Posted under Interventionism & Lincoln & Politics
Yesterday, I wrote that Beck’s rally at the Lincoln shrine was a snare and delusion; instead of a call to restore liberty by downsizing the central government, it cheered on the aggressive, unrestrained use of force at home and abroad under the fig leaf of promoting civil rights.
Sarah Palin’s speech at that rally confirms my view. Here’s a partial transcript:
There in the distance stands the monument to the Father of Our Country. And behind me, the towering presence of the Great Emancipator — he secured our union at the moment of its most perilous time and freed those whose captivity was our greatest shame.
And over these grounds where we are so honored to stand today, we feel the spirit of the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He, who on this very day two score and seven years ago, gave voice to a dream that would challenge us to honor the sacred charters of our liberty that all men are created equal.
Now in honoring these giants, these giants who are linked by a solid rock foundation of faith in the one true God of justice – in honoring them, we must not forget the ordinary men and women on whose shoulders they stood. The ordinary called for extraordinary bravery. I’m speaking, of course, of America’s finest, our men and women in uniform, a force for good in this country and that is nothing to apologize for.
Abraham Lincoln once spoke of the mystic chords of memory stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land. And for over two hundred years, those mystic chords have bound us in gratitude to those who are willing to sacrifice, to restrain evil, to protect God-given liberty, to sacrifice all in defense of our country.
They fought for its freedom at Bunker Hill, they fought for its survival at Gettysburg and for the ideals on which it stands – liberty and justice for all – on a thousand battlefields far from home.
“Fought for its survival at Gettysburg”? H. L. Mencken debunked that lie decades ago.
In other words, if we are to believe the Beck-Palin view of history, Leviathan is the source of all good, and those who oppose it deserve to be crushed. If you’re a patriotic American in the Beck-Palin mold, you understand that citizen surveillance, reconstruction at home, and militarism abroad are noble endeavors we must support with our blood and treasure.
I’m calling game, set, and match.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
Steve Ryker on 31 Aug 2010 at 12:05 am #
“I’m calling game, set, and match.” To WHAT, Mr. Bergeron? The Election? The Empire? Both? Somethng else? If either of the former, that’s a risky call, Mr. Bergeron.
Since it seems that “the core” of your remarks seem to revolve around The Empire, I would like to speak to that, whether you had that in mind or not.
“All” of us are saying, to one degree or another, that “The Empire’s” days are numbered. But since none of us know the number of days, let alone exactly, I seem to be sensing some kind of a “It’ll go on forever” attitude, that wells up from “deep within,” WITHOUT ANY conscious thought or reflection whatsoever. Just some kind of “reflex,” in & of the mind.
My degree-work was in Economics. I can tell you for a CERTAINTY that the “game, set and match” IS FOR THE FALL OF THE EMPIRE, and not far from now. Although this is to a certain extent a subjective “hunch,” I would literally “put money on the table” that we “have” roughly 2-5 years, maybe LESS.
Bottomline: This System needs money, DESPERATELY & LOTS OF IT. Soon, IT WON’T BE ABLE TO GET IT. Basically, no one will underwrite a “loser.” The Basis & the means of & for wealth-creation are rapidly DYING on these shores, combined with an Historically monumental & previously UNKNOWN level of National Debt. China & other countries are already “bailing out of Dollars.”
The End is nigh.
There WILL be many measures of gross exploitation (such as the “National Healthcare Act”), Totalitarian control, and then an increasing scale of various forms of violence. I believe there will then be massive bloodshed, mainly of Whites, b/c in ANY practical terms, WE HAVE NO YOUNG MEN, of prime fighting and battle age. And I mean this sincerely: Even if in some way or sense they indeed WERE “Men,” IT WOULD BE WORSE – MUCH WORSE – b/c as Julius Evola argued, and I believe well, “race” is NOT primarily a question or matter of COLOR, or physical geometric origin, BUT A QUESTION OF THE SPIRIT WITHIN A PERSON. Ans let’s “face it”: virtually all under 30, both sexes, ARE NOT “WHITE” – THEY ARE “BLACK”. LOOK & LISTEN.
Typically, I certainly will grant that “the Three” usually line up, color, geometric origin (esp. Historically), and “spirit” in the sense I mean here. But NOT always.
“Spirit” includes very Real but very intangible fundamental attitudes, orientations (NOT ‘sexual’); ways of speech, ways of body movement, ways of dress; ACTUAL morals, esp. sexually and how & WHY you deal with the “opposite sex;” self-control, self-discipline esp. regarding being & DOING “the Right thing” and abhorring “the wrong thing;” emotional & behavioral attitudes toward others, ESPECIALLY those “like you;” orientation & attitude to violence & the doing of anything which hurts another physically, economically (stealing, theft, physical destruction as in riots), emotionally or perhaps other ways. Along with much more that I am unable to analyze or recall now, these things determine your “race” more than, or at least as much as, anything else.
To make a long story short: Unless WE, White males 35-40 AND OLDER, are able to MAKE the necessary preparations in a very short time, WE SHALL LITERALLY BE WIPED OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH.
My stomach-sickening fear is THAT may well be your “game, set and match.” UNLESS WE WAKE UP AND START CONSCIOUSLY FIGHTING BACK.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 31 Aug 2010 at 1:38 am #
I’m just saying they’re validating my point that their rally is about supporting big government and more war, that’s all.
I think we’re having a violent agreement here.
Steve Ryker on 31 Aug 2010 at 9:23 am #
I now agree with you, Mr. Bergeron, and please don’t think that I was “just being contrain.” Based on my (I now believe) clumsy remarks, I can certainly see how you might think we’re having a “VIOLENT” agreement. I think you’re right.
I “feel” the matters discussed deeply and strongly, and I was trying to “find a difference” as the vehicle FOR discussing them. Next time, I WILL NOT use a “difference” as an “excuse,” and simply state my thoughts outright.
Also, I was using the non-existent “differences” as a SEGWAY for my own remarks, so I wouldn’t seem so disconnected and “off-the-wall,” but “reasonable.” I fear I came across as just the opposite. I will not let it happen again. Thanks for “the lesson.” SR