The Center for American Progress (CAP) recently released a report demonizing conservatives and others on the political Right for standing for truth and freedom. Several outlets, including the Center for Security Policy, have reviewed the report and defended those who aren’t submitting to the jihad. The CAP report is another example of how the political left uses any opposition to it (and its allies) as “proof” of the Right’s “hate,” and at the same time baits the Right into participating in its own destruction. Simply put, the CAP report is meant to get the Right to silence itself out of fear of what the left thinks of us so that the left can wage its war against us and the nation without any opposition.
I explained in “The Consequence Of Surrender: Our Own Ethics Are Being Used To Crush Us” how the left uses our own morals against us. I want to expand on that and explain just how dangerous what they are doing is.
The Right and the left both agree that the Right should never resort to violence–ever, even if someone on the Right is physically attacked. But the Right and the left do not agree on whether the left should ever resort to violence. The Right believes that the left should not while the left believes that violence is an integral part of who it is. Thus, while there is consensus that the Right should never resort to violence there is “debate” as to whether the left should. And whenever there is “debate” over a subject, society convinces itself that while people have the right to disagree on the matter, everyone must respect the other side and the people making the argument. Hence, there is a de facto surrender to the left on violence. In other words, while the Right might not agree with leftists that it is okay for leftists to commit violence, the Right still treats them as its legitimate, respectable opponents (not enemies) and the Right will “work with them on things on which we both can agree.” Yet since both the Right and the left agree that it isn’t okay for the Right to commit violence–ever–both the left and Right have anyone who can in any way be associated with the Right utterly condemned and banned from polite society if that person engages in any sort of violence, perceived violence, or even “uncivil” behavior (even when he is justified). Consider the following examples of these differing standards of acceptable behavior. And while not all examples include people who clearly can be defined as on the left or the Right, the people in each example are people with whom the left would normally sympathize or defend, or people with whom the Right would normally sympathize or defend.
Defend a Republican from a Physical Attack and Become Ostracized; Engage in Unprovoked Violence against Private Citizens and Become a Leftist and Democratic Hero:
RS McCain notes [1] how the man who tussled with Valle has since apologized and Paul booted him from the campaign. Compare that with Russ Carnahan who defended SEIU the following day and rallied with the attackers a week or so later. (From Big Journalism – “Media Canonizes Paid Soros Activist Who Started Violence at Rand Paul Debate,” October 26, 2010)
**Note: The above quote refers to how then candidate Rand Paul abandoned and denounced a man who defended him from a physical attacker. Meanwhile, leftist union thugs and a Democratic legislator stood by and defended one of their own who engaged in an unprovoked physical attack on their opponents.
Shooting and Killing an Armed Thug Who Tried to Rob You Gets You a Life Sentence; Being a Gang Member Who Terrorizes Society Gets You a Press Conference:
The (UK) Daily Mail (Note: This story concerns an Oklahoma man), May 31, 2011
Big Government, September 4, 2010
“Chicago Gang Members Hold Press Conference to Slam Police”
Defending Your Family from a Grizzly Gets You Charged with a Federal Offense; Help Killing Your Mother Gets You a Book Deal:
Coeur d’Alene Press, August 24, 2011
“Grizzly shooter garners support”
LifeSiteNews, August 23, 2011
“How I helped my mother starve to death: retired New York Times reporter pens book”
Burn Your Personal Quran and Society Destroys Your Life; Rationalize a Muslim Slaughtering Soldiers at Fort Hood and Society Continues Viewing You as a Legitimate Public Leader:
Syndicated Columnist’s Diana West’s Web Site, September 17, 2010
Townhall, August 18, 2011
“Farrakhan: Preaching Hate While Calling U.S. Troops Terrorists”
Lie about Conservatives Being Responsible for the Shooting of a U.S. Congressman and Pay No Price for Doing So . . . Just as You Pay No Price for Shooting a Marine Vet in His Own Home and Then Telling the Public to Stop Asking Questions about It:
The Washington Examiner, January 9, 2011
“Journalists urged caution after Ft. Hood, now race to blame Palin after Arizona shootings”
Big Government, May 21, 2011
“Sheriff Clarence ‘New Tone’ Dupnik Defends Shooting of Iraq Vet 60 Times”
But it gets worse. Think of how people on the Right say something along the lines of, “The left is trying to goad us into violence. But we mustn’t ever let them do that and we must condemn anyone on our side who does. For if we let them provoke us into violence, then we prove them correct.” This is an incredibly dangerous and suicidal thing to say because in saying so the left now knows that the Right has publicly stated that it agrees with the left in that if the Right “resorts to violence” the Right will have proved correct the left’s constant accusations of the Right being violent and dangerous. This admission then frees the left to do whatever it wants (including physically attacking the Right) to get the Right to “become violent” which will in turn “prove the left correct.” At the same time, the left knows that any “violence” it provokes from the Right will be laughably mild or, in many cases, non-existent, and thus no real threat to the leftists who do the provoking. Furthermore, leftists know that the more they ratchet up their false accusations of the Right being violent, the more the Right will become paranoid and the more the Right will moderate its positions. The Right will even changes its positions in order to attempt to appease the unappeasable left. The Right hopes that by “moderating” and driving out anyone who remains “extreme” (read: he who has convictions) it will somehow get the left to believe that it really isn’t violent. The Right believes that the left then will then come to like it or at least stop making such outrageous accusations against it. No such thing will ever occur, of course, and instead, each time the left gets the Right to “moderate” its positions by moving leftward, leftists change the bar again for what is “acceptable” and hysterically cry that the Right’s “moderated” positions are “too extreme.” And then the Right “moderates” even more. Thus the cycle repeats indefinitely.
