A Rose Is A Rose . . . Nationalism Is Nationalism

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – I have this story here, this opinion piece in The American Conservative Magazine, at amconmag.com.  It’s written by Sean Scallon under the title of “The Nationalist Left Rises.”  After Scallon goes through a bit of the history of what liberals used to say about the military superstate and what they say today about the military superstate now that Obama’s running it are two totally separate things.  Then he gets into the real threat from the nationalist left.  This is where the millennial generation comes in.  Check out today’s transcript for the rest…

 

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  I have this story here, this opinion piece in The American Conservative Magazine, at amconmag.com.  You might have noticed that I frequent amconmag.com.  It would take almost the entire hour to read this into the discussion and to totally flesh it out.  It’s written by Sean Scallon under the title of “The Nationalist Left Rises.”  After Scallon goes through a bit of the history of what liberals used to say about the military superstate and what they say today about the military superstate now that Obama’s running it are two totally separate things.  Then he gets into the real threat from the nationalist left.  This is where the millennial generation comes in.

How many of you have heard and have been around for some of the discussion here on this show and some of the written stuff I have posted on my website at MikeChurch.com or on Facebook or Twitter when the subject of the former employee of Senator Rand Paul, when the subject of Jack Hunter has arisen?  We’re speaking post-National Free Beacon outing of that “neoconfederate sympathizer” Jack Hunter.  If you’ve been around and you’ve heard this, then you probably have heard me wonder and fear or try to throw some caution out loud over the direction and I would say the umbrella under which the entire “scandal” operates, which is there is something intrinsically and practically wrong with being Southern, especially if you have any tie whatsoever to a Southern past.  If you do, this explains your opposition to homosexual marriage, you Southern, hick, hayseed homophobe, you.  If you have any tie to a Southern past, this will then explain your opposition to not wanting the NSA to spy on your emails or spy on your telephone or record or monitor your telephone conversations and what have you.  This will explain if you have any tangential attachment whatsoever to a Southern history.  That then explains your opposition to abortion for 13-year-olds without their parents’ consent.

Scallon does a really nice job of fleshing this out and saying what we basically have here is a bunch — there are millions now — of these clowns that have aggregated themselves together.  They may not know it, but they are part of the new nationalist left.  They believe themselves to be the descendants of the 1840s, 50s, and 60s abolitionists.  What are they trying to abolish this time, ladies and gentlemen?  They are trying to abolish the South.  They are trying to abolish anyone that opposes them using their Southern heritage as the reason and as the driving force behind why this must be done.

I had kind of made this connection and I’ve been telling you what happened to Jack, what the right-wing and left-wing media did to Jack and the attitude they had towards — I kept asking for a definition.  What exactly is a “neoconfederate sympathizer”?  What does that mean?  Of course, I concluded that if you have ancestors that are Southern, that means at some point in time you actually fantasized, according to them anyway, about the good old days of plantations and slave owning.  I’m just going to repeat this for the edification of a new listener.  I don’t know anyone that covets or desires a return to plantations and slave owning.  I don’t know anyone.  I’ve never talked to anyone, never had a conversation with, I don’t even think I’ve even read anything from anyone that actually thinks that way.  Not to say that there might not be a couple of lunatics out there or mentally unstable people that think that way, but I don’t know any.  I bet most of you can say the same thing.  Don’t tell that to the millennial nationalist left, because that’s what they are using to drive and inspire their little movement here.

For the rest of today’s transcript please sign up for a Founders Pass or if you’re already a member, make sure you are logged in!
[private FP-Yearly|FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly-WLK]

I’m just going to pick up about halfway through Scallon’s piece today.  We have lots of news to get to here today.  I could spend the rest of the program if I wanted, like I could every day, detailing the latest atrocities from the NSA.  Again, if you don’t want the NSA spying on you, the only foolproof way to stop it is for your state to stop being in the jurisdiction of the NSA.  That doesn’t mean they won’t spy on you like they do the Germans and the Brazilians and what have you.  That doesn’t mean that.  What that means is they will not be able to go after you and prosecute you with what they obtain.  That’s the distinction to be drawn.  If you really want to get out from underneath this, then the route is clear.  It starts with an S and ends with an E.  See if you can fill it in.

