rios,
The left in America consists of those people who want the country to be ruled by a self-selected Mandarin class who despise anyone who does not sit behind a desk or actually produces a useful article that a human being would use. Like all Stalinist, they refuse to engage in honest discussions. Both major political parties are dominated by this class, as are all major media, all universities.
There are several premises of this article that I profoundly disagree with.
Disagreement 1) That the left’s hatred of guns is sincere.
In my view, the growing anti-gun movement is just another pop politics amusement for most people debating it (on both sides). The gun control debate is much like the feminist, green, government-funded abortion, or other issues in that it is a top-down cultural warfare concoction, not a bottom-up sentiment. Most of these pop politics issues are clear concoctions by Jewish elites to make Americans angry and hating each other. The divide and conquer strategy – so transparent in issues such as race and feminism – applies to dozens of issues. Gun control is one of them.
(In fact, this article’s thesis seems to be undermined by the content. On the one hand, he’s claiming that all Americans want is perpetual amusement. Yet on the other hand, he’s saying that Americans are DEAD SERIOUS about gun control! He’s right on the first count: Americans do indeed merely want to be amused, and the gun control debate is mere cultural amusement. Don’t read too much into it.)
Disagreement 2) The U.S. was doomed from the start.
Regarding this site’s frequent claim that America was doomed because it wasn’t tyrannical, this ignores the first 125 years of the country – most of our history. In this time, we were the envy of the world. In the late industrial age, texts in England were bemoaning how America had blown past them in matters of material wealth and physical health of the commoners.
It wasn’t until the Jews’ perfectly coordinated takeover of our monetary system in 1913, and the ensuing takeover of the culture (the Jewish immigrant wave followed their seizing of America’s money) that, in a political and cultural sense, America began its breakdown. I agree that America is now irreparably broken.
For affirmation of the effectiveness of the U.S. Constitution’s principles, one needs only to consider its first 125 years or just visit “small town America” or isolated white areas such as Saint Pierre and Miquelon. There, you’ll find whites living under all the principles the Founding Fathers envisioned, and yet with robust birthrates, virtually zero violent crime, and generally upward mobility. It is only when one travels into Jewish-dominated urban areas (generally speaking, not absolutely) where one is truly assaulted with the PC idiocy that this article bemoans as the new norm.
It’s not Paine, Jefferson, and Madison who failed. This country has been deliberately sabotaged. Blaming the Constitution for our demise is like blaming a poisoning victim’s poor genes for his death. No, it was the cyanide. Here, it was the Jews.
(Of course, in a literal sense, EVERYTHING is doomed to fail, eventually – “This too, shall pass” – but this article wasn’t speaking of entropy, but of bureaucratic defects. And there I disagree wholly.)
Disagreement #3) That the decline of whites is merely because of the culture.
Insofar as many white Americans have become narcissistic, self-centered perpetual adolescents (and I agree this is true), I strongly suspect that there has been an assault on our collective biology which explains most of this. The suspiciously systematized drop in men’s testosterone levels (at a steady clip of 1% annually for the past 30 years) shows intent, not happenstance. Similar health epidemics with Type 2 diabetes, infertile women, autism, and more all suggest that, physically, people just don’t have the vitality to be self-reliant any longer. (I suspect the demonization of meat and fat and the celebration of grains – again, Jews began even this in the 1950’s in the New York Times, and they slowly spread it over the next few decades – as perhaps the foremost weapon in this assault.)
Disagreement #4) Focusing on faraway problems is good.
As somebody who has consciously dropped out from American pop politics, voting, and petty debates, I take issue with saying that choosing to focus on one’s own life and “amusements” is inferior to, I don’t know, watching PBS or whatever.
To the contrary, this is the healthiest way to live. Study after study has shown the root cause of anxiety (and, therefore, the destructive hormone of cortisol in one’s blood) is fixating on matters outside of one’s own control. Obsessing about what the Jewish media or Jewish-controlled Congress is doing is merely going to spike your cortisol, lower your testosterone, and make you hateful. It’s healthier to instead focus on one’s own family and community – and, yes, even video games and movies – than it is to attempt to live vicariously through others.
