This Is My Weapon, and This Is My Gun
You Don't Like The 2nd?
You'd Better Run, Run, Run
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Pajamas Media Discusses The Reality of Honey Boo Boo's "America"
From Roger Kimball at Pajamas Media:
These last couple of weeks I have divided my time largely between talking to cleanup crews, insurance adjusters, and contractors who promise, eventually, to undo the ravages of Hurricane Sandy and restore our house to its antediluvian semi-splendor — “All in good time, Mr. Kimball” — and reading Like the Roman, Simon Heffer’s magisterial 1998 biography of the great, if much and unfairly maligned, British statesman Enoch Powell. To many people these days, Powell is totally unknown. To those who do recall his name, he is the author of the so-called“Rivers of Blood Speech” — what he himself always referred to as “the Birmingham Speech.” In that 1968 address to the Conservative Political Centre at the Midland Hotel, he warned of the consequences to British society of large-scale immigration of unassimiliating, perpetually dependent populations. “It is,” Powell said, “like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancées whom they have never seen.” What was extraordinary then is just business as usual today.
Among the several predictions that Powell made that came to pass, the braying excoriation of him by the commissars of established political opinion led the list. “I can already hear the chorus of execration,” he wrote. “How dare I say such a horrible thing?”
I believe — and now I can hear that chorus of execration myself — that Powell was correct in just about every particular of that speech. It ruined his career. And the fact that he was right about the effects of wholesale immigration made it all the more unforgivable.
I may well return to Powell at some point. For the moment, I just wanted to share with readers a comment that Powell’s biographer, the formidable Simon Heffer, made towards the end of his book.
Most politicians, as they become older, become more skilled in compromise. The sacrifice of what were once deeply held, and prominently advertised, convictions troubles their consciences less and less; it certainly leaves no moral imprint. In an age when many politicians have ceased to have a life outside politics, survival and the retention of power become paramount. What in normal society would constitute shameful duplicity is, by a modern politician, executed shamelessly: nobody expects better of them, least of all themselves, and they do not therefore disappoint. Retreating from principle, bending, concealing or sometimes even abandoning the truth are normal, everyday activities. Anyone who points out the depravity of such behaviour is seen as painfully unsophisticated.
Powell did not retreat from principle. He did not abandon the truth. No one could accuse this classics scholar, military man, and consummate orator of being unsophisticated. Instead, he was roundly denounced as “racialist,” the omnibus term of abuse that preceded our own favorite, “racism.”
As I look around at what is happening in the formerly United States of America, I feel the chill wind of disorientation. Are we not, in our fiscal incontinence and pullulating political correctness, piling up our own funeral pyre? Have not our politicians surrendered to a horrible venality as they struggle above all to maintain the reins of power, even to the point of allowing political calculation to trump their duty to save the lives of those diplomats who were murdered in Benghazi? Will the festering swamp of mendacity that surrounds that event ever be drained? The Obama administration has been on overdrive since September 11 to spin the event, lying, covering up, triangulating, and otherwise endeavoring to distract the public’s attention from this extraordinary attack on sovereign U.S. territory — our consulate in Benghazi — and the brutal murder of an American ambassador and three aides. What does it all mean? And what do the revelations about David Petraeus’s amorous adventures and pseudo-revelations about General Allen portend? Does anyone believe that it was a coincidence that they surfaced when they did?
All of us, every single man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth were born with the same unalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, if the governments of the world can't get that through their thick skulls, then, regime change will be necessary.
“The impulse to both communism/fascism seems to stem from an ultimately childish desire, that is, The world of people is too complicated and I want to make it simple and get it under control. Almost like the political projection of obsessive-compulsive disorder. With OCD you want to make it so that every carpet thread is in its place, with the collectivist-socialist fantasy you want to make it so that every person is in his place. Smooth out differences so they aren't visible (or there are only a few differences, i.e. you think only in terms of 'classes'), that way the large complexity of things doesn't confuse me and I don't have to think about individual people. To think of the world as a large differentiated collection of individual people all doing and wanting different things is frightening. Must.... get... it... under... control... and... manage it. That's the motive of the communist and the fascist alike."
-- Sonic Harm
"An Islamic regime must be serious in every field," explained Ayatollah Khomeini. "There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humour in Islam. There is no fun in Islam."
"I want to be very, very clear, however: I understand and agree with the analysis of the problem. There is an imminent threat. It manifested itself on 9/11. It's real and grave. It is as serious a threat as Stalinism and National Socialism were. Let's not pretend it isn't." ~~~~~Bono~~~~~