The Consummation of Statist Ascendance

The Consummation of Statist Ascendance

By Publius

            When in the course of an ideological group’s travails it becomes necessary for that group to subordinate the rest of society’s thoughts before their dogma and assume among the powers of secular humanism, the superior political and social station to which the Laws of the United Nations, John Rawls, and the Center for American Progress entitle them, a snarky fake respect to the deplorable instincts of people of multiple genders suggests they should list the reasons that justify their righteous abrogation of individual rights.

            We hold these relative truths to be evident before the morally enlightened, that all men should end up equal, and that any other outcome is evidence of either an unjust economic system or implicit group-based bias, that they randomly receive from no one in particular certain faculties, and that among these are the ability to vote for their rulers, who dictate the operation of their lives, the exercise of their liberties, and the extent of their private properties—that to guarantee these faculties are not used to effect an unequal distribution of resources, bureaucratic-administrative governments are instituted among the ignorant masses, deriving their just powers from the PhD credentials of the administrators—that whenever any form of government becomes skeptical of these ends in the least, it is the right of the former rulers and their acolytes to destroy its legitimacy using the Praetorian Guard media and a sudden faith in the efficacy of extra-legal violence, and establish a new government, laying its foundation on such assumptions and organizing its powers in such a way as to them shall seem to them most likely to forcibly destroy social mores, especially if they be religious, and subsume the private sphere into the political. Unbridled militaristic idealism, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should be changed for temporarily inconvenient purposes, and all experience hath shewn that humans are more disposed to suffer, while evils are still insufferable than to right themselves by abolishing their forms. When a short stagecoach of inequalities and reckless freedoms, pursuing invariably the same object as the Founding Fathers, who were nothing but bigoted slaveholders, Jefferson’s statements in favor of abolition and Madison’s manumission of his slaves be damned, it is the option of the anointed to throw off such a government and establish safeguards for their safety from free discourse, the emotional damage of seeing guns, and all contrary opinions whatever. Such has been the patient sufferance of the neo-statist political elite ever since November 8, 2016, or possibly the 2010 midterms, and such is now the necessity which leads them to alter the Electoral College. The history of the conservatives, libertarians, and working people of the United States is a history of repeated austerity and deference to the individual’s sovereignty, all these having in direct object the establishment of an excessively limited government over these elites. To prove this, let our relative truths be submitted to an inherently prejudiced, illogical world of deplorables.

They have rejected the idea that the elite should monitor their every electronic action to keep them safe, thus endangering our ability to coerce them.

They have clung to the arcane notion that the individual has natural rights and that there is such a thing as an immediately apprehendable truth.

They have hindered the expanse of worldwide democracy by resisting the conscription of their sons and daughters to die for our profit and national moral credentials.

They hold the belief that humans only have the right to consume what they produce for society, and that we cannot value this production for them.

They have balked at the idea that they can be compelled to pay for others at gunpoint if the others be a majority.

They have refused to peaceably submit to the abolition of the Second Amendment, believing that force inherently lends force to parchment agreements.

They have told our Federal Reserve and our Senate committees to open their secret dealings by using the same thing we tell them when we want to surveil them: “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.”

They have embraced a crude form of individualism that refuses to see race or gender as the determination of one’s outcome.

They have asserted the right of national self-determination, impeding our ability to profit from fluid immigration and seize emergency powers from the tumult resulting from multiculturalism.

They have resisted the centralization of government and memorized their Federalist Papers and Constitutions such that we cannot out-argue them.

They have shown, through the black experience post-Civil War, that free people with the right to defend themselves will not be denied their rights peaceably.

They have resisted economic coercion and the primacy of the financial industry in modern life.

They have maintained a defense of a free internet and communications, which undermines our control of information flowing through society.

They have affirmed their right to exercise their religious conscience outside their linen closets and defeated us at state ballot boxes.

They have remained embedded in family structures rather than become dependent on the welfare state when they have had the choice.

They have ascribed to the idea that human beings can be flawed yet exhibit knowledge worthy of learning, thus bringing to bear upon our utopian visions the weight of dead generations’ wisdom and nullifying the ability of the surveillance state to find flaws in anyone who opposes us.

They have argued in favor of trial by jury rather than FISA court or extraconstitutional tribunal.

They have resisted our efforts to foment domestic tensions among them along racial and sexual grievance lines.

They have disobeyed us at the ballot box.

            In every stage of these brash actions, we have petitioned to suppress their independent thought and exercise thereof in the most malignant terms possible: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated stubbornness. A body politic, whose character is thus marked by the yearning for individual freedom, is in no way fit to be granted the enlightened rule of a two-party aristocracy.

            Nor have we been wanting in attentions to our deplorable siblings. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by citizens and state legislatures among them to knowingly defy our edicts, and have warned those states in particular what these acts mean for their federal grant dollars. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our sacrifices for the public good and the meager six and seven-figure salaries we receive as recompense. We have appealed to their sense of social justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by ties of our budgetary and monetary leverage to disavow these protestations, which would inevitably interrupt the smooth operation of authoritarian democracy. They have been too deaf to the voice of international sanguinity and central control. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which portends our constitutional intrigue, and hold them, as the rest of the world, begrudgingly necessary allies in political friendship and morally bankrupt, rebellious knaves in political enmity.

            We, therefore, the elite statists of the United States of America, Republican and Democrat, hawk and dove, in amalgamation, assembled, appealing to our own political power and possibly the ghost of Rousseau, for the relative goodness of our intentions, do, in the name of collective sovereignty, haughtily publish and declare, that these states are, and of right ought to be, post-constitutionally egalitarian and mutually dependent states, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the Constitution, and therefore the People, of the United States.

From the Inauguration Comes Hope: The Media Overlook of American Civility

From the Inauguration Comes Hope: The Media Overlook of American Civility

Spectator Writers Complain about having Nothing to Complain About

Spectator Writers Complain about having Nothing to Complain About