Here, at Episode 229, Fox News, Enough?, the radio host Driftglass fantasizes about the government hitting the Bundys with a drone strike. He calls Cliven Bundy, Klavern Bundy (as in Klan unit). Get the woman’s rant at 9 minutes, 40 seconds, going hysterical against whites and saying white trash is the problem. Such sad and transparent status mongering; she fears that she is the white trash so she bashes conservatives to prove her good kind of white person cred.
Driftglass’s hate is not pure, though. He wants the government to do it, all legally like. He doesn’t want to take a survival knife and try to slit Clive Bundy’s throat himself, oh no, even if Clive was tied up, on his knees in front of him.
Links at original, and worth reading at Counter-Currents. Gregory Hood does a good job collecting the liberal hate-fantasizing about the government killing for them. The liberals watch a lot of television, and they thirst for some real life violence against politically incorrect people that they can watch on television and high five each other. They lack the self awareness to realize that they are in the mold of Cold War ginned up Americans screaming, “kill the Russians!”
Multiculturalism is the state ideology of the System – and you will be made to agree. Even a sadly conventional old rancher protecting his cattle has become an Enemy of the People, as no one will be permitted to escape the Empire of Diversity.
The rekindling of the “sagebrush rebellion” is an instructive guide to the contemporary Culture Wars, as neither side is talking about what is actually at stake. The Right is mumbling vaguely about the Constitution. The Left is screeching about the Rule of Law. Neither of these things matter in our system of government.
As always, this is a battle about identity. As usual, once they make their initial ideological claim, the Left quickly admits the primal tribal (or should that be Tribal?) impulse behind their motivations, while American conservatism takes solace in misleading rhetoric so they don’t have to admit they are on the same side as rural white people.
The issue started when one Cliven Bundy of Nevada refused to pay fees that would allow his cattle to graze on land adjacent to federal land. As a result, the Bureau of Land Management moved to seize his cattle. Though Bundy is clinging to the view that the “sovereign state of Nevada” and not the federal government owns the land, it seems clear that Bundy is in the legal wrong and simply does not want to give up his cattle.
But the law is an ass. And it’s more complicated than that. While Bundy and other ranchers once enjoyed free grazing on the land, the federal government is slowly squeezing ranchers ostensibly in the name of “protecting” federal holdings and the environment. In Bundy’s case, his family’s doom was sealed because of a tortoise. The Bureau of Land Management ruled that Bundy would have to pay a fee for each head of cattle in response to a native tortoise being listed under the Endangered Species Act. Bundy did not pay, and legal battles resulted, which Bundy of course had no chance to win.
The same federal government which can’t pay for body armor for American soldiers or a simple fence at the American border did manage to find helicopters and advanced surveillance to keep track of exactly how much cattle Bundy had assembled. When the BLM moved in, they tasered Bundy’s son, sicced snipers and police dogs on citizens, and barricaded protesters in a “First Amendment Zone” similar to those set up to cordon off conservatives on college campuses.
The BLM also began confiscating Bundy’s cattle, though it denied that it was killing them. We now know that was a lie and that the animals were being slaughtered. The BLM backed down in the face of citizen opposition – including militias – and the media on the East and Left Coasts began screeching about “thuggery.” Of course, they didn’t mean the people pointing guns at ranchers – they meant the citizens who came to protest it.
The reaction of the System’s media and its obedient followers is an illuminating guide to the precarious physical security of the historic American nation in the Age of Obama. For a fun experiment, check out the comments section of the likes of the Huffington Post whenever there’s a tornado or flood in a Red State and enjoy the pure vitriol and death threats made against white Americans. For that matter, check out the comments section anytime a conservative has a child. Of course these people want to kill us. Of course they would celebrate if the BLM simply opened up on the crowd. Trayvon Martin will be honored in the degenerate churches across the continent, but who will mourn for productive citizens except “racists?”
And the media did not disappoint this time. Ryan Cooper at The Week was relatively restrained in his dismissal of “some kook and his pack of assault rifle-wielding thugs.” Salon.com, featuring the usual stable of anti-white bigots doing their best to make Julius Streicher look like Wendell Berry, is ululating with a never ending series of articles concern-trolling about “violence” – as if the government hasn’t already unleashed it. They are also explicitly arguing that the BLM needs use more regulation to drive out the ranchers, not less.
