Get PJ Media on your Apple

Works and Days

Confessions of a Counter-Revolutionary

April 9th, 2013 - 12:49 pm

“Counter-revolutionary” is an apt term for these days: President Obama has promised to make a fundamental transformation, a veritable revolution in American society and culture. Those who oppose such an ongoing agenda are suspected of all sorts of racism, nativism, misogyny, homophobia, and general counter-revolutionary activity.

So — here are some thoughtcrimes:

Global warming

The latest news on “climate change” was not good for global-warming, cap-and-trade zealots. The planet did not heat up in the last decade and a half, despite substantial increases in carbon emissions. The much ballyhooed “Marcott paper” (supposedly millennia of conclusive climate data!) has been largely discredited, and shares the company of the East Anglia email trove (e.g., “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. … Our observing system is inadequate”).

Why the counter-revolutionary suspicion of global warming? I know that the forces of market capitalism are potent, but they certainly lack the powers of the sun and solar system to alter the earth. I have also spent too much time in academia and met too many professors not to know that politicization has infected campus teaching and research — especially the doctrine that the noble ends always justify the occasionally suspect means.

Global warming is a cult belief of the elite: the latter conveniently opposed fracking and horizontal drilling, while subsidizing costly wind and solar that hurt the poor (the lines of cars of poor Latinos at the rural filling station near my house — which offers gas at 10 cents a gallon cheaper than in town — forms about 6:00 a.m.). Such facts — like the cost of air conditioning in Fresno on an August 105 Fahrenheit afternoon — are of no interest to the Palo Alto or Berkeley utopian.

It is the penance that instead counts — an Al Gore lecturing upscale students on polar bear populations so he can use his carbon-offsetted private jet to save them. There is the matter of “cool” too: Worrying about global warming is like drinking Starbucks as you enter Whole Foods; in contrast, worrying about cheap natural gas to help the poor have warm homes is like drinking a McDonald’s latte as you are greeted at the door of Walmart.

Cool — for upscale, would-be revolutionaries – is everything.

Guns

I have met very few academics, politicians, or journalists who knew much about guns. Few of them hunt. Most do not live in bad neighborhoods or drive long distances, sometimes through or into rough areas. I suspect few work alone at night. Few are plagued by woodpeckers destroying an eve on the barn, varmints digging under the shed pavement, or a rabid coyote too close to the doghouse.

So when I hear a liberal expert propose yet another round of Second Amendment infringement, I expect confusion about magazines, clips, calibers, rifles, shotguns, pistols, “automatic” and “semi-automatic,” and “assault weapons.” (Four hours, black spray paint, a sheet of aluminum, cardboard, tin snips, solder, and super glue, and you perhaps could make my ancient semi-automatic .22 resemble a scary “assault rifle.”)

So far I have heard of no proposed legislation that would have stopped Sandy Hook or Columbine, tragically so. To have prevented another unhinged loser from shooting children and teens would have required a police state to have confiscated millions of previously sold legal weapons and ammunition, or to have had armed guards in the schools. There is no legal support for the former or political support for the latter.

The Sandy Hook shooter’s sick fascination with violent video games and his aberrant psychological state (or was it an autistic-like impairment?) were the stronger catalysts of his mayhem. Yet I know that the Obama administration has no desire to go after Hollywood moguls regarding gratuitous gun violence on the big screen, much less take on the ACLU and the psychiatry industry about either psychotropic drugs or the ability of the clearly unhinged to avoid incarceration.

There is a predictability in the liberal mindset: it prefers the iconic to the substantial in matters of controversy. Address the misdemeanor, ignore the felony.

To stop most gun-related deaths in general in the U.S., we would have to focus on inner-city youths (cf. both the success and controversy of stop-and-frisk in New York). We would have to target young minority males in advertising to make the illicit use of the gun comparable to the social unattractiveness of … well, smoking.

