Two days ago, there was a piece on LRC by Will Grigg (of Pro Libertate), concerning the comments made by AG Eric Holder about racial politics in America. Grigg points out the agenda behind the race politics:
It would obviously be to the advantage of our rulers for Americans to think of ourselves as members of ethic collectives that they define for their purposes. The most obvious of those purposes would be simply to keep us divided and inconsolably hostile toward each other. This process, as Holder probably understands, begins with supplying a racial subtext for discussion of practically every public issue of consequence. As the economic decline accelerates, the temptation to racialize our grievances will become more seductive to an ever-greater number of people.
Unscrupulous, power-hungry governments exploiting identity politics to grab power in the aftermath of an economic implosion - now that sounds eerily familiar. That's Yugoslavia all over again.
Continues Grigg:
The unalloyed truth is that our rulers intend to make helots out of all of us, irrespective of race, creed, or color, and to that end they are eager to exploit the potential for conflict created by those divisions.
Perhaps the best we can hope for would be that the Regime will press too hard, too soon, causing the "union" to disintegrate with relatively little violence. Since there is, quite literally, not enough wealth in the entire world to service the Regime's financial obligations, the bleak reality is that the entity calling itself the United States of America simply cannot survive in its current form.
Isn't that precisely what Panarin said? Sounding very much like me from three weeks ago, Grigg concludes:
If the Obamunists employ the same heavy-handedness in race agitation that they've displayed in wealth redistribution, the crack-up may come much sooner – and be much uglier – than any of us expect.
Now, I've seen Panarin's gloomy predictions dismissed as envious ravings of an America-hater. Such people will no doubt dismiss Grigg - who passionately fights for key American ideals such as liberty - as a "kook," the same way they mocked Ron Paul for caring about the Constitution (After all, it's "just a goddamned piece of paper," right?).
Think about it for a second: defending liberty and upholding the country's founding document is considered weird and objectionable, while belief in a secular Messiah and the omnipotent government is mainstream. That convinces me, more than ever, that Panarin and Grigg may be right, and their detractors are mistaken.
2 comments:
These detractors argue not against specific detail, but over the concept of an empire falling. This is the problem with the US.
Even when they vote for change they vote for the way things used to be done.
Anyone and everyone without an MBA could have seen this coming if they'd allowed themselves to.
There are consequences to being the most influential nation on Earth; you have to actually act responsibly with what you've got or you lose it.
And they didn't want to see that either. Because it doesn't happen in their shallow worldview.
Whatever happens to us in the next few years, you can't look God in the eye and say we didn't deserve it.
And now Justin Raimondo.
Post a Comment