Among them are liberal creationist Amanda Marcotte, who connected the issue to her “right” to have others pay for her birth control, not surprisingly considering her hatred of children (a blessing if it ensures she remains an evolutionary dead end). And of course, there is the usual librage against “angry old white men” who dare disobey the multicultural Administratum and think they can “disobey the law.” A Heather Digby Parton desperately screeches that she’s still cool and sneers that conservatives “never had a day of sheer, joyful fun in their sad, unimaginative lives.” One can only say that the tragic spectacle of a withered Lefty crone having flashbacks about Woodstock because it was the last time she received male attention is sufficient in itself to discredit everything she’s ever said.
The Southern Poverty Law Center is continuing its mission creep by flailing about Bundy. It’s tempting to ask why an organization ostensibly dedicated to fighting “hate” should care one way or the other about whether some rancher gets to keep his cows. But as the Family Research Council, the Foundation for American Immigration Reform, “pick up artists” who teach men to approach women, Senator Rand Paul, and The Lord of the Rings are all apparently threats to the System these days, it’s no surprise that the SPLC is shrieking about “extremists” in the West, and Mark Potok has been brought on MSNBC to read his press releases about “imminent bloodshed” “entirely provoked” by Bundy and his supporters.
The IREHR is also sounding the alarm about “white extremists” ready to use violence, notably using the word “white” itself as a trigger word to get its readers upset. The best parts are the repeated references to Bundy as a “County Supremacy Activist.” (I have a moment of “sheer, joyful fun” every time I try to read these hysterical reports.) The group has been notably silent about the recent news that Texas has been enriched with 100,000 gang members, mostly of the especially vibrant Latino variety.
Gawker’s Adam Weinstein, pivoting from his recent call to imprison global warming “deniers,” reacted with fury to the news that the government hadn’t righteously gunned down protesting Americans. In an article entitled, “Crazy Armed Whitey’s Successfully Defend Cows’ Constitutional Rights,” Weinstein sneered at “angry white dudes” from “Inner America” with “gut[s]-hanging-over-the-brass-belt-buckle.” In the comments, he brags that he has a great deal of sympathy for the real owners of the land – the Indians. Not the land he lives on of course, but the land that the Wrong Kind of White People live on.
It’s tempting to say that Weinstein isn’t even really writing an editorial here, just expressing his bigotry. Ranting about fat “whiteys” is just socially acceptable hate. It’s the intellectual equivalent of me saying that it’s typical of a Weinstein to kvetch from his double chins about actual Americans in contrast to the “crazy darkies” with their pants hanging over their ankles who have destroyed every American city they have ever occupied more completely than an atomic bombing. But I strive for a higher tone.
The most hilarious posturing comes from Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow (who may or may not be the same person) banging on about the rule of law and the sovereignty of the federal government. Of course, these and other liberals are the exact same people who are assuring us that illegal immigrants are not actually criminals and that it’s not actually a big deal that they broke the law. In fact, they should be rewarded. One could ask why Obama doesn’t simply give Bundy an exemption to the regulation – after all, he’s been eager to make unilateral and unconstitutional changes to Obamacare and provide exemptions to unions and political allies. But I suppose the question answers itself.
Either way, the Rule of Law hasn’t mattered in this country for some time, so how can we take their screeching seriously? When illegal immigrants are testifying before Congress, you’re telling us we should be outraged because a rancher won’t pay a fee to save a turtle that isn’t even endangered?
The constant motif in this and other commentary is a laserlike focus on the shocking whiteness of Bundy and his supporters. This is either implied or baldly stated to render their grievances illegitimate. There is no insight offered – just blunt and crude insults.
Among them is the constant taunt that Bundy and his supporters are “fat,” which doesn’t seem true in Bundy’s case (especially compared to Weinstein) and doesn’t seem relevant either. It is especially surprising when the Left’s latest crusade is against “fat shaming,” and the likes of Lena Dunham are elevated to civil rights heroes because of their inability to stay away from carbohydrates for 20 minutes. But it’s ok if she is fat – indeed, it’s positively courageous. In contrast, Bundy and his supporters are unfashionable, embarrassing, and scary in the eyes of those of those who whine about white privilege for a living.
Indeed, the Left-wing faux anarchists of “Burning Man” are holding a festival nearby specifically to mock Bundy and his concerns. The organizer laughs at some “cranky old dude and some cows” and bows to the “rule of law.” Our reborn Blackstone tends not to show similar concern when it comes to laws regulating narcotics or sex, but those laws are repressive infringements on passive enjoyment. Bundy’s struggle focuses on protecting his livelihood and producing something. Real “freedom” in America means the freedom to play – and nothing besides. You are “free” to be a childlike Leftist rutting and drugging yourself into oblivion – or you are free to have a government bureaucracy you’ve never heard of send snipers after you.
