Tell your neighbors: Time to wake the hell up
Exclusive: Erik Rush advocates stigmatizing the uninformed prior to November
In Exodus 16 (that would be in the Bible), the Israelites, newly freed from their bondage in Egypt, complain to Moses and Aaron concerning their scant provisions and inhospitable environment. Worried that they have been led out to die in the desert, they cite the relative comfort and plenty back in Egypt, even though they had been slaves. All this despite God having come through for them big time in every crisis they’d faced.
The parallel apropos Americans’ increasing willingness to endure diminished freedoms for subsistence ought not be wasted here.
During the American Revolution, of course there were the Loyalists, colonists who retained allegiance to the British Crown; most Americans are probably unaware that around half the population of the 13 colonies wanted no part of an armed struggle against Britain at the time. This concept may be anathema to the modern American, but it is fairly safe to say that at least the Revolutionary War-era Loyalists were informed. They knew what they’d be getting if the colonies remained under British rule – as did the Israelites in Exodus concerning the Egyptians.
One cannot say the same about the average likely American voter, casually acquainted with political fare via establishment press sources, water cooler conversation and political discourse with equally propagandized peers. This is certainly the case concerning most political liberals. Committed liberals are obviously irredeemable relative to this discussion, but one would think that countless self-proclaimed liberals (who regularly vote for Democrats) would instead vote for Republicans, given their stated core values. If pressed, however, they regurgitate a few canned progressive talking points, then express frustration over sociopolitical woes that conservatives also bemoan, but which liberal politicians themselves fostered and prolong.
With respect to the upcoming presidential election, one of the distinct dangers we face is lack of reliable information. There is a distinct irony in this, given the wealth of information Americans have at their fingertips compared to decades past. Many voters think they know who and what they are voting for or against; they believe that this will be a contest between President Obama and the Republican nominee, or between prevailing Democratic or Republican policies. As many a reader here will agree, this is far from the case.
Millions who cast their votes this November will do so believing, as they have for many years, that they have a pretty good understanding of the issues at hand. The fact is that few have any idea at all what has really transpired in America over the last several decades, nor do they understand the true nature of the forces that have conspired to make this election into such a pivotal one.
The time for having reservations over telling casual acquaintances that they need to wake the hell up is over. People have been conditioned by design to believe that their superficial perceptions can be trusted, and they tend to have a certain amount of ego-involvement in the beliefs they have cultivated around them. This can no longer be tolerated on the grand scale to which it has been tolerated; it is this kind of intellectual indolence that helped to get us where we are.
This is not to say that I advocate compulsory voting. That would be antithetical to our founding principles, but I do believe that we need to foster a culture wherein perhaps some degree of stigma might be attached to being completely divorced from the political process. This, as well as stigmatizing liberal politics in general, could be accomplished in much the same way segregationist and separatist thought was stigmatized in America. Acts of Congress did not change people’s sympathies with regard to race; those sympathies resulted in the relevant acts of Congress. When enough people recognize that liberal-socialist policies are immoral (which they most assuredly are), then the resulting social pressure on their adherents will be enough to drive them underground where they belong and extinct their philosophy over time.
We did it once, and we can do it again – but it will take an adequately informed populace. The necessity for this is indeed becoming evident to segments of the electorate. Present conditions have brought this about, but a dedicated promotion of this “culture of the informed” will continue to be necessary. Deepening crises under President Obama will serve to underscore this need – but if he is re-elected, our opportunity to actualize these course changes may be lost for good.
The parallel apropos Americans’ increasing willingness to endure diminished freedoms for subsistence ought not be wasted here.
During the American Revolution, of course there were the Loyalists, colonists who retained allegiance to the British Crown; most Americans are probably unaware that around half the population of the 13 colonies wanted no part of an armed struggle against Britain at the time. This concept may be anathema to the modern American, but it is fairly safe to say that at least the Revolutionary War-era Loyalists were informed. They knew what they’d be getting if the colonies remained under British rule – as did the Israelites in Exodus concerning the Egyptians.
One cannot say the same about the average likely American voter, casually acquainted with political fare via establishment press sources, water cooler conversation and political discourse with equally propagandized peers. This is certainly the case concerning most political liberals. Committed liberals are obviously irredeemable relative to this discussion, but one would think that countless self-proclaimed liberals (who regularly vote for Democrats) would instead vote for Republicans, given their stated core values. If pressed, however, they regurgitate a few canned progressive talking points, then express frustration over sociopolitical woes that conservatives also bemoan, but which liberal politicians themselves fostered and prolong.
With respect to the upcoming presidential election, one of the distinct dangers we face is lack of reliable information. There is a distinct irony in this, given the wealth of information Americans have at their fingertips compared to decades past. Many voters think they know who and what they are voting for or against; they believe that this will be a contest between President Obama and the Republican nominee, or between prevailing Democratic or Republican policies. As many a reader here will agree, this is far from the case.
Millions who cast their votes this November will do so believing, as they have for many years, that they have a pretty good understanding of the issues at hand. The fact is that few have any idea at all what has really transpired in America over the last several decades, nor do they understand the true nature of the forces that have conspired to make this election into such a pivotal one.
The time for having reservations over telling casual acquaintances that they need to wake the hell up is over. People have been conditioned by design to believe that their superficial perceptions can be trusted, and they tend to have a certain amount of ego-involvement in the beliefs they have cultivated around them. This can no longer be tolerated on the grand scale to which it has been tolerated; it is this kind of intellectual indolence that helped to get us where we are.
This is not to say that I advocate compulsory voting. That would be antithetical to our founding principles, but I do believe that we need to foster a culture wherein perhaps some degree of stigma might be attached to being completely divorced from the political process. This, as well as stigmatizing liberal politics in general, could be accomplished in much the same way segregationist and separatist thought was stigmatized in America. Acts of Congress did not change people’s sympathies with regard to race; those sympathies resulted in the relevant acts of Congress. When enough people recognize that liberal-socialist policies are immoral (which they most assuredly are), then the resulting social pressure on their adherents will be enough to drive them underground where they belong and extinct their philosophy over time.
We did it once, and we can do it again – but it will take an adequately informed populace. The necessity for this is indeed becoming evident to segments of the electorate. Present conditions have brought this about, but a dedicated promotion of this “culture of the informed” will continue to be necessary. Deepening crises under President Obama will serve to underscore this need – but if he is re-elected, our opportunity to actualize these course changes may be lost for good.
No comments:
Post a Comment