Hence, society has now reached a point where anyone on the Right who wants to cling on to the last vestiges of America’s Christian Heritage is deemed a “Christian Dominionist” or “Christian Reconstructionist” who wants to turn the nation into a “fundamentalist Christian theocracy” where everyone who isn’t a Christian is executed. [And note how the left can say this and be taken seriously even as it has been a large portion of “Christian Dominionists” who have manned the Armed Forces (which is now, ironically, an explicitly anti-Christian organization). And it is these “Christian Dominionists” in the Armed Forces who have helped build at least two officially Islamic theocracies in the Middle East . . . Islamic theocracies that have destroyed the Christian populations that once lived there.]
Furthermore, the Right’s strategy of “moderating” and surrendering to the left on violence has lasted for so long and so degraded society that people in this nation and abroad have been conditioned to believe that leftist violence is just something that we all have to accept and “work with” even as any real or imagined violence of the Right must never be tolerated. Indeed, even the freedom of the Right must never be tolerated. The pervasiveness of this is so bad that not one but two prominent writers at National Review have written strikingly similar observations on this phenomenon (indirectly) as they analyzed the London riots. (View the London rioters as being on the left, as the left sympathizes with them, and view the law-abiding citizens as being on the Right, a group of people with whom the Right sympathizes.) First, Victor Davis Hanson wrote in, “Learning Something from the Streets?” (Bold emphasis mine):
Very few Westerners proudly say that their social, political, and economic system has given untold numbers untold material wealth unimagined not just a century but even two decades ago, as well as a level of freedom of expression, security of the person, and consumer indulgence that would seem staggering to most non-Westerners today. Instead, the more fortunate classes adopt a therapeutic sense of publicly expressed guilt that seems rightly phony to the dispossessed, and is seen by themselves as a sort of medieval penance, an abstract caring that justifies their own concrete and rather segregated enjoyment of the good life. As for the law, it is too often a construct predicated on fluid social, race, and class considerations, and thus — whether in enforcing immigration statutes or arresting and trying hordes of attackers — not so easily applied. In general the misdemeanor of the law-abiding citizen is more of a target than the felony of the miscreant — the latter always being a money-losing and sometimes far more dangerous enterprise.
And then Mark Steyn wrote in, “The New Britannia” (Bold emphasis mine):
Yet a police force all but entirely useless when it comes to preventing crime or maintaining public order has time to police everything else. When Sam Brown observed en passant to a mounted policeman on Cornmarket Street in Oxford, “Do you know your horse is gay?”, he was surrounded within minutes by six officers and a fleet of patrol cars, handcuffed, tossed in the slammer overnight, and fined 80 pounds. Mr. Brown’s “homophobic comments,” explained a spokesmoron for Thames Valley Police, were “not only offensive to the policeman and his horse, but any members of the general public in the area.” The zealous crackdown on Sam Brown’s hippohomophobia has not been replicated in the present disturbances. Anyone who has so much as glanced at British policing policy over the last two decades would be hard pressed to argue which party on the streets of London, the thugs or the cops, is more irredeemably stupid.
And there we have it. While society has accepted that it cannot do a thing about the obvious and outright violence with which leftists sympathize and engage in because both the left and Right do not agree on whether it is okay for the left (or their constituents) to use unjustified violence, anyone who opposes the tyranny of the state or dares say anything as “fanatically Christian” as, “. . . your horse is gay,” is someone “we all can agree is beyond loathsome” or at least “out of line.” Therefore, society sits by and watches as the conservative or law-abiding citizen is immediately removed from society (the left viewing him as a “clear and present danger” and the Right viewing him as “someone damaging our cause and proving the left correct in its accusations against us”) even as it also sits by and watches as the authorities do nothing to stop the unjustified violence and mayhem of the left. This is what comes of tolerating violence and hate from the left even as the Right won’t tolerate any violence–even violence used to defend oneself–from its own. These are the fruits of a strategy of surrender.