Let’s pick up about halfway through Scallon’s post about the nationalist left and their rising.  Let me just be the first out here on my little island, like I was with Article V, like I was with states’ rights to leave a political arrangement — you call it secession, separation, whatever you like — the states’ rights to nullify or interpose against unjust and unconstitutional federal laws.  I try to be, just through the grace of God, a little bit ahead of the curve.  With this whole jihad against Southerners and Southern heritage, this is being shrewdly politically employed to press cases to knock down every opposition to abortion laws.  You’ll see as I flesh this out.  I think all will become clear.  This all stems from an effort to subjugate anyone that disagrees with the new nationalist left.

[reading]

Yes, there was an anti-war reaction to Iraq from the Left. It staged massive marches against the war across the country, it fueled the 2004 Presidential campaign of former Vermont Governor Howard Dean (even if he wasn’t especially liberal himself), it was personified by people like Cindy Sheehan, who lost her son in Iraq. And it ultimately helped a man named Barack Hussein Obama become President.

With that action, though, the fate of the non-nationalistic Left was pretty much sealed. It was much easier to organize other Leftists against a Republican, a conservative administration populated with caricature-like warmongers, but a harder sell when it’s a black, liberal President who just allowed gays in the military. Obama himself, as he repeatedly noted, never opposed intervention or war in principle, just “stupid wars” like the one in Iraq. And with the rapidity with which he withdrew U.S. troops from Iraq, and by next year will have withdrawn them from Afghanistan combined with lingering concerns about terrorism and security, it has become almost impossible to get ordinary people to dissent from U.S. foreign policy or the national security state. Under Obama, U.S. drones drop bombs which slaughter whole villages in Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan, the Administration spies on reporters, the IRS investigates the political activities of public groups, the NSA collects vast swaths of American phone records, TSA agents continue to harass at the airport, the Patriot Act and other noxious, related laws still are in place, Gitmo is still a prison, and Bradley Manning, the U.S. Army PFC who leaked thousands of classified documents and diplomatic cables to the website Wikileaks, is still in prison. [Mike: Update, he’s actually been sentenced to 35 years in Leavenworth, or whatever federal pen they’re going to throw him in.] The public’s reaction to all this? Anywhere from indifference to active cheering.

Mike Church Show Transcript – Martin Luther King, Jr. – Noninterventionist For All Americans

In another day and in another time, Bradley Manning would have been the perfect person to be chosen as an honorific Grand Marshal of the annual San Francisco Pride Parade. Manning’s ordeals in prison and the overzealous manner in which the federal government prosecuted him have earned him support from many all over the world. Juxtaposing his gay orientation alongside that of the military’s former prohibition against gays serving openly in its ranks would have made Manning the perfect symbol of a citizen struggling against oppression at home and militarism abroad. Certainly no one organizing such a parade would have objected to it.

Almost as soon as Manning was tabbed to be this year’s parade grand marshal by the organizing committee, though, the offer was rescinded by that committee’s leadership for a variety of reasons seen by local activists to be utterly convoluted and downright deceptive. Antiwar.com editor Justin Raimondo wrote that the parade committee is run by partisan hacks of the city’s Democratic Party machine, unwilling to embarrass the Obama Administration while it’s throwing the book at Manning, and Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald argued that the corporate backers of the parade want things to be respectable, and they put pressure on the leadership to make it so. Both may be the case, but it has also since come out that the objections to Manning headlining the parade came not just from interested institutions, but from the gays and lesbians now openly serving in the nation’s armed forces. They have a different point of view than those on the social democratic, antiwar Left about Manning’s actions, and they resent others “speaking in their name” just because Manning is gay. Thus the rise of Left nationalism has even swept one of the most stalwart counter-cultural communities of the New Left into a mainstreamed comfort with institutionalized power and militarism.

[end reading]

Mike:  This is Sean Scallon writing at The American Conservative Magazine two days ago under the headline “The Nationalist Left Rises.”  This is where it gets really, really interesting.

[reading]

What started as a patriotic, nationalistic foreign policy has created a nationalist Left domestically as well, one that, as it has grown accustomed to wielding power, has started looking for ever more places to crusade employ it. Indeed when it comes to social questions like health care or gay marriage, the nationalist Left speaks like the old Whigs and Republicans of the 19^th century. Salon writer Andrew O’Hehir unfurled the nationalist Left’s banner at the beginning of this year: [Mike: I want you people to listen to this because there is a point to this, and it’s a warning of a point.]

