Posted on 04/03/2017 11:31:13 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
America vs. Anti-America
When John Edwards touted the “Two Americas” during his presidential campaigns before his political career ended in disgrace, it was still a metaphor. It stopped being a metaphor at the end of last year.
If you doubt that, you can watch Tom Perez, the head of the Democratic National Committee, yelling that President Trump didn’t win the election. There is a huge difference between opposing the winner of an election and denying that he won it. It’s the difference between opposition and rebellion.
Democrats have not recognized a single Republican presidential victory this century. There is no real reason to think that they will recognize a third one. We can safely assume that the third or fourth Republican to win the White House, no matter who he is, will face the same treatment.
A two-party system can’t function if one party denies the legitimacy of elections won by the other side.
In the Edwards era, the Democrats denied that President Bush had won the election, but they still remained part of the government. That’s no longer the case. Their political mantra is resistance. Their position is that Trump and Republicans are inherently illegitimate and must not be allowed to govern. Instead the government must be defied, opposed, subverted and brought down by any means.
The Democrats have become an unelected shadow anti-government that is seeking to bring down an elected government. That is what I described in an earlier article as a civil war.
The crisis has its roots in Two Americas.
The Democrats artificially created another America. They built it in the elitist urban and suburban enclaves of the left. They drew it with urban welfare ghettoes and with mass immigration. But despite the vast financial, political and cultural power invested in this “New America” it did not represent the majority of the country. And democratic elections dealt repeated setbacks to this Anti-America.
Political maps show these alien concentrations of blue amid a vast national sea of red. Democrats have lost much of the country. They have been wiped out at the state level. They retain power only because they have illegally concentrated them in undemocratic political, financial and cultural centers.
Democrats responded to the latest string of defeats by denying the legitimacy of the election and calling for the elimination of the Electoral College. The original Americans hadn’t died out on schedule so it was time to further dilute their electoral influence in favor of the left’s cultural and financial centers of power all the while protecting the mass immigration program that was meant to replace them.
The Two Americas are now in a state of war.
Anti-America lost an election, denied the outcome and is running a separatist shadow government of sanctuary cities and activist judges. The various attacks on the Trump administration and Congress are expressions of “patriotism”, not to America, but to the alternate Anti-America that they are truly loyal to.
This is not just a power struggle. It’s a clash between two Americas. And only one America can survive.
The left had meant for their Anti-America to replace America. If America is to survive, Anti-America must be destroyed. Unlike America, Anti-America is an artificial entity. Its vulnerabilities are easy to spot by the policy priorities of the left. Anti-America lives by mass migration and campus brainwashing. It requires a huge infrastructure of government employees maintained by taxes and regulations. Its segregated cities depend on a complex hierarchy of political identities that provide access to everything from subsidized housing to jobs based on intersectional caste membership.
Republicans stand against everything that keeps Anti-America alive. So a conflict was always inevitable. Anti-America is far more vulnerable than America. And that’s the good news.
America can win.
Anti-America is based on concentrations of power. Decentralization is its nemesis. Anti-America needs to constantly control people because it is a totalitarian system. Totalitarian systems need a lot more infrastructure and are far more vulnerable. That is why they are so intolerant of individual freedom.
Drain the swamp and you eliminate its breeding grounds. And that of the lobbyists, consultants and reporters who swarm around it like flies.
What the left does best is organize. But organizations are complex systems. And the more complex a system is, the more vulnerable it is. Fighting the left for control of the systems they created and inhabit like hives is a losing proposition. The last few months were a thorough demonstration of that. You don’t fight an ant colony by going inside it. You attack it from the outside by burying it in the dirt.
The left governs by taking a public interest agenda and building an infrastructure of unions, consultants and industries around it. That’s what it did with essentials like education and medicine. Eliminate the organization and you cut expenses, improve services and wipe out the left. That’s why the left panics so badly over education reform and socialized medicine. Those are the sources of much of its money and power.
Cut immigration and the demographic replacement that the left has bet its entire “right side of history” on gets choked off. That’s why the left is more worked up over plans to cut migration than anything else. It doesn’t actually care about Syria or El Salvador. It just knows that Anti-America depends on importing large numbers of people with high birth rates who have no allegiance to this country. Portland won’t do it. Pakistan might.
