Guns, Germs, and Squeal: Shock Troops of #TheResistance
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783
In a recent poll conducted by the Cato Institute, 51% of college students who self-identified as strongly liberal said it is “morally acceptable to punch Nazis in the face.” Dana Cory believes you should, “Dox a Nazi all day, every day.” Vice informs us that “a literal Nazi will be a Republican Congressional nominee.” The Left sees Nazis in their Cheerios every morning, but besides The Boys from Brazil, who are these Nazis of which they speak? Foreign Policy, The Guardian, German magazine Stern and other outlets inform us that Donald Trump is a Nazi (as well as a member of the KKK according to Der Spiegel, The New Yorker, and The Economist). HuffPost and The Independent inform us that Richard Spencer is a Nazi—which is why he was punched in the face, naturally, because words are violence, and violence against Nazis is morally justified.
Lisa Feldmen Barrett stretched all bounds of credulity with her New York Times op-ed by claiming that;
“If words can cause stress, and if prolonged stress can cause physical harm, then it seems that speech — at least certain types of speech — can be a form of violence.”
Certainly prolonged exposure to the stressors of systemic racism and the privations blacks and browns suffer every day in white America have a cumulative impact as these micro-traumas from having to interact with white people and their implicit, unconscious biases add up. Rising levels of cortisol, “the stress hormone,” when hearing someone who you disagree with speak is certainly toxic, and thus nothing short of violent, injurious hate speech. A Brookings Institution survey conducted by Professor John Villasenor found that 49% of female undergraduates do not believe that the First Amendment protects hate speech—thus proving George Orwell’s claim from 1984 that;
“It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.”
And we wonder why notions of “toxic masculinity” have gained such traction in the humanities and social sciences, where the number of female majors in most universities range from 62% to 75%.
In Villasenor’s survey, he also found a deeply disturbing 53% of undergraduates believe that a university’s raison d’etre is to;
“create a positive learning environment for all students by prohibiting certain speech or expression of viewpoints that are offensive or biased against certain groups of people.”
20% of those undergraduates surveyed stated that;
“it’s acceptable to use physical force to silence a speaker who makes ‘offensive and hurtful statements.’”
Obviously the interpretation of what constitutes “offense” and “hurtful statements” is highly subjective, and thus there can be no metric to truly measure such a thing as “hate,” which is supposedly what impels the Nazis of the Right. By creating such a cardboard cut-out caricature of the opposition—standard practice for propaganda since time immemorial—it becomes much easier to de-humanize the opposition and thus excuse violence towards them. In writing for Slate Jamelle Bouie made the case:
“There’s No Such Thing as a Good Trump Voter”: People voted for a racist who promised racist outcomes. They don’t deserve your empathy. Donald Trump ran a campaign of racist demagoguery against Muslim Americans, Hispanic immigrants, and black protesters. He indulged the worst instincts of the American psyche and winked to the stream of white nationalists and anti-Semites who backed his bid for the White House. Millions of Americans voted for this campaign, thus elevating white nationalism and white reaction to the Oval Office.
Connecting the dots here, no less a personage than Barack Obama made allusions to Nazi Germany in discussing Trump supporters , a connection that was made explicit by Howard Dean.
Al-Jazeera and The Guardian ran pieces just a few months ago linking various police departments from California to Washington, DC to “neo-Nazis,” taking the next step from the “police are racist” line; they are now para-military enforcers for white supremacy, evidently. The NAACP and other like organizations were clamoring for years for the police to wear bodycams, and now that they confirm what those of us on the Right have been saying about crime and who is committing it, they want to shelve the bodycams because they are inconvenient for their narrative. They need the police to be villains because that is just one more arm of the state that they can “de-legitimize,” and infuse with Marxist dictums. Many police forces have already been victimized by racial hiring preferences that dilute the quality of the officers in favor of the “optics” of diversity. Having a more “inclusive” police force is not helping Baltimore, for example.