In this sense of good health, the U.S. Constitution had it exactly right: have a federal government with limited, clearly defined powers. This way, men needn’t become agitated about things beyond their control, and worry themselves to an early grave. With that clean, logical system, men need only concern themselves with faraway matters rarely….because the federal government didn’t do all that much.
Truly, I look at American men who watch Fox News and compare them to guys who can’t name the vice president but are aces at World of Warcraft? I’ll prefer the latter group for any endeavor, any day of the week. (And no, I don’t mean for joining the military the way many people joke about putting the skills of “gamers” to use. I mean they’re good in useful endeavors like engineering and construction.)
Very well said. Your point 2, however, is addressing a hopeless cause. Just about all of the CC writers, their intellectual cousins from Europe, and most readers, are 100% reliable in their gratuitous bashing of the American founding project. To use a baseball metaphor, it’s like the CC writers smash homer after homer, setting records for home runs every month, while stRiki-Eiking out wildly every time the American founding comes up. Nobody bats 1000.
I am with you here. I read CC everyday, as I am desperately looking to join up with some “street muscle” in order to finally confront the Left. But on what basis would CC writers motivate Americans into such action?
It is clear that with every speech, Obama is engaging in a direct polemical assault on mainstream American conservatism. CC writers- as far as I can tell- may well be neutral on this. They may defend American mainstream conservatism out of a sense of loyalty to its implicit whiteness, but that is as far as they will go. They are revolutionaries who are not so angry at America’s decline, but at the decline of Europeans as a race collectively.
This is a broad concern and admittedly demands an innovative and unique political project. The American founding may well end up being a blip in history if the CC project is won and Nationalists manage to set up a new Imperium Europa based on a unique political theory and economics. But the danger is that the American founding may also become a blip in history if whites are eventually displaced by non-whites and the rule of law is forgotten and the country is controlled by a combo modeled on the African Big Man and an out-of-sight Asian elite.
Most conservatives who come to this site I would venture to guess, are a lot like me. I am a conservative who has realized that race is being used as a huge hammer to “force change” especially on European countries, but only have any direct experience with how it is being used in the United States. Here, it is quite obvious that race is used as a way to pummel American conservatism and its notions of the law and the Constitutional structure of government. The liberal elites who rule us do not believe in the rule of law as a tool through which a political community can maximize liberty. They believe in legal positivism; or that the law should be simply what they say it should be and the structure of government should emanate from their creative vision. This is as true about EU bureaucrats as it is about American SWPLs.
As a conservative I am engaged in a many-fronted battle. I read CC because I realize the primacy of race and the importance of traditionalism although pondering race makes me queasy and was a hard sell with me for a long, long time. But I can face the reality that race is this of endless engine of negative energy that has changed culture, politics, and the law in the United States rapidly in the past 40 years.
But the rule of law remains important to me. Political liberty remains important to me. And I understand this may be a losing proposition as it was explained a long time ago by the likes of Revilo P. Oliver, especially in his 1967 speech “The Road Ahead.”
But isn’t self-governance the thing that makes whites different from the rest in the first place?
When Obama attacks conservative ideas of the law and limited government, shouldn’t that make us as Americans angry just on principle? We know that liberal elites love the fact that they have used an articulate black guy to attack these principles. But if you don’t really care for these principles in the first place, is your only anger at their misguided glee that a black guy is turning the screw?
It’s not Paine, Jefferson, and Madison who failed. This country has been deliberately sabotaged. Blaming the Constitution for our demise is like blaming a poisoning victim’s poor genes for his death. No, it was the cyanide. Here, it was the Jews.
Dear David;
You’re right; this country has been deliberately sabotaged, but the American experiment was flawed from the beginning. Why were Jews able to make such headway here? Because America, almost from its inception, has been more concerned with its Anglo-Saxon mercantile economy than with the traditional European concepts of blood and tradition. America has never been an organic society in the European sense, because a people’s identity is forged over long periods, shared experiences, and the tradition and culture of a people reflect that. America was born of the hubris of Enlightenment values. The Constitution is not flawed? How about “… We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” a real absurdity whose logical outcome is the world you see today.