Leftist beliefs defy common sense. It takes a whole lot of indoctrination to make anyone believe them. End the centralization of education, roll back the endless expansion of higher education and take a hard look at the corporate culture monopolies of the entertainment industry and the Berlin Wall will fall again. Without a fresh supply of zombies, the left goes back to being a marginal movement.
And the left knows it.
The Two Americas have come to a dangerous crossroads. The policy agenda of the Democrats would destroy America. That of the Republicans would destroy Anti-America.
American culture, economics and religion can’t survive the rule of Anti-America. That is what we saw in the Obama years. But Anti-America would do even worse if Republicans got serious about a reform agenda. That’s one reason why Democrats are beginning to engage in a political secession.
Immigration enforcement, school choice and big government cuts frighten them worse than anything.
The left reshaped the culture until an ideological conflict became a culture war. The Two Americas have less in common than the North and the South did. The divisions accelerated sharply throughout the last century. In this century, the division is becoming an irresolvable political conflict. A civil war.
The Democrats are abandoning the pretense of acting as an opposition party within a unified country. If Republicans wish to preserve America, they must be prepared to use government power to destroy the infrastructure of Anti-America. A conflict is underway that will determine whether America survives.
There are Two Americas. In the end there can only be one.
We have fire ants here, bigtime. We find that spading up a different colony and dumping it in the hole will usually kill it. We have stopped using pesticide since the little bastiges will kill each other off for free.
Might be a bit hard to do with ghettos and barrios........but it got the job done.
And left you with a unique sculpture!
I may steal that to bombard liberals on my local liberal rag opinion website.
Partly. Add in one more little point, and it's true.
The liberal judges and their courts have done their best to establish *abortion as a constitutional right,* protect it with court decisions that set precedent and negated state laws protecting the lives of unborn children. And many of those judges will remain on the bench for decades as more than a million abortions a year continue to take place.
But there are now nearly enough Republican Senators to ensure Senate approval of a treaty with another nation or nations that would outlaw abortions. And nearly enough Republican states to manage passage of a constitutional amendment along the same lines.
Either approach might be successful, aside from RINO backpedaling and nonsupport. And the chance of their losing their right to kill the unborn would be a horrible blow to the liberal incrementalists who worked so long and so hard to get us to where we are now. It's their linchpin issue.
“National socialist dictatorship”?
Franco was the most apolitical man you could ever meet; he only insisted that he wanted to live and die in a Catholic Spain. He restored private property rights and the right to attend Mass; he let people come and go as they pleased. He didn’t allow elections because that is how the communists came to power - and the government they elected simply tossed out the rule of law.
Political scientists don’t refer to Franco as a “Nazi” with good reason.
Now that’s an interesting and unique idea - very cheap also. Will try on Allegheny Mound ants here. However often one of the many queens in a nest will go off to start her own, so would have no assurance that one would not just be returning queen to previous friends.
Fascist, allied with others, Mussolini & Hitler, long outlived them all.
I'm not certain there is any practical difference between the words "fascism" and "national socialism", seems to me there were both private and government run business in both.
During WWII Franco somehow remained officially "neutral" while sending divisions to support the German Eastern Front against the Soviet Union.
I'm guessing Hitler agreed to this with the thought that a neutral Spain could import raw materials Germany needed (i.e., rubber) whereas Spain allied with Germany would be subject to the same Western powers blockade.
Anyway, the point here is that a choice between "right wing dictatorship" and "left wing tyranny" is a false choice for American conservatives.
We chose freedom & constitution, and will not willingly sacrifice those for a return to one-party or one-man rule.
Hitler was furious that Franco wouldn’t join the Axis; Franco shared none of Hitler’s racial views and wasn’t an enemy of the Western allies. He asked them for assistance in the Spanish Civil War because the Western democracies stood by while Spain underwent a violent communist revolution; the fact that they alone assisted him speaks volumes.