Nevertheless, across the country we are seeing instances where the police are being told to stand down so that Antifa, inner-city denizens, and other groups of Cult-Marx shock troops can wreak havoc on law-abiding citizens, and just like anyone committed to a career in order to provide for their families, the police are at the mercy of their ideologically-driven “superiors” who hold their pensions in the sweaty palms of their hands. To dissent is not only career and financial suicide, but it has potentially serious legal ramifications as well. Adding insult to injury, the police are often re-directed at “soft targets” while egregiously law-defying individuals roam free, creating the conditions of anarcho-tyranny that serve as a pincer from both the state and the anarchic shock troops to squeeze the average citizen into terrified silence and complicity. Meanwhile those citizens buffeted by lawlessness and the law are taxed into oblivion by the Cult-Marx commissars and functionaries running the bloated bureaucracies of the Outer Party as “Useful Idiots” for the Inner Party. To quote Lenin;
“Among one hundred so-called Bolsheviki there is one real Bolshevik, with thirty-nine criminals and sixty fools.”
In this general atmosphere of lawlessness, the Second Amendment is more vital than ever, but of course as I’ve written previously, that, too, is under sustained attack. The most obvious example is YouTube banning any channel that had gun demonstrations, product reviews, or had anything to do with the sale and distribution of weapons—so basically anything gun-related. So-called “gun rights activists” petition the state to restrict the availability of firearms, and numerous local and state governments have slowly been phasing out the ability to legally acquire
certain weapons, types of ammunition, and weapon modifications. The intent is to force law-abiding citizens to surrender their weapons, making them easy pickings. To quote Thomas Jefferson, presciently commenting on just such a situation:
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…only disarm those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
We have very clear evidence for this in cities with very strict gun control laws such as Chicago. Overseas, when in places like London, every day is like that movie The Purge, Americans are understandably doubly hesitant to surrender their firearms. Plus, as James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 46, there is always the need for an armed populace to serve as a “check” against governmental overreach:
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
Noah Webster, in An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution concurred, adding:
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.
Though there has been much quibbling on the Left about who, exactly, constitutes the militia the Second Amendment addresses, George Mason, in his address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, spelled it out:
“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.”
All of the arguments put forth by the modern Left to subvert and distort our founding document were addressed by the Founding Fathers, who clearly understood that in the future there would be challenges to the Constitution. For example, Thomas Jefferson anticipated and dispensed with the notion of the Constitution as a “living document.” In correspondence with William Johnson, dated the 12th of June, 1823, Jefferson wrote:
On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.
The attempt to make the Founding Fathers “unpersons” because they were slaveholders is only so much cloak-and-dagger treachery; by invalidating the framers of the Constitution and the architects of the American nation, the social revolution will have wide-open vistas of space with which to not only continue to retcon the past, but to design a new egalitarian future where any and all opposition is swept away by whatever means necessary. As is always the case with egalitarianism, however, its crushing uniformity is only imposed on the masses; the Inner Party remains inoculated behind their wall of Outer Party stooges and functionaries. As former Czechoslovakian President Tomas Masaryk noted in Revolutionary Theory in Europe:
For the Bolsheviki, revolution is a revelation, and for most of them it is literally a fetish. Consequently, to their eyes, revolution is an end in itself…The Bolsheviki did not know, and they never have known, how to work. They know only how to force others to work.
In this situation, endemic to Western civilization, the productive become tax cattle, a uniform proletariat of nothing but livestock. It is of course a bit basic to opine about taxation being theft, as we must have some government to ensure the safety and security—and means—to even have the time to wax poetic about the theoretical libertarian utopia, but it is not hyperbolic to acknowledge that the abuses of taxation, which are now legion, is not only gross theft at gunpoint, but in the present application the goal is to create a new slave caste forced into financing their own dispossession. Pumped full of opioids, pornography, and shitty TV shows, they silently seethe, isolated and disaffected, while the globalist cackles. Meanwhile the fetishists of eternal ferment poke and prod the mobile vulgus into their various Two Minutes’ Hates, totally unaware that far from liberating the world from power and oppression, they are furthering the agenda of the super-state Leviathan, as powerful and oppressive as anything yet conceived by man.