Medary.com

This one collects a lot of threads flying around the past couple of days and weaves them into . . . well, I don't exactly know. Probably that I don't trust Obama and the Democrats in Washington (or most of the Republicans there, for that matter) half as far as I could throw them.

I've thought for some time that the liberty community has been marginalized from the various avenues and expressions of political power, to the extent that the tactics that they--we--must apply have a great similarity to those of an insurgency--in this case, a political (no, not yet a military) insurgency against totalitarian, neo-feudalist "progressivism." In 2010, the "progressive" neo-feudalists hold all of the traditional avenues of communications and levers of power. The goal of the insurgency against the neo-feudalists is nothingn less than insure that they do not succeed in (re-)creating their favored, class-stratified society of lords and peasants. The tactic is--should be--to re-take as many of those traditional avenues of communications and levers of power--and to build alternatives to those avenues and levers--so that the neo-feudalists do not succeed. Richard Fernandez goes down a similar intellectual road: Pawn to King Four, Pawn to King Four.

But a secure base does not have to be defined by geography. It can be built on human terrain and augmented, subject to some constraints, as a meme in cyberspace. Therefore a conservative strategist who is concerned that Charles Krauthammer’s dire prognosis will happen cannot go far wrong building up a widespread, grassroots organization with extensions into the online world. This is separate and distinct from building up the ordinary party machinery. In that way even if the traditional political forms of conservatism are scattered, defeated or machined out of existence in 2010 and 2012 there may survive a core of opposition that can organize a series of coalitions against the men who would be permanent leaders. But more importantly it will remove the temptation to go for the whole hog. By strengthening the grassroots on terms not bound to the party affiliation but independent of the leftist infrastructure, conservatism can create a defense in depth. This has a stabilizing effect. The further complete and total victory is placed from the grasp of even the most ambitious activists of the Democratic Party the less likely they are to persuade their more moderate colleagues to roll the dice. And that’s good. Because all realistic worry about one side completely dominating the other can be effectively dismissed to the probable benefit of everyone. Politics was never meant to be winner-take-all.

Now, it's my fervent hope that the political insurgency stays 100% completely peaceful--fought through votes, words, and persuasion. But, honestly, I don't think that decision is in entirely the hands of liberty-community of insurgents--I think it's in the hands of the neo-feudalist "progressives" in power, who intend to just keep pushing, and pushing, and pushing, and pushing in full knowledge that at some point, somebody, somewhere, will push back. That will then give them an excuse to really crack down--on people like me who want everybody in this country to pursue their dreams to the best of their abilities without government or anybody else really getting in the way any more than is absolutely necessary. In these days, thoughts like mine qualify as dangerous, fringe radicalism, I'm afraid. And, I'm not the only one who's starting to think rather dark thoughts, actually. See America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution -- which begins thus:

As over-leveraged investment houses began to fail in September 2008, the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, of major corporations, and opinion leaders stretching from the National Review magazine (and the Wall Street Journal) on the right to the Nation magazine on the left, agreed that spending some $700 billion to buy the investors' "toxic assets" was the only alternative to the U.S. economy's "systemic collapse." In this, President George W. Bush and his would-be Republican successor John McCain agreed with the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Many, if not most, people around them also agreed upon the eventual commitment of some 10 trillion nonexistent dollars in ways unprecedented in America. They explained neither the difference between the assets' nominal and real values, nor precisely why letting the market find the latter would collapse America. The public objected immediately, by margins of three or four to one.

When this majority discovered that virtually no one in a position of power in either party or with a national voice would take their objections seriously, that decisions about their money were being made in bipartisan backroom deals with interested parties, and that the laws on these matters were being voted by people who had not read them, the term "political class" came into use. Then, after those in power changed their plans from buying toxic assets to buying up equity in banks and major industries but refused to explain why, when they reasserted their right to decide ad hoc on these and so many other matters, supposing them to be beyond the general public's understanding, the American people started referring to those in and around government as the "ruling class." And in fact Republican and Democratic office holders and their retinues show a similar presumption to dominate and fewer differences in tastes, habits, opinions, and sources of income among one another than between both and the rest of the country. They think, look, and act as a class.

