Skip to comments.The New Totalitarianism and the Logic of Civil War
Posted on 04/27/2014 8:03:53 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Although I have developed a strong tolerance for reading the worlds of the left-wing press through many years of exposure, Christopher Hayes article, The New Abolitionism, in The Nation made me almost sick with anger. Hayes article is notably noxious, attempting as it does to draw a parallel between the fossil fuel industry and slavery and arguing that efforts to destroy the fossil fuel industry amount to a New Abolitionism in that as the Abolitionists of old argued for the destruction of the wealth represented by the slaves held in the Antebellum South, todays New Abolitionists now must argue for destruction of the accumulated wealth represented by fossil fuels. This radical course of action in setting out to deliberately destroy $10 Trillion in wealth is justified, he argues, by the requirement to stop climate change and thereby save the planet. This argument for a so-called New Abolitionism therefore contains within it all three core elements of what I would describe as the New Totalitarianism.
First, the logic of the New Totalitarians begins with the flawed assumption that they are setting out to avert an apocalypse of some kind of another. Their views on the issue at hand, they argue, must be adopted or the consequences will be the destruction of all life or something approaching it. It is interesting that the form that this apocalypse will take is often unexamined and it is instead simply deemed to be unthinkable (to remedy this, I would recommend that everyone read Herman Kahns brilliant book about nuclear warfare, Thinking About the Unthinkable). This assumption that disaster is inevitable and that there is only one course that may avert it leads naturally to the second core assumption of New Totalitarianism....
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
If they really want to free the population of something onerous, evil, dangerous, and often harmful, they'd just keep most of what they say to themselves.
For some, the greatest contribution they can make to humanity is to do nothing.
There is a step before Civil War, it’s called secession. Don’t get ahead of the game.
My ancestors and I agreed to the sovereignty of the several states, not of their federation. It would not be rebellion to fight against the feds for the rights of the states, it would be duty.
Times change but principles don’t. My forebearers wore blue, I suspect largely due to living in New York as opposed to say Alabama.still, slavery was ans is an abomination. During my six decades I have repeatedly heard defenders of the South invoke the conditions of northern factory workers in defense and suspect some of it is true. The power of the Fed Gov was not as onerous in the 1920s and 30s and the corruption of states like Louisiana under Huey Long probably helped the Fed Gov increase it’s power as it was easier to reign in Long and others “from above”. So in that instance perhaps what the Fed Gov did was “the right thing”. Retrospectively it might have been preferable that the citizens of the states address state corruption as their failure led to the precedent that “someone else would do it”. I keep harping on this because those who want the states to reign in Fedzilla are forgetting this history. The Huey Longs and Tamany Halls. Again, in needs to be the people themselves. The “ballot box” is clearly broken through libtard fraud. The soap box has been emasculated by super sensitivity to the accusation of “racist” carelessly thrown by the libtards at everything that breathes. Maybe some of you know of other boxes in the sequence but as I recall the ammo box is next. This is why Bundy becomes so important. The libtards have “won” at the polls and in the media. They know they can’t win armed rebellion and so have to avoid it at all cost. I am not and have never been a violent man. I have spent too many hours in the OR dealing with the results of violence and had to talk to too many families of loved ones to pretend I don’t know the cost. Like all Risk Management one must also weigh the cost of acquiescence. Or, succinctly, live on your feet or die on your knees.
“The purpose of this sort of intolerance is to make debate impossible.”
This sentence pretty much sums it up. A conflict is inevitable because debate and compromise is impossible. Either one, or perhaps both sides will be destroyed or both sides will go their separate ways.
The problem with the totalitarian Left is that, at least judged by their rhetoric, they will not allow or tolerate any alternative other than the unconditional submission of their opposition.
You missed the entire point of our ntions founding. It DOESN'T matter if Louisiana and/or New Jersey are corrupt. There are fifty states and it used to be possible to move with your feet. Now because of the myopic thinking you display FedGov rules uber alles corruptly, there can be no more voting with your feet.
Thanks for posting this - otherwise I might never have learned about Herman Kahn. I’ll have to read some of his books.
The “other side of our nations’s founding was “We the People...”. My point was that it would have been better that “We the People” dealt with state level corruption than the Fed Gov having done so, which I do not believe to be unduly tangential to the reference you make.
“Like all Risk Management one must also weigh the cost of acquiescence. Or, succinctly, live on your feet or die on your knees.”
Thomas Paine - Common Sense
I'm not sure that's needed when events get out of hand. Concord and Lexington happened over a year before The Declaration of Independence. By then The Declaration of Independence was mainly a formaliity.