The scandals of the NSA’s spying and the IRS’s targeting of Tea Party groups are undoubtedly the most ominous of all the scandals surrounding the Obama Administration, but in a strange twist it is almost entirely understandable. Given the intense hostility between Left and Right in America, it can only be expected now that the use of state power to suppress and subjugate the opposition will become a normal policy, the natural course of action for any regime, whether liberal or conservative. The Tea Party and the libertarians have been utterly aghast at what Edward Snowden revealed and what Lois Lerner committed, but it is all in actuality of little surprise.
The Left is simply carrying out its agenda to the next logical conclusion: that it must begin to systematically scrutinize and then ostracize its perceived enemies (the Tea Party, the Christian Right, and white nationalism) from mainstream society. They are fighting for the total control of America, and it is a world in which right-wingers of any variety do not exist. This is what the American Right has never understood and why they are in such an uproar over this scandal while liberals, socialists, and communists are either silent or in complete support.
Leftism’s ultimate goal has always been to fashion a utopian vision of total egalitarianism, one where religion, race, family, gender, socio-economic status, and all other forms of inequality and hierarchy are obliterated. Its vision is total victory and its tactics are ruthless and uncompromising. Its entire existence rests upon being the sole remaining political, social, and religious entity. In contrast, the American Right is defending the undependable position: liberty.
Liberty, as traditional America defines it, cannot exist in a vacuum without common agreement on the fundamental values and beliefs of society. Values such as the right to privacy, freedom of speech, and the right to a fair and speedy trial can exist only where members of the demos have moral cohesion and share a genuine affection for one another. Patrick Henry’s famous statement of “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it” can exist only when we as a society agree on what is actually sacred, therefore rendering all other opinions as trivial in light of the high values of the community.
This was particularly possible during the American founding era, when the country was in basic harmony in terms of its religious and consequently moral worldview. After the War for Independence was won, the Founders, along with the overwhelming majority of the country, agreed that God, family, and nation were the highest values in society; the American commonwealth was founded upon these presuppositions. Therefore all other major conflicts, such as the question of states’ rights and the role of the federal government, were more or less “gentlemanly disagreements” which did not boil over into blood hatred – not until the common understanding of morality became fractured and the nation broke into open hostility in the War for Southern Independence.
Now, once more, the United States finds itself divided as never before, where the system and anti-system are in irreconcilable opposition to one another. Whereas Patrick Henry’s famous statement is noble in its context, it is impossible to expect Christians to accommodate non-Christians’ freedom of speech when crucifixes are defamed, the Ten Commandments are ripped down from courthouses, and the gradual de-Christianization of America is the chief order of the day. Likewise, the Left has little or no reason to accommodate Christianity when orthodox, European-style Christianity is the archetype of all inequality and evil in the world. These divisions are so exacerbated that each side now views the other as working for its own version of the Antichrist and therefore must be destroyed in order to resurrect and fulfill America’s destiny.
Liberty, as our Founders envisioned it, is sustained by social solidarity and continuous and regular dialogue. One cannot have a dialogue with an entity that wants to destroy you. Conservatives understand this when it comes to fighting Islamism, but peculiarly not with Leftism.
To put it more simply, ideas such as freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and so on only existed when we as a society agreed that freedom of speech meant one could publish a pamphlet expressing disdain with the government’s tax plan, or agricultural policy, not whether or not homosexuals can smack each other with leather whips in public, or whether a baby is a mother’s disposable property.
Traditional American liberty, as the Tea Party and Christian Right have wanted to define it, existed only in the early days of America, where the society was almost exclusively Christian and Caucasian and operating in a predominantly rural, agrarian environment. However, with the development of industrialism, secular humanism, and then consequently materialism, the breach in American society has exacerbated to a point beyond repair.
America’s massive and balkanized population, which is by-and-large apathetic to religion and has no organic cultural essence, is unsure of itself and ripe for a tyrant’s picking, be he left-wing or right-wing. To make matters worse for the Tea Party, the concepts of self-government and rugged individualism, which forged the American republic, no longer exist and cannot be duplicated. Furthermore, the hostile nature of the Left-Right paradigm in America provides a society that cannot dialogue with itself, but rather is in hostile confrontation that is mitigated only by an overarching police state.