In contrast to the blunt and even refreshing bigotry of the Left, conservatives are doing their best to stick to their traditional limp rhetoric. National Review has run several cautious articles expressing mild sympathy, while taking care to genuflect to the “rule of law,” but condemn Bundy’s supposed “Taliban tactics.” Ron Paul is condemning “authoritarianism,” to the scorn of the Little Green Footballs’ Charles Johnson, always on the alert for unfashionable thoughts. Other conservative voices, noticeably Sean Hannity, also offered a defense.
Alas, Bundy managed to cut his links to the respectable Right by making the mistake of speaking to a New York Times reporter, offering his rather unsophisticated political philosophy, and using the word “Negro.” Republicans immediately backed away and the Leftist websites are crossposting the story with glee. Courtier Jon Leibowitz “Stewart” displays that rapier wit of The Daily Show with the line that Bundy is a professor at “Duke University – David Duke University.” (Derp!)
But Bundy’s language doesn’t change anything about the issue. And it’s worth noting that Bundy, in his innocence, was not trying to be racist, and has been swearing up and down on the likes of “colorblind” libertarian shows such as the Peter Schiff show and the Alex Jones show that he wasn’t trying to denigrate blacks. Just like any American conservative, he thinks Martin Luther King would be on his side.
More than that, Bundy has actually internalized the anti-white talking points about how “Spanish” people (i.e. Hispanics) are superior to whites and how blacks burning down the cities was a protest against “injustice.” He states,
I was in the Watts riot, I seen the beginning fire and I seen that last fire. What I seen is civil disturbance. People are not happy, people are thinking they don’t have their freedoms, they didn’t have these things, and they didn’t have them.
We’ve progressed quite a bit from that day until now, and we sure don’t want to go back. We sure don’t want the colored people to go back to that point. We sure don’t want these Mexican people to go back to that point. And we can make a difference right now by taking care of some of these bureaucracies, and do it in a peaceful way.
Aside from referring to “colored people” in the same way as the NAACP, this is typical PC cringing. Moreover, he states,
Now, let me talk about the Spanish people. You know, I understand that they come over here against our Constitution and cross our borders. But they’re here and they’re people — and I’ve worked side by side a lot of them.
Don’t tell me they don’t work, and don’t tell me they don’t pay taxes. And don’t tell me they don’t have better family structures than most of us white people. When you see those Mexican families, they’re together, they picnic together, they’re spending their time together, and I’ll tell you in my way of thinking they’re awful nice people. And we need to have those people join us and be with us not, not come to our party.
Bundy a white nationalist? Hardly. We can all read the Constitution in Spanish together in the public parks that they’ve destroyed in Bundy’s Republic.
Indeed, he sounds more naïve than anything else when he moans that he would “appreciate it” if the New York Times took down its article, seemingly unaware that destroying him and others like him are the only times The Paper of Record can be bothered to do any reporting.
Bundy was making the case that blacks actually had a better life under slavery than they supposedly do now under a supposedly expansive government. While absurd on its face and offensive to blacks, this is only a slightly more extreme argument than the Republicans usually make. Paul Ryan, who has distinguished himself since his failed run for Vice President in his sociopathic desire to destroy his constituents with amnesty for illegal immigrants, has also come under fire as a racist for daring to suggest that there was something wrong with “inner city” culture. Conservatives also habitually decry the “liberal plantation” – and despite the intended groveling behind their rallies and arguments, are called racist for their trouble.
What conservatives don’t understand is that black dependency on government is a feature, not a bug. Blacks believe they are owed housing, EBT, and set asides, and have nothing to gain from an “ownership society.” Conservatives can – accurately – complain about how minorities are suffering under liberal governance, but blacks themselves don’t care any more than they care about crime in their own communities and vermin in their own kitchens.
White liberals are now operating under the same kind of paradigm. To be a liberal white means to seek out a place in the administration of the Managerial State, governing the behavior of whites for the benefit of non-white mascots. Personal material prosperity thus corresponds with an attitude of moral superiority. Weinstein described this attitude perfectly when he condemns “Inner America” (his beat) in the name of those “reading this, without moving your lips, someplace where wi-fi runs fast and strong” on the “civilized, productive edges of this thing called America.”