But there is a glimmer of hope that some on the Right are beginning to recognize the strategy of surrender that the Right has embraced. Hopefully this recognition will eventually lead to the abandonment of it, and an embrace of a new strategy that views the left as the subversive national security threat that it is. Nidra Poller at American Thinker writes:
. . . The snide BBC specialist casting doubt on Israeli intelligence wouldn’t likely be fingered for encouraging havoc in London. Hooded looters and smashers do not publish manifestoes citing the BBC. They carry their ideology in their pants. Though, according to Tom Gross, columnist Jody McIntyre, fired from The Independent for egging on the London rioters via Twitter, had systematically called Israel a racist apartheid state and blamed Zionism for Breivik’s massacre.
The sacking and pillaging in Great Britain, apparently spearheaded by primarily black gangs, involved a diversely disgruntled crew that can’t be defined by class, religion, or ethnicity. What brought them together is the feeling of impunity. Something had taught them that violence against whatever happened to irk them was justified. Graffiti on the yellow mailbox at the end of my street cries “Mort aux banquiers” (death to the bankers). I wouldn’t be surprised to see “Mort aux postiers” (death to the mailmen) scrawled on the façade of a bank.
Forces working behind specious liberation movements to forge a united Muslim front against the West are weakening us from within by fostering specious protest movements. Citizens of our democracies are led to identify with enraged mobs–anarchists, altermondialistes, ecologists, striking students and workers, pro-Hamas anti-Zionists, indignados in Athens and Madrid…the list is endless. Palestinian shahid-murderers of Israeli civilians, stampeding Muslims damning “Mohammed cartoons,” and middle-class students protesting tuition hikes are linked by a chain of sympathy in this danse macabre. People-gathered-in-a-public-square has become the emblem of virtue, and never mind what motivates them or where they are headed. Misguided media enthusiasm focuses solely on the exciting adventure, full speed ahead to victory.
The same voices that argue for compromise with the Taliban because “the solution is political, not military” encourage desperado movements in democratic countries where political action is, in fact, the appropriate option. In an Islamic tyranny the people submit for decades before suddenly bursting out in rage. Either the rebellion or the government will fall. Force lies not in the clarity of ideas, but in the willingness to kill and die – haphazardly. . . .
Yet while the above insight is promising, if we don’t abandon our strategy of surrender and embrace a strategy of victory soon, all will be lost. If the Right doesn’t change the very fundamentals of its strategy by acknowledging that dealing “civilly” with the left is suicidal, then the Right can expect to face extinction. The Right needs only look at what is going on in Europe, where a strategy of surrender to the left and their allies has gone on for so long now that any attempts to speak out against the dangers and threats they face there are declared in and of themselves, dangers and threats. Hence, The Daily Express (UK) reported on August 28, 2011 (HT: Vlad Tepes):
. . . Counter-terrorism programme Channel has concentrated in the past on Islamic extremism, but now the scheme has been widened to take account of the rise in right-wing extremism, much to the anger of the EDL. The move follows the killing of 76 people in Norway by Anders Breivik after he was said to have been motivated by extreme right-wing ideologies. . . .
. . . Yet an EDL source said: “This is outrageous. All we do is voice the concerns of ordinary people who are fed up with the way politicians have let us down. How can we be seen in the same light as potential terrorists?”
And in case the Right thinks that such a thing could not happen in America, consider what the left is attempting to do with the CAP “Islamophobia” report. Furthermore, consider the following headline from an August 24, 2011 report by MassResistance: “Pro-life activist beaten, arrested, and accused of bomb plot by police while handing out pro-life flyers at local town fair.” The freedom and existence of the Right already is under assault here in America. The threat of the leftist national security threat is serious, and if the Right chooses to ignore it or take it lightly, it will result in its continued demonization and eventual extinction.
The bottom line is that the Right needs to wake up and change its strategy to one of victory where it actively pursues and seeks to defeat its enemies. It needs to investigate and prosecute the Democrats and other leftists. Rep. Peter King should be encouraged to initiate the House investigations that he has already insinuated he wants to do. And the House should go even further, reinstituting the House Internal Security Committee as Cliff Kincaid has suggested. We need to implement these investigations and more, using the CAP “Islamophobia” report as one of the pieces of evidence against the left. The Right needs to embark on a bold strategy of victory and eliminate the national security threat of the Democrats and other leftists.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.