Therefore, given the totality of both the revolutionary Left’s vision and the sum of the Christian Right and white nationalist movements, can fundamentalist right-wingers really be angry with the Leftist power structure spying on the citizenry? From a personal security perspective, yes, one should be upset; it is never comforting to have a police state investigating your every move. However, from a philosophical perspective, right-wingers at this stage must concede that these government tactics are not inherently bad, but rather a new tactic of the trade in the Left-Right paradigm.
Envision for a moment, that the “Right” has won. Fundamentalist Christians and white nationalists hold a majority in both chambers of congress and the presidency, and America is marching forward to affirming her ancient heritage; Leftists are shaking in their Toms at the thought of the “revolution lost.” Would not we, if given the power, use the IRS to investigate Media Matters, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Center for American-Islamic Relations? Would we not audit the leaders of grassroots Leftist groups in order to intimidate them and bankrupt their power? Would we not seek to utilize the exact weapons they are willing to employ?
If Christians hold their symbols and mythological interpretation of America as sacred, then it is almost inexcusable that they would not use the power of the state to defund and bully Planned Parenthood out of existence or to break the CPUSA and the One People’s Project under the boot of the IRS and NSA. But at this stage in the war, if the Right, given the opportunity to intimidate, bully, harass, and bankrupt Leftist organizations out of existence, does not take advantage of its power, then we are affirming that our mission is not totally moral or of the high value that God has decreed it is. Either it is utterly and completely immoral to murder babies and therefore to use any measure possible to prevent it, or it is only relatively immoral, meaning then that we should just “encourage people’ to not partake in infanticide through picketing or leaflet drops.
The Left has conquered America in part due to their understanding that the morality of their beliefs is total and that anything opposing them is completely immoral. Many American “conservatives” are utterly dumbfounded that the Leftists do not tolerate opposition speech, which to them is an affront to the spirit of Americana; but the Left engages in this form of one-sided toleration by thinking that anything contrary to their worldview is completely evil. American rightists, most of whom are Christian, do not share this same totality.
Liberty, as the American Right wishes to define it, can no longer exist. There is no common understanding of what freedom even means in America. For the Right it is “freedom of,” which is a defensive, amoral position, while for the Left it is “freedom from,” which is an attacking, aggressive, assertive position that will eradicate any foe that stands in the way. The American Right, in order to remain true to the vision of George Washington, must tolerate its opposition, while the Left, remaining true to the orthodoxy of its patriarch Karl Marx, can smash, bully, intimidate, and even kill its opposition and feel nothing but a moral reassurance, for they have advanced the revolution one step farther.
That being said, Christians do not have a self-justified right to unbridled power. The Anglo-Saxon tradition of common law, where power is curbed and channeled, will have to again be applied to any Christian takeover of our Western institutions. The difference, this time, will be that Christians must learn from the mistakes of fashioning a hybrid document that compromises Christian principles, such as the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Ideally, a time of transition would have to exist where a more authoritarian regime rules, one which can gradually diffuse power and change the nature of the state according to Anglo-Saxon traditions. A working model of this could be the Spain of Francisco Franco. After the war for approximately forty years, Franco, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Falangists ruled Spain, purging it of the Judeo-Bolshevik pollutants and reorganizing and healing it, preparing for a restoration of constitutional monarchy that would exclude the Left.
Christians cannot justify rule by fiat where our leaders act as God’s regent on earth. Kings, prime ministers, and all leaders with authority are granted that authority by God, and they will be judged on their use of that power according to God’s laws. Therefore, as we transition out of a warfare state into a peace state, justice according to the means and practices of the rule of law must emerge. Institutions must be established and traditions must be practiced to ensure that rule by fiat does not infest the Christian state or the Christian religion. Every time this has happened, it has resulted in gross abuses by the Christian bureaucracy and massive divisions inside Christendom which are almost impossible to repair. Therefore, the Church must act as the arbiter of any civic institution to lead and instruct the persons in the institutions towards an era where justice is not only professed but practiced as well.