Much of Europe (particularly in eastern Europe) saw right-wing governments supported by their populations to fight off communist unrest; it brought Hitler and Mussolini to power as well. After the brief assistance to the Whites in Russia’s civil war in the early 1920s, the Western democracies did nothing to stop the spread of communism throughout Europe. When nothing was done to aid Spain or later Finland, Europeans realized they’d have to deal with communism alone. Salazar in Portugal shared many similarities with Franco (and provided invaluable assistance to him), yet I never hear him referred to as a Nazi.
add me please...
Nor did I intend to call Franco a Nazi.
I used the generic term national socialist as equivalent to fascist in their economic policies.
Those were people who supported Franco in Spain's civil war and who Spain supported (i.e., the Eastern Front) during WWII.
kearnyirish2: "the Western democracies stood by while Spain underwent a violent communist revolution;"
Agreed -- without doubt the Western democracies (France, Britain, USA) stood by and watched throughout the 1930s while Spain suffered a proxy war between fascist/national socialists (Italy, Germany) versus international socialists (USSR).
They also watched Italy invade Ethiopia and Japan invade China, doing nothing beyond speeches at the League of Nations.
One result of their inaction was the bloodiest world war in history.
Placemark
A first rate summary of what rational Americans are contending with. It also spells out lucidly what institutions we must eliminate or replace.
The inaction of the Western democracies during Spain’s communist uprising mirrored their inaction ten years earlier when Germany and Italy underwent the same strife.
The non-aggression pact between Stalin and Hitler floored the West; that wasn’t part of their plan...
I teach economics in a school of business in a small, Christian, school. The past-past-past-past president of the school is in his nineties and STILL COMES TO FACULTY MEETINGS. We are frequently reminded that we are a liberal arts institution. Only a matter of time until I’m adjunctified.
Last year our best chemistry professor left (the others are still pretty good) and this year our best biology professor is leaving. Neither is being replaced. Bad sign, but it gets worse. Every time a historian leaves, we hire a replacement historian, the chief requirement of which is to be to the left of Barack Obama. They teach large enrollment “core” classes and low enrollment history and social justice classes, many of which are high-priced indoctrination sessions. The students and parents are smart enough to transfer most of that “core” stuff in from community colleges or high schools at a fraction of the price of taking it here. And the old guard administrators wonder why the university is tanking. It must be those evil, overpaid, underworked, capitalist business professors.
This semester I am teaching 18 hours and haven’t had time to publish a single paper so far this academic year. I wonder why? Just lazy, I guess.
Needless to say, the science folks truly are way overworked and underpaid, so I feel guilty complaining.
BTW, our past-past-past-past president is a social sciences type whose father was president of the institution IN THE 1930s!
Hmm. I wonder what the problem is?
You give them way too much credit, I don't think they had a plan, they were floundering from one crisis to the next, with the only clear idea that they wanted to avoid another war at all costs.
Sort of like our previous president in that regard.
They also hoped the League of Nations might be more effective than it proved.
On the Hitler-Stalin non-aggression pact, you might remember that leading up to it Stalin held, in effect, a bid-off with Britain & France bidding against Hitler, and Hitler made him the better offer.
But it's hard to say what the Brits might have done differently, historians say Brits were too arrogant and condescending with Stalin, but I suspect they just didn't have anything of major value to offer him, compared to the risks.
And there's no telling if anyone foresaw in the summer of 1939 what Hitler might do just two summers later.
It is so sad what has happened to so-called “Christian” universities, colleges and seminaries as a result of political correctness and inherent corruption. Why in the world would a Christian college promote “social justice”, which is Marxist and anti-Christian?
I guess it sounds good to virgin ears, as bad ideas always do at first. After all, who wants to oppose “justice”?
What alarms me more is how many “Christians” think Marxism is the way to go. I try to alert my ethics and economics students to the false promises of Marxism, but when so many pastors use the pulpit to tow the Marxist line that they hear in seminaries, it’s tough to counteract it in the classroom.
It took me until later in life to really study the Bible. Once I did, talking with others about why marxism is poison was suddenly a lot easier, and I don’t need to thump the Bible to do so. But the deep precepts and the wholeness of the scripture from beginning to end is transformative, even to the intellect. I hope you have a sabbatical time ahead to delve in.
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.