Posted on 10/18/2018 10:31:56 AM PDT by mojito
The primary objective of any people who find themselves in the throes of a revolution is to find ways of diverting its logic from its worst conclusions.
[....]
The logic that drives each turn of our revolutionary spiral is Progressive Americans’ inherently insatiable desire to exercise their superiority over those they deem inferior. With Newtonian necessity, each such exercise causes a corresponding and opposite reaction. The logic’s force comes not from the substance of the Progressives’ demands. If that were the case, acquiescing to or compromising with them could cut it short. Rather, it comes from that which moves, changes, and multiplies their demands without end. That is the Progressives’ affirmation of superior worth, to be pursued by exercising dominance: superior identity affirmed via the inferior’s humiliation. It is an inherently endless pursuit.
The logic is rooted in disdain, but not so much of any of the supposed inferiors’ features or habits. If it were, the deplored could change their status by improving. But the Progressives deplore the “deplorables” not to improve them, but to feel good about themselves. Hating people for what they are and because it feels good to hate them, is hate in its unalloyed form.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanmind.org ...
Thanks.
L
it is ubiquitous. the Left hates anybody who would argue with them. And hence it is a spiritual issue. The demonic despises the human as unworthy of his station in His creation.
It is not possible to win an argument on your own against the demonic. (see my tagline)
There appears to be a conviction on the part of progressives that their animating social theories are something fresh and new. They are not. For example, the notion that controlling the language is controlling the narrative, hence controlling the public, is not original thought on the part of Gramsci or Marcuse. Thucydides tells us this:
The more freely to harm enemies, “words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them.”
That in itself is an expression of political power that is far from benign. Thucydides also anticipates a major canon of Critical Law:
As Thucydides pointed out, once people cease adhering to “those general laws to which all alike can look for salvation in adversity,” partisan solidarity offers the only immediate hope of safety. And that, in turn, is because “those general laws” are by, of, and for the good of all.
Critical Law holds that no laws are for the good of all; rather they are for the benefit of whatever faction intends to rule by the making of them. What this leads to is the conclusion that government can remediate social inequities by adjusting - biasing - the focus and application of law. Special rules for special people. The resulting destabilization of society is held to be a thing beneficial to those oppressed by unjust laws, but in practice its principal benefit is to confer power on the lawmakers. One law for all is the very bedrock of justice, and anything weakening it serves only despotism.
Up until now that ruling class has acted in relative anonymity, which at some point, perhaps now, is viewed as no longer necessary. It certainly has become more shamelessly visible.
This forced the recognition that there exists a remarkably uniform, bipartisan, Progressive ruling class; that it includes, most of the bureaucracies of federal and state governments, the judiciary, the educational establishment, the media, as well as major corporate officials; that it had separated itself socially, morally, and politically from the rest of society, whose commanding heights it monopolized; above all that it has contempt for the rest of America, and that ordinary Americans have no means of persuading this class of anything, because they don’t count.
Deplorables don't count. And the recognition that yes, they do, that happened in November of 2016 has caused a volcanic scream of rage from people who were perfectly comfortable with, and considered themselves the beneficiaries of, the ruling class's ability to decide for the entire country who would be its chief executive. It was a scream of a predator denied its prey by moving too soon. Its time is not yet, but it may be close.
The author does not delve into the international nature of this ruling class, confining his focus to the American shores, but in fact at least part of that class's power is its validation from international sources in the very same institutions as their American counterparts: academia, media, and bureaucracy. The Deep State has gone global, and numerous extranational institutions that once were intended to be forums wherein the representatives could advance the interests of their respective countries have become defensive first of those forums and their own interests.
Those who voted for Trump believing or hoping that he would do a, b, or c, were fewer than those who were sure that he offered the only possibility of ending, or at least pausing, the power of an increasingly harmful, intolerant, disdainful, socio-political identity.
That is impossible to say without the ability to read minds, but it certainly appears possible, even likely. It explains why Trump's personal foibles are so easily dismissed - it isn't the man, it's the movement. Moreover, it is also an appreciation that these are misrepresented, grossly exaggerated, and simply lied about by media the public now recognizes as ridiculously biased and manipulative. That recognition alone is a significant development from a sociological point of view - the spell is broken, and the little imps who served it are now squealing in rage.
Yes, the wheels of revolution are turning, and they're not just turning in America. The ruling class's resistance to Brexit is deep, institutional, and very close to success, but there are other challenges to the ruling class springing up like mushrooms after the rain, and if it is a function of the American revolution to nurture the others, it wouldn't be the first time in history. The real Resistance, after all, lies in the hands of those who would not be ruled.
Yes, it is brilliant. If I am not mistaken, Codevilla coined the term “Uniparty” some years ago.
In the last few paras he hints at a possible truce in the form of “true federalism” in which (my words) the homos, freaks and progs can brutalize their states while leaving normal people in other states alone. If only.
The fact remains that the US is not too far gone. The rat’s power has been in decline since 2010. I hold my nose and vote pubbie only so that the rats do not regain power.
That is how we have Nevada: gambling and prostitution.
But Federalism is not allowed in the other direction.
You are correct. This is a great article - but a scary one for those who think we have a “peaceful” future.
BM
This is an important article by the great Angelo Codevilla that was posted a while ago (twice!) on Free Republic but didn't seem to garner much attention at the time.
So, I thought I'd bring it to everyone's attention, after it was brought to mine by Freeper "ProtectOurFreedom" on a previous thread. It deserves (and already has) it's own thread, here.
FYI. H/T for the link on the other thread.
from the article.
This forced the recognition that there exists a remarkably uniform, bipartisan, Progressive ruling class; that it includes, most of the bureaucracies of federal and state governments, the judiciary, the educational establishment, the media, as well as major corporate officials; that it had separated itself socially, morally, and politically from the rest of society, whose commanding heights it monopolized; above all that it has contempt for the rest of America, and that ordinary Americans have no means of persuading this class of anything, because they don’t count.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.