I would agree with you, though, that for about 125 years, as long as the nation was governed by white men with a vision, it worked pretty well. I guess what I’m trying to say is that the seeds were already sown in America that has led us to this point. The American experiment is now over. It’s time to go to the next level; a white homeland in the Pacific Northwest, if for no other reason now than sheer survival. White children have no future in America as it stands today.
In reference to Disagreement #1
As with many other cults, the motivations behind the anti-civil liberties movement varies depending on the level of involvement in the cult. At the uppermost levels, it is known to be a farce and those engaging in it do so entirely for personal reasons. If Andrew Cuomo were to magically become the governor of Texas or Tennessee his position of firearms ownership would change so quickly he would be risking whiplash. People like Michael Moore and Morris Dees only espouse their positions to either accrue income or for personal status. They know the truth and they consciously deny it for purely venal reasons.
At lower levels, members of the cult are incapable of acknowledging the truth. Thomas Sowell’s “A Conflict of Visions” and other works detail how such positions can become a form of religion with an inviolate set of filters. To them, all the facts and figures sound like the adults on the old animated “Peanuts” television shows or seagulls fighting over the last cracker on the beach. They cannot perceive the truth. Those in this category may be delusional but they are “dead” serious about their beliefs.
Never ascribe to conspiracy what can be explained by mass stupidity or selfishness.
Hi David,
Great comment. I have some remarks to add.
Many issues are “red meat” used to divide and conquer. But I don’t agree that the jews have that much control in these matters. I think we are where we are because Whites wanted it that way. A corollary to this idea is that high cultures eventually degenerate and implode.
The older generations of Whites have a fear of death that is not readily apparent. In their narcissistic world, they are the only people that matter. As far as they’re concerned, in their minds, there was no history before them and there will be nothing after them. That’s a big reason why the younger generations “have no future.”
It’s hard to say how much of that is from “bad food,” since the older generations seem quite healthy and are living well into their 80s.
If the jews didn’t exist, it would be some other group doing it. That obviously doesn’t absolve the jews of anything. They were stupid enough to take on the role. I think the jews have been had and not the other way around.
The jews were never successful in imposing communism on the West. They had to alter their program and achieved whatever goals they had only by what the White Western masses were willing to accept.
The American Republic was already showing cracks in the early 20th Century from massive non-Nordic immigration which led to ethnic factions in the big cities. I think the original stock of Anglo-Saxons sensed it was over, and let themselves go in the “roaring 20s.”
American farmers have been messing with the food since at least the 1950s. Most farmers are not jews. The farmers know what they are doing. They want the money from higher crop yields, health be damned. Maybe jews have played a role in this.
The point being that concentrating too much on the jews will cause you to miss how much responsibility the Whites have for their own culture. If the West is losing its culture, it’s because we, as a group, are throwing it away on purpose or going senile.
What a fantastic article. This gets down to the “why” and how Whites are fundamentally divided, just as the old “bitter clingers” comment divided what is left of America. Rights are zero-sum – if the right to self-defense is dismantled, the right to murder will be enshrined and official policy. We’d have millions of supporters if the average Joe could extrapolate and believe in the resulting conclusions. That the smarter White leftists know this and agree with our current direction should tell you that we aren’t in a battle of left and right, but good vs. evil. It might impress a few people that their choice to ignore these issues essentially makes them accomplices to evil. This is why I despise libertarians. Fine, when we win, we can set up a libertarian society, but right now, it just makes you a moral coward.
Here’s my prediction for the so-called gun crisis. Assault weapons may be banned. It will be business as usual as far as rifles and hand guns are concerned. This will be good enough for most people, and life in America will go on as usual. In other words, nothing will change.
Wow. No offense, but I don’t see how anyone could believe that. What would make you think they would stop at assault rifles?
Here’s why I think they will stop. The relatively easy access to firearms will be enough to keep most people from rebelling against the current political system. In other words, it gives them an illusion of “freedom”or that things are OK. There’s also a huge gun lobby in Washington, and, as they say, money talks.
I don’t know if you remember, but during the last scary rifle ban, the talk soon turned to banning “sniper rifles”. While this legislation fortunately never went anywhere it was all the rage among liberals.
http://www.vpc.org/graphics/snipcov2.pdf
For the last eighty years there has only been “compromise” on one side in this debate and each restriction is only seen as a step and not an end to itself.