I cannot see any of that happening. So we go after the demonic gun that causes less than 1% of annual gun-related deaths, feel good about doing something “for the children,” and derive an added psychic uplift that such a superfluous something also enrages the lower-middle class — especially the slightly rural, mostly white male Sarah Palin constituent. The First Amendment is sacrosanct and must be expanded; the Second is suspect and must be deflated.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
The fundamental flaw in this exposition is it's reliance on fact, reason and logic and, therefore, it is anathema to the left.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
They've commandeered the language. Up is down, down is up. Giving a history lesson that doesn't bash Western Civilization as a whole is now practically a hate crime. Facts are now subjective and our ruling elites expect us to ignore outcomes and instead celebrate their "good intentions." Never mind your lying eyes, everything is fine. And if you don't think it's fine well then maybe they'll unleash the media hounds to publicly shame you into behaving.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The idea that Scalia saying "homosexual" is like a racist says "negro" is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a few years. "Homosexual" is about the most sterile, descriptive term I can think of. "Gay" is a political and personal label.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (66)
All Comments   (66)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Very well written and I share his views completely!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
By "classically liberal position on immigration" I think VDH means "liberal" in the 18th century British sense, not the current American political sense.

The tightening of US immigration voted in in the early 1920s was, according to Schales' "Coolidge" the idea of labor unions and Democrats like the KKK. It was very racist in intent and execution.

Of course, one wonders why contemporary labor unions don't choose to serve their members and demand a halt to immigration.

And don't be in such a hurry to import more engineers either! You will just lower the incomes of American engineers in the process as our experience with the H1B system shows. That program is just a white collar bracero system.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The new senate bill allows doctors to call anyone mentally ill without that person knowing it. Thus the ACLU and big pharma are happy. And now the government has a way of attacking the Second Amendment. Since physicians will be Federal employees this is a win-win situation for everyone concerned except that of the private individual.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It's mid-April in Southern California at 11:00 in the morning and I'm freezing my tuchis off. Global warming my tuchis.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Counter-revolutionaries, UNITE !

Oh, wait.

That won't work.

Counter-revolutionaries today are the independent thinkers and are not those who naturally collectivize like sheep.

Thus, our Achilles heel, thinking for ourselves ensures our repression.

Drat !
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Ugh, I messed up punctuation:

"Thus, our Achilles heel, thinking for ourselves, ensures our repression."

That's better.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
You articulated more in 3 sentences than many pundits do in 3 pages. The thing is, how do we heal our Archilles heel? How DO we unite?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"You sense that you – not just your opposition to 'fundamental transformation' — must be destroyed."

Yes. Over the years my Progressive friends have become less cordial, less tolerant of debate, and are now openly hostile, impatient for their socialist dreams to become real. During the Bush years, they began to shun me. Now, in the Obama years, they're angry over any opposition, and I don't doubt they'd support jailing me for political differences if they could.

But they're an island of academia in a mostly conservative, Red State community. And I wonder if therein lies a path of action. What if we, the counterrevolutionaries, began concentrating in Red States? Abandon California, Michigan, Massachusetts, New York to the morass their Blue State policies have created. I know it would break some hearts -- VDH probably couldn't pull up stakes from his beloved CA -- but young counterrevolutionaries have nothing to lose but a life wasted in declining states. Virtually every Red State is growing economically. An influx of counterrevolutionaries will tilt the electorate there, too.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Salt Lick: "Over the years my Progressive friends have become less cordial, less tolerant of debate, and are now openly hostile, impatient for their socialist dreams to become real."