“Today’s fights over abortion and gays and God and guns have a profound moral dimension, but don’t quite have the world-historical weight of the slavery question. As with slavery, however, it’s tough to imagine any viable long-term middle ground. [Mike: Tough to imagine any middle ground when it comes to homosexuals marrying and people opposing abortion, in other words.] At the moment, two women who get married in Iowa will have no legal relationship if they move to Kansas, and a teenage girl in Seattle can easily get a safe and legal abortion while her cousin in Dallas faces mandatory counseling, a 24-hour waiting period and a parental consent law. Regardless of how you feel about those issues, that’s nuts. No nation-state can function indefinitely on that kind of patchwork-quilt basis.”

[end reading]

Mike:  In other words, you can’t leave their little union, they’re not going to let you out of it.  They’re not going to let you oppose what it is that they think ought to happen in these instances that we just discussed here.  So what are they going to do?  Well, if you oppose them, like a slave owner from the 19^th century, you must be eliminated.  If it takes elimination by war, then so be it.  Oh, come on, Mike, you’re just exaggerating.  Am I?  Let’s read on.

Mike Church Show Transcript – Is Rand Paul A Neoconfederate Sympathizer, Whatever That Is?

[reading]

“A house divided against itself cannot stand,” as Lincoln said. As the nationalist Left flocked to watch the film Lincoln this past winter, they did not fill the theaters to see government and the Congress “working”, but to see themselves as Lincoln’s heirs, or even better Thaddeus Stevens disciples, ready to finish the job of the Reconstructing the “reactionary” South and its fellow rural red states. The communitarianism, populism, and localism of the now old New Left is pretty much gone and with it the healthy skepticism of large institutions that defined many post-1960s liberals. Today, so long as one state bans gay marriage, or tries to thwart Obamacare, or puts onerous restrictions on abortion or immigration, national solutions are needed to keep this diverse, multicultural country together. To the nationalist Left of the present day, the liberals of the 70s, 80s and even early 90s, were weak, whiney, out of touch and at times self-destructive. Their alienation was nothing more than mere posturing.  The new breed want to be Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, Roosevelt, Wilson all in one with Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Stevens rolled in for good measure.

In this they have the perfect foil for their opposition, the Tea Party Right. Born amidst the ruins of “Big Government” or “Compassionate” conservatism, Tea Partiers have tried to meld their conservative identity to a visceral libertarian view of statism, even if they can’t always agree or are fuzzy on what it would entail; that the most popular Republican amongst the young is the libertarian-influenced Ron Paul shows a sense, at least, of knowing who their opponents really are and what they represent. Such political divisions may last, and supersede the current Left-Right arguments, even perhaps realigning the parties to a degree if nationalist conservatives decide they’re willing to live with a liberal social policy in exchange for keeping military bases open and an interventionist foreign policy.

After all, the nationalist Left dominates the Administration’s foreign policy and the organs of liberal opinion, especially amongst its younger blogger crowd. Unless events alter course, whoever succeeds Obama among the Democrats, whether it be Biden, Clinton, O’Malley or Cuomo, will largely follow the policies of the current Administration and employ the same people implementing them. Only one real liberal of any stature, former U.S. Senator Russ Feingold, would offer a dissenting critique to the nationalist Left, and no one talks of an impending Feingold campaign for 2016. Even if he did run, and win, there’s no guarantee he would not act follow in the footsteps of Obama, adopting the rhetoric of the antiwar Left only to succumb to the national security apparatus that surrounds any President, along with the nationalist spell that has taken over the party. They’re at the front of the parade now, leading it where they want, and choosing the grand marshal as well.

[end reading]

Mike Church Show Transcript – Ron Paul Points Out What Should Be Obvious: Politicians Lie And The NSA Spies

Mike:  A couple of points to draw from this, the goal and the modus of operation is with this crowd that there cannot be any diversity whatsoever.  How ironic is that, folks?  The same people that run around with banners demanding diversity, demanding gender inclusion and sexual orientation inclusion and immigrant inclusion and all these other things then say: Only for the things we care about.  There can’t be any diversity in the way you people govern yourselves.  We’re going to tell you how you have to treat these people.  The diversity is only diversity that is approved by us.

End Mike Church Show Transcript

[/private]