Replies

I agree.

I was taken aback with this statement:

"It took messianic narcissistic Barack Obama to expose the full extent of the mess that a once noble tradition of 19th-century liberalism had devolved into. Only he could have rammed it down the throats of the American people, and when he is done, we will suffer, but also sicken of it for quite a while."

The presumption is that it snuck up on us which is not the case. Conservatives have shouted out, long and hard, against the thuggish agenda of operators like 0b0z0 to anyone who would listen.

The problem is that too many people long for the yoke of oppression - sold under the guise of "cradle to grave" nanny-ism. Between the allure of "simplifying my life by turning it over to the government" and the "something for nothing" types far too many have leaned toward the state as a crutch.

I wish I knew the answer to this mess - I do not. I have prepared as best I can for the the natural consequence of 0baminism - the collapse of civil order. I won't say how or to what extent because I know that we are being monitored. I also decline to say how I will react should a state (or my state) rebel for the same reason.

Dark times are coming. Our economy is amazingly resilient, but it is not bullet-proof. It can take only so many hits. The dhimmicrats are hell-bent on forcing it to do things that defy the natural laws and in doing so will plunge us into catastrophe.

Keep your powder dry...

I'm actually trying to figure out what he means by "19th-century liberalism." I'm assuming he's referring to the liberal movement of in early 19th century Europe which was largely a reaction to the Napoleonic Wars and their aftermath.

I usually think of it as "18th century liberalism", though, particularly in the American context. The traditions that informed liberalism in the 19th century were largely set forth by 17th and 18th century thinkers like Locke, Smith, and Kant. The United States had, of course, adopted this tradition in the late 18th century, and it continues to serve as its first and greatest expression in the world.

I'm hoping he isn't talking about late 19th century Progressivism, which is where modern American "liberalism" has its roots. I'm pretty sure he isn't, though - Hanson is pretty Euro-centric in his history and knows the difference between liberalism and progressivism, so I'm pretty sure he was referring to the 18th-early 19th century thought that forms one of the foundations of modern American conservatism.

"I wish I knew the answer to this mess - I do not. I have prepared as best I can for the the natural consequence of 0baminism - the collapse of civil order. I won't say how or to what extent because I know that we are being monitored. I also decline to say how I will react should a state (or my state) rebel for the same reason...
"...Keep your powder dry..."

It is senseless to hint darkly of violence or illegal revolt, when nothing like that is going to happen -- certainly not at this point.

Indeed, as of today, the most likely future scenario is something along the lines of repeating the mid-term elections of 1994 under Bill Clintoon. Then voters rose up, asking Republicans to restore fiscal sanity, bury Hillary-care, and begin investigating the Clintoons' misbehavior.

And as of today, the numbers for November 2010 look even better than they did a the same time in 1993. So there is plenty of reason for optimism.

We will see no violence, no revolt or secession by Conservatives. So forget about "keeping powder dry" for that reason. What you really need to do is purchase long lengths of rope -- with which lasso your neighbors and drag them to the polls next November. ;-)

Merry Christmas!