Good stuff. I quote and link to it here, with reference to a relevant story arc on The Good Wife.
“The Good Gun.”
And, in answer to one comment, many liberal gun-haters are very sincere. They’ve been propagandized into actual hoplophobia.
Leftists hate anything that is even remotely connected to the will to power.
I think it would be more precise to say that liberals hate anything that obstructs their will to power. This might sound odd, but I think that liberals do have a will to power, albeit one that takes a profoundly crooked, morbid, and malignant form. It is the will to power of parasites, levelers, and tyrants. Perhaps someone should write an article for Counter-Currents addressing this issue in terms of Friedrich Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals.
It should be noted that liberals have a much better practical grasp of politics than do conservatives. In a way, their hypocrisy serves them well, for it enables them to give their enemies a bad conscience while they retain a clear conscience.
Liberals hate and fear energy. As Maurice Bardèche wrote in Nuremberg or the Promised Land:
“Look, the scholiasts of our new jurists say, there is a very simple way to tell if the organization to which you belong runs the risk of being declared criminal one day. Essentially, you must mistrust energy. If you catch even a whiff of the adjective nationalist, if one invites you to be masters in your own lands, if one speaks to you about unity, discipline, force, grandeur, you cannot deny that that this is not a very democratic vocabulary, and consequently you are likely one day to see your organization become criminal. So, beware of bad thoughts, and know that what we call criminal is always marked out with the same intentions.”
Bardèche also wrote:
“There is a closed world of democratic idealism which is of the same order as the closed world of Marxism. It is not astonishing if their methods manage to coincide, if their justice ends up being the same even though words, as they use them, do not have all the same meaning. It too is a religion. It is the same attack on our hearts. When they condemn nationalism, they know well what they are doing. It is the foundation of their Law. They condemn your truth, they declare it radically wrong. They condemn our feelings, our very roots, our most profound ways of seeing and feeling. They explain to us why our brain is not made as it should be: we have the brain of barbarians.”
Gregory Hood’s articles are quite good for their analysis of this “closed world of democratic idealism.” This is the ideational world of government, the media, and academia today, a world that Bardèche characterized as
“a strange universe, a universe with something sick about it, an elastic universe where our eyes no longer recognize things: but a universe which is that of others, precisely that of which [Georges] Bernanos had a presentiment when he feared that one day the dreams, locked up in the sly brain of a small Negro shoeshiner in a New York ghetto, would come true. We are there. Our minds are doped. We have been struck by Circe. We have all become Jewish.”
I enjoyed this article, though I still have some questions;
Is it possible to avoid regulating behavior at all? Or is it better for us to regulate the behavior of citizens in a different way? So that it forces us to grow up?
Also: Let’s say we are somehow able to transcend our desire to play, and actually live life as adults. What would this look like? Where would we find the dividing line between a meaningful activity (art) and meaningless activity (entertainment)? How could it be possible to remove the “freedom” that results in people choosing the latter over the former?
I suspect that even in a traditional white communities, the desire to be entertained will still surpass the desire to behave like a true adult, unless there is some powerful guiding hierarchical hand.
A fantastic article by Gregory Hood, as all of his articles are. One thing has always blown me away that Gregory brings up–Joe Biden. I mean, my Lord, the man is the living example of everything wrong with our system. He is a worthless, career politician, and a poodle of the left. I’d personally be ashamed of myself, having to make a living that way. Peace.
“The reason this is tolerated is being part of a people is a responsibility that progressives do not want”. BAM!!! This sentence/thought, should be elevated to an exact description of European-American leftists.
3D printing technology is not mature much less widely available. Nevertheless, Congressman Steve Israel of NY wants to outlaw using 3d printing methods to make magazines. Does this surprise anyone?
http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/futureoftech/us-representative-calls-outlawing-3-d-printed-gun-magazines-1B8035746
I always remember the maxim: God has created man. But Samuel Colt made him equal!
With all the celebration of the American Experiment going on here, I’m trying to imagine an anti-Regime event this large and impressive taking place in the US:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW-KzFgg-hI&list=TLIvydzpd39tU
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment