There is of course considerable diversity in the latter group: being founded on the notion of difference, this is obviously necessary. There is little difference within the first group, at least qualitatively. They can be counted on to moo on cue.
Given power, the first group seeks to level everyone on Procrustean beds. The superior are to be broken. The inferior are to be excused and even extolled. They take the logic of concentration camps one step further: the goal is not just torture, but getting people to “admit” that this torture is good for their souls, in much the same way the Spanish Inquisition once did (I suppose one could draw an interesting analogy there somewhere; it would be best to put it in the mouth of a Russian).
The latter group has two basic approaches: violence, and Liberalism. The Iranians obviously think they are God’s chosen people, even though they are lazy, corrupt, ignorant, misogynistic, and very, very violent. Without commenting on the merits of their self perception, we can grant that they very much think they are not like other people, and that other people should therefore be killed. Given the power, they would take over the world. And they would not torture people, they would merely give them the choice of converting or dying.
Only within Liberalism is difference negotiated. Only within a system like America are people NOT treated as ignorant cattle–at least in principle, since self evidently the media has shown that most people can in fact be manipulated in any direction chosen–but rather encouraged to form their own views, and to DEMONSTRATE them. If you think your cultural system is better, you are given the chance to show it, by bringing up happy, successful, emotionally well adjusted children. Smart people will imitate you. Inferior people will resent you.
Which brings me to the point of the post. There is no question in my mind that Obama and Hillary would like to slowly put a strangling noose around the neck of our freedoms, and grow in time to govern as czars, with legions, hordes, of commissars evaluating every last thing done and said by everyone, with the compliant and brown-tongued to be congratulated, and the rest punished in ways which are “regrettably necessary.”
But if one looks at the history of Communist coups, they are always backed by a compliant and supportive military force, typically one with a long history of combat in support of the mother nation. Lenin had those who fought in WW1 and opposed the Czar. Mao, those who fought the Japanese. Ho, the Japanese and French. Castro, Battista.
The frog analogy of course remains a factor, one which implies necessarily the complacency and stupidity of the American people, one they have demonstrated repeatedly, and which is hardly unique in the world. Who could have seen the shortages in Venezuela coming? Everyone. Everyone.
But one does have to wonder about the loyalty of the American military to an agenda that is fundamentally in conflict with their oath of duty. They swear to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign AND domestic. And one can scarcely plausibly accuse those who are citing the Constitution of opposing it.
Thus I will wonder again out loud about the possibility of a coup, should the American people once again demonstrate a profound inability for self governance. Another financial crisis is a foregone conclusion. We cannot sustain this level of debt and spending. I cannot say when it will happen, but we are bound for another major financial catastrophe.
This in my view is the Leftist plan of attack. But they will need all these people being trained in crowd control and riot suppression to beat back the very reasonable shrieks of the American people at being led like fattened cattle to the slaughter. Part of me feels this is what we deserve.
But not all of us deserve this. A great many of us have in fact become active, vocal, and have opposed with every legal means at our disposal these abuses.
Thus I wonder if a coup may not in the long run be in the best interests of the American people. It worked in Chile. To be clear, I am not calling for the overthrow of the American government in the way, say, Van Jones did daily for years on the streets of LA; or that Frank Marshall Davis or Saul Alinsky did. I am merely speculating that it is possible, and may be more positive than negative.
Finally, my vision, if I were in charge.
I would arrest all the radical professors and teachers and politicians, and globalists and union leaders who brought about this mess, and do an experiment.
I would put them in walled enclosures of considerable size, perhaps 200 square miles, filled with arable farm land, with all the tools and books and supplies needed to build a new society. They would have sheep, and cattle and chickens, and fish farms. They would have wheat and corn and cotton. They would have tractors, and lumber and hammers and nails (and sickles, of course).
They would also have all the tools they needed for failure. They would have drugs in large quantities, booze, and guns and ammunition.
I would build maybe 20 of these things, depending on the numbers involved and just watch. I would reintegrate any group which proved capable of survival. I think they would have learned their lesson. Those who chose violence and/or failure, would be transplanted into the same enclosures and abandoned.
The fact that people of similar physical capabilities and exactly the same resources could go in many directions shows clearly, in my view, as a pure thought experiment, that there are differences that matter between people. They differ in their resilience, empathy, ability to persuade, ability to resist self pity, imagination, etc.
That these differences would become apparent in a free society–and note nobody outside the groups would be dictating anything, so they have complete functional freedom–is to my mind a virtually axiomatic feature of true Liberalism. The task is not to tear down the better, but to raise the lesser. It always has been, and always will be in any society wanting to claim to be good.