Very true. The past several years, I have let my friendships with progressives fall by the wayside. They just don't know when to shut up, and every conversation ends up being a one-sided conversation. Lord knows I like to learn, but I hate being "taught," especially by an ass.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Yep. I STARTED my campus ACLU back in the 70's to protect vigorous debate. But there's no such thing as "debate" with Progressives anymore. People like us are either going to take affirmative action to protect ourselves from their will to power, or we're going to find ourselves hunted like rabbits.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
If they follow the jobs, they will. The "safety net" cannot survive without the creation of new wealth and continued growth. States with low business taxes, no income tax on the state level, and right to work laws, will attract entrepreneurs and also young workers looking for a new start. The nation is splitting ( we have always been a divided country except for WW II ) and the possibility of 2 "confederations" may be in the future, possibly in this century.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I'm interviewing for a new job now. When asked where I WON'T move to, I say Illinois and New York. When I'm asked "why?" (they usually suggest the weather since I'm in California), I say its their governments.

California is bad enough but I'd prefer to stay and fight, if I can earn a living here.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Whitehall -- I've a sister in Austin, TX who says the competition for jobs from Californians moving there is intense.

VDH makes California sound hopeless. The situation he describes reminds me of what I encountered with white Kenyans (descendants of British colonials) when I lived in Kenya. They were surrounded by people who hated them, powerless except where they could bribe a government official, and deeply depressed as they watched a fabulously beautiful country sink into bread and circuses, corruption, and sometime outright political murder. Why "stay and fight?" Family obligations? Memories? Roots? Sentiment?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Except that most of the red states also have big cities, which are very blue. It is almost as much an urban-suburb-rural thing as it is a state thing.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Before I state my issue, lets be clear that with the communists on the left, EVERYTHING is political and therefore must be governed, laws must be made, and adherence to the law is a two tiered operation. Think of this as you recollect that the first order of business when the left passed obamacare was to exempt themselves from it.

Of course these dots of blue in the big cities are the hell holes they are because of leftist policies. They are going broke and are crumbling under the weight of their massive beaucracies. The obama solution?

Take a hard look at Agenda 21. The people of common sense who left these blue hell holes for the burbs took their leave and their tax dollars with them. This will not stand with the obama crowd. In order to remain viable obama is pushing hard for "regional taxation redistribution."

In short, the blue dots have patronaged their futures away with a plethora of bad policy to the point of being insolvent. To the left, it is unfair that the burbs have it so good, and they have so little. Agenda 21 is the scheme to normalize the dysfunction on a wider scale.

Just another part of the "fundamental transformation."
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Some truth n that, Dwight, but the tendency toward blue seems muted the more local the government. Thirty governorships is not a bad place to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_governors
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
As for the issue of "shooters" and how we much "outlaw assault rifles, magazines, etc" it appears that most if not all of these "shooters" were on legally prescribed SSRI's (anti-depressants) which do have both "side effects" (some become violent when on these drugs) and "withdrawal symptoms" (violence is one). Note that before we started drugging children and young adults, these sort of "shootings" didn't happen even though semi-auto weapons have been available since the end of the 19th Century. The popular M-1 carbine (with its 15 shot magazine) was available via "mail order" back when Ike was still in the White House!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Yes, exactly Muskegon, here is a video treating that theme.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgCpa1RlSdQ&feature=youtu.be
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Exempt half the U.S. households from federal income tax."

Is this actually now true and are progressives actually pushing for it? If I have figured things correctly, a single person making $20,000 per year who has no deductions would pay $1,106 in federal tax. If there are progressives trying to reduce this, let me know, because all I am hearing is how they want to raise taxes on the rich (which is a waste of energy in my opinion).
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Households, JFP, Parent(s) with children. I do not have the IRS chart
handy, but a family of four with zero income receives $40K in Govt.
subsidies/exemptions, which decreases dollar-for dollar until income
reaches $40K, above which taxes are levied.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Global warming is a cult belief of the elite: the latter conveniently opposed fracking and horizontal drilling, while subsidizing costly wind and solar"

Yes, in order to be a member of the leftist cult you have to believe in the building large reclamation facilities and plunging sharp objects into the spines of newborns.

It appears that to be a leftist means being careful not to throw out the bathwater with the baby.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 Next View All