Essential reading for anyone who cares about what happens to this country, what happens to this world, or what happens to themselves.

The main, pre-eminent reason why I'm registered Republican is not that I think Republicans are wonderful and amazing--I don't, and they're not. But I think they're somewhat better than Democrats, who are a toxic and dangerous combination of utterly clueless about economics and utterly arrogant about being Right About Everything All Of The Time despite overwhelming objective evidence in the real world to the contrary. When Democrat policies fail, it is inevitably because We Have Not Tried Hard Enough. But as Einstein said, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is a good definition of insanity. The Republicans are the Stupid Party. The Democrats are the Insane Party.

I think the "progressives" (aka the "ruling class" aka the "neo-feudalists") that dominate the Democratic Party but are also entrenched as the "moderate" wing of the Republican Party, are courting a popular rebellion right now. An actual, real, live, bullets-flying-in-the-air and angry crowds throwing Molotov cocktails at riot police kind of popular rebellion. And they have absolutely no clue how close they are to it, right now. There are an awful lot of people all over this country who have Just About Had Enough of the "ruling class." If that "ruling class" doesn't pull their collective heads out of their collective asses, then the people will at some point do it for them. The former will be much the preferable road to go down--for everyone. I am not advocating this--far from it--in fact the very thought that it could get this bad scares the hell out of me.

An armed revolt is never, never, NEVER the first, second, third, fourth, or even fifth option to bring a "ruling class" into alignment with the larger population. But that larger population is starting to find its options being limited by that "ruling class." This is an exceptionally stupid thing for the "ruling class" to do, but that's what they're hell-bent on doing right now. The people of this country are much, much angrier than the "ruling class" seems to want to realize. That situation is extremely unstable and untenable. It will change. The change will begin--peacefully--this November, when the "ruling class" begins to be expunged from Congress.

One of my fears is that the "ruling class," in an attempt to hold onto power and further disenfranchise the greater population, will choose to affect the November elections with massive vote fraud and voter intimidation. If that should happen--if that sort of thing should even be widely suspected by the people, then we will have turned the corner into an even more dangerous phase, and it will truly be time to begin to batten down the hatches for what could be a very, very ugly few years in this country. I do not predict. I do not advocate. I'm just afraid of the continuing, persistent stupidity of the "ruling class."

Related: What To Do?
You Say You Want A Revolution?

But let's say that they want to try something just a little more subtle than the baton-wielding-thug approach to stealing the election. What about some kind of October Surprise? Is something really scary coming in October? -- I'm inclined to believe that something quite nasty, financially, might very well happen in October. There is something of a pattern--a previous history--which is a bit ominous . . . the article itself is a bit rocket-sciencey to me, but the implication that October might not be a lot of fun for investors is one that I'm quite receptive to . . . one of the questions that suspicious and cynical people like me insist on asking is: will whatever happens happen in spite of or because of this current government's policies? Are they planning on some kind of October economic disruption? Or is even bigger game than that afoot?

Why Obama Just Might Fight Iran -- Michael Totten, a subtle and astute observer of things Middle Eastern, weighs in . . .

Nuking Westphalia: Obama’s Deep Convictions Point to War With Iran -- Which brings to my mind this dark, wild, conspiracy-theory thought: Is a war with Iran this year's October Surprise to ensure Democrat (or at least, "progressive") control of Congress? Would you put it past Obama and "never let a crisis go to waste" Rahm Emmanuel? Really? Really-really? Governments in trouble throughout history have often turned to external enemies to suppress internal dissent. And what country wears a black hat (or turban?) for Americans--those common Americans who are coming to despise Obama and everything he stands for--more than the mullahs of Iran?

Final thought: In a time of declared war, don't Presidents assume additional "emergency" powers? Do you really think that Obama wouldn't jump at the chance to seize additional power under pretext of "saving the world from a nuclear Iran."

Yeah, I do think he, and the Democrats, could be that cynically power-mad.