Now to be clear, if the American Right is ever to triumph again, it will only come through a hostile purging. Liberty as Washington, Madison, and Jefferson envisioned, if ever able to be resurrected, will not be able to exist for probably several generations. A new era of “purification” will be needed to repair the damage done by Leftism and then begin to take the time to discredit, disprove, and re-evangelize America so that a new form of liberty or “neo-liberty” can exist in a new environment. Whether this occurs naturally via God’s will or as a man-made political reaction is yet to be seen. But fundamentally, given the trends and patterns of history, it will be a combination of both, where God will humble the proud and where the virtuous will arise to reestablish justice.
The American Founders did not believe in the eternal ultimacy of the Constitution, for they knew they drew up a document that was flawed and could be amended and, if necessary, replaced. The current document governing the American nation will need to be replaced with a new document that will be congruent with the new cultural and religious order the right wing will establish. But it cannot come by defending a moral and legal position that no longer exists by default.
The only way for modern conservatives to defend the Constitution is to destroy it. One cannot long live in a system where one side is defending an opposition’s right to gain power and tyrannize the population. It is in actuality far from simply being naïve; it is in fact a gross act of irresponsibility to not fight by all manner of means to destroy an enemy that seeks to shackle us in politically correct straitjackets and, if that does not work, put us into FEMA Camps.
The American Right, though, should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Developments such as the Magna Carta¸ the Mayflower Compact, and the U.S. Constitution are demonstrations of European genius. Many on the Right are becoming understandably quite disenchanted with liberty as whole, but we must be careful not to endorse tyranny in any form, for the consequences historically have been to our downfall.
Tyrannies always produce a reaction that is often impulsive and emotional, not leading to any form of progress, but rather to a regression. Undoubtedly the Bourbon Monarchy was the greatest force governing France, but irresponsible and oppressive government policies mixed together with rogue atheism that produced the beginning of the end of royalism throughout all of Europe.
Secondly, to utterly cast out our liberty would be to philosophically exile some of the greatest minds in our European heritage. Though many of us disagree with Locke, Montesquieu, and Jefferson on many liberal principles, they are nonetheless, in their political idealism, an expression of Caucasian superiority that has been incubated in a purely Christian environment. The political science and philosophy debates of the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries are an expression of the Caucasoid’s innate ability to rationally work through problems and boil down ingenious and complex realities into political and social solutions. This form of debate and intellectual achievement has never been duplicated by any other race or culture, and it even ranks higher than the political debates of pre-Christian Europe. This intra-racial struggle for the definition of a nation and community is a great part of our legacy, and it should never be cast away.
To put it in perspective: if I, as a European royalist, was trapped on a desert island and allowed only one book, I would rather have Thomas Paine’s Common Sense than Richard Wright’s Native Son.
Thirdly, the white man has not spent centuries in an intra-racial struggle over this question of liberty only to have it cast away in an emotional spat against the Leftist zeitgeist. Millions of our ancestors have died to help answer these questions, and European civilization (especially Anglo-Saxon civilization) has developed and bloomed because of the orthodox understanding and appreciation of liberty.
Fourthly, and most simply, having certain protections, such as the right to a fair and speedy trial and prohibitions against double jeopardy and cruel and unusual punishment, are all legal safeguards that I think we all would like to have.
The fundamental question, though, is not about liberty. Liberty unto itself means nothing and is open to such a broad interpretation that it cannot be taken seriously when removed from the strong religious, cultural, and biological foundations upon which it rests. Liberty must be defined within its religious and cultural context. If the American Right can successfully re-Christianize the population, re-conquer the culture by destroying Leftism, and brand it as a demonic lie, then we can again properly address the question of liberty and its implementation. But so long as Marxists, Muslims, Jews, and other anti-Christian, non-Westerners continue to populate and infest in our society, upholding the orthodox principles of the American Revolution and the Anglo-Saxon tradition is impossible.
The Left attacked America very strategically, not by conquering via force of arms, but rather by transforming the culture and changing the environment, thereby making the government and the system serve them rather than the prevailing white, Christian population. So, naturally, when they use state power to audit Tea Party groups or want to know what they are praying about, it is a natural consequence of their victory in the first phase of this war. It is a tactic, though, that will have to be duplicated by the American Right, if our victory comes one day. We cannot hope to defeat this enemy though dialogue or by running SarahPAC ads against Obamacare. Victory can come only though the Church militant becoming conscious again, defeating the enemies of our religion and civilization, and retaining that power by correctly utilizing state power to never again allow the forces of the Antichrist to arise and destroy our nation.