Of course, even in those “civilized edges,” the likes of Gawker, and Jezebel, and the rest of the parasitic class spend their days looking for thoughtcrime among those formerly cool software developers or complaining there isn’t enough melanin or estrogen on the boards. To be “civilized” means to be under control. The media can’t be bothered to report on corruption or abuse but it will leap into action if someone put “White GeNOcide” banners in Easter Eggs. So called “anti-fa” who claim to be anarchists warn dissidents that if they flirt with white identity, they will endanger their security clearances for government jobs. Random SWPLs volunteer to keep files on college kids to make sure they can’t get jobs if they once wrote for a politically incorrect humor magazine. As Jared Taylor said in the American Thinker, we have a world where every man is his own commissar.
This is now translating into an explicit defense of statism by the Left. Politicians charge that it is “unpatriotic” if you don’t support gun control. Signing up for Obamacare is your duty to your country. Protesting tax raises is “economic treason.” And of course, many conservatives, especially neoconservatives, are complicit in this. Charles Krauthammer, furious that American conservatives were briefly talking about something other than bombing Russia, is raging that it is contradictory that someone can be a “conservative hero” for not “respect[ing] the federal government.”
It is said that taxes are simply the price we pay for civilization. This is true if you have a real country. This is not we have. Taxes are what you pay so your neighborhood can be destroyed by Section 8 housing, so your business can be shut down if you don’t hire enough “oppressed” people, and so our soldiers can be sent to give welfare to Muslims who hate us, before they are eventually killed by our own “allies.” If you do not recognize that the greatest threat to our survival is the System that rules from Washington D.C., you are not even in the struggle. Every dollar you pay to Washington goes to making your life worse and ensuring the government can replace you and your children with more pliable clients.
What the American Right doesn’t understand is the ideological justification for this system, and the increasing hatred by the SPLC and other Leftists of “anti-government” groups. A Gawker or Huffington Post will see no contradiction between screaming for global warming deniers to be imprisoned and screaming about civil rights abuses if the NYPD uses surveillance on Muslims. “Liberal fascism” is not fascism precisely because it is directed against more traditionalist-oriented whites. The Constitution, or limited government, or “states’ rights” are irrelevant. The Left – both SWPLs and non-whites – doesn’t want “liberty.” It wants the state using force to restrain its enemy – the historic American nation.
And yet, for all the talk about “liberty,” even these would-be sons of the soil are dependent on state power. Bundy is, after all, asking to graze for free on government land. Bundy once enjoyed this right as he and other settlers were seen as assets by an implicitly white American government that wanted to secure its control over new territory. Now, Bundy is seen as a liability by an explicitly anti-white government – indeed, less valuable than a desert tortoise. And this macro shift in racial power has personal economic consequences – Bundy can no longer graze his cattle, and his lifestyle is marked for extinction.
The System’s media and its client populations of nonwhites are utterly frank about the desirability of eliminating what Weinstein calls the “moronic armed brutes” that once compromised the American nation. In contrast, Bundy’s battle was lost before it even begun. He and his supporters are appealing to legal arrangements in the blissful ignorance that law is only the surface of power – what sustains it is a belief in legitimacy backed with primal forces of identity and willingness to use violence.
There are only two possibilities regarding the Constitution of the United States. One is that it is working as it was intended, in which case it is a monstrosity. The other is that it was broken somewhere along the way – in which case it failed. Either way, Bundy and his supporters, both on the range and the media, are but priests of a dead god, appealing to ritualistic legal formulas and sacred texts which have long been dismissed by the rulers of the country.
The law is a creation of power, not a source. And politics is about who controls state power, not what after the fact rationalization is made up to con the rubes. The historic American nation cannot look to its salvation through the rhetoric of “limited government” or an appeal to a white United States that is long since dead and buried. White Americans can only save themselves in the fight in their own name – not in the name of the very regime that is destroying them. The alternative is for Bundy and American conservatives, in this case and so many others, to continue to claim that they are the champions of the real “colorblind” “limited government” American ideology.
The clash in Nevada is between two differing versions of Idiocracy. Contra the media rhetoric, both sides are claiming to fight in the name of the true egalitarian American vision. It may seem incredible that so many whites are willing to say obviously untrue things like Martin Luther King would care about the constitutional rights of some cracker rancher in Nevada. But we should have some compassion. Admitting that America is dead, and that white people’s salvation can only come by carving out a state for ourselves, is far more frightening than facing down federal thugs with guns.