In this Thursday afternoon livestream I talk about my latest podcast and essay, why I do not focus on the minute details of politics, Malcolm X and nationalism, Christopher Caldwell’s essay on the Pilgrim Fathers, the tragedy of the American Indians, and all the chaos that is going on in the world today.
Watch here, listen here, or subscribe in your favorite podcast player.
Links:
Christopher Caldwell: “Plymouth Rock Landed On Them”
The Decline and Fall of the United States of America 
As I was listening to your commentary, I reflected on the notion of the US dividing up amicably, but was reminded of the following quote by C.S. Lewis: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
I’ve recently been reading about eastern European immigrants to Canada (I’m Canadian btw) seeking to propagate communism in Canada in the 1920s through the end of WW2, and I couldn’t help but ask “why not simply go to Russia, if they love communism so much? Why try to change Canada?” But again, Lewis’ quote stuck in my head, its because they are motivated by a sincere form of the tyrannical impulse, much like the modern leftists in the west.
They would never allow for a break up of the US, because its not enough for them to have control over a group of like minded individuals, they need to have control over everyone, for the good of everyone. As such, I think that there would be no division with or satiation of leftists without a recourse to violence.
LikeLike
I agree. We want to be left alone, while they want to rule us, which means they always have the initiative. Some kind of separation is inevitable, though.
LikeLike
Another thought that I had as I listened to your commentary in general, concerns the idea of ‘the posterity’ of the Founding Fathers.
I believe that I understand the argument that you and others make concerning the posterity, but I’m left wondering what that means for those who live in America that are not of ‘the posterity’ (just to clarify, I’m not in this category as I do not live in the US). Over the years, ‘the posterity’ has encouraged, welcomed and sought out others to come to America, usually to fulfill specific needs within America. Over time this immigration went from a meeting a specific purpose to an open door, especially after 1965. As such, we can see that there are essentially three groups of people in America; the posterity, those who were welcomed here, and those who were forced to come here (descendants of slaves). What is to be done with those who are not of the posterity? I don’t think that you are making the case for a two tiered society (perhaps you are and I’ve missed it) so it would seem given the fact that it is impossible for non-posterity members of the US to become members of the ‘the posterity’, the US must in some sense be a proposition nation, where those of the posterity and those who are not of the posterity can have equal status within society.
I guess the problem arises when those that are not of the posterity, or those of the posterity, reject the essential propositions that founded the nation. When this happens, what recourse is there to unite the those who accept and those who reject these essential propositions? I suppose that the answer is none, at this point.
LikeLike
Additionally, I was thinking concerning the differences of the Civil Rights era and today. I think that most people would agree that African-American people had a legitimate complaint against their treatment under such things as the Jim Crow laws. As such they protested in various forms, the ones that are often heralded are the peaceful protests of Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. In such a time, it was much easier to make ones displeasure known, for instance simply sitting in a particular seat on bus, or drinking from a particular water fountain, etc.
Do you think that elements of the African-American community today have a legitimate complaint against their treatment by the US government/system? If so, do you think that some of the violent protests (there were those in the past as well, for instance by the Black Panther Party) experienced today serve the same purpose as those peaceful protests of the past, given that there are no simple or obvious ways for them or others to make their displeasure known, such as sitting on a bus?
Thanks for the commentary, I really appreciate it and how it gets me thinking.
LikeLike
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I definitely believe in assimilation – the 50% of my own ancestry that is not pre-Revolution are Germans who came to the United States in the 1840s. The Immigration Act of 1924 severely restricted migration for four decades, which gave the Ellis Island generations time to assimilate into American culture.
The conceit of America was that we would all unite to form one nation – our national motto is “E Pluribus Unum” or “Out of many, one.” Yet that is not what we see today. It is one thing to become part of the existing American culture, adding your own flavor, but it is quite another to actively try to erase that culture in favor of your own.
Regarding the complaints of the black community, I believe that they had legitimate grievances leading into the 1950s and 60s. Where I think we went wrong was in upending our entire constitutional framework to fix that problem. Today, as all of American society has been reorganized for the satisfaction of the black community, rather than being grateful they (the outspoken race-baiters, I mean) have become even more militant and belligerent. It really makes folks feel that no good deed goes unpunished. People who pay attention see three generations of welfare and affirmative action, nevertheless black mobs are still burning down cities.
While our society is not perfect, I do not believe the complaints being made today are in good faith. News media blows every incident between cops and black men, for example, into a major outrage, while ignoring things like black on black crime, or black attacks on white people. It skews the perspective of people who passively watch the news for information. I believe there is an agenda there, that they are using race as an avenue for cultural Marxism.
I do not know if unity was ever possible, but I feel like my country tried, in good faith, to make it happen.
I appreciate your comments and engagement, thank you!
LikeLike