October 28, 2016
Is There An Anti-Democratic
Movement In The US?
My attention was drawn to the above linked article by a Facebook colleague, Michael Sellers. Michael is a Liberal and viewed the article differently than myself who am a historical researcher and hence have no interest in political labels as such. I try to rise above current disputes to put them into a larger or macro historical context. As President Obama says of himself: when they go low I go high.
Thus the article of 10/24/16 by one Jeet Heer entitled The Right Is Giving Up On Democracy seemed to me to be analyzable in a macro context; that is Global rather than parochial. That involves the current problem of the transfers of populations from one area of the globe to another. This usually means from outside Euroamerica to European and North American countries.
As Euroamerica is the gold standard for advanced cultures the migrants come from less developed countries and often from medieval or even primitive cultures centuries behind in modern knowledges. While these migrants appear to adapt to the advanced culture of Euroamerica it is but doubtful they can understand it.
Such is the case with Jeet Heer who wrote the article under consideration. While biographical information is difficult to obtain about Mr. Heer he came from Southern India. He now resides in the Canadian Province of Manitoba, Canada. Whether Mr. Heet was born in Canada or arrived in North America as a young child isn’t clear. At any rate his parents are native to India. Why they chose to leave that beautiful warm country for cold and desolate Canada seems inscrutable but apparently they were dissatisfied with that ancient and lovely culture. Perhaps India wasn’t diverse enough, so they chose to live in the multi-cultural West.
As any trans-national migrant knows, or should know, the transition from being an Indian to an English speaking Canadian would be difficult. However as India was tutored by England over a period of centuries that has melded to some extent Indian and English mores and customs perhaps the Heet family foresaw fewer problems than they experienced. In any event as Mr. Heet says they brought the whole extended Heet family after them.
As the Americas were settled by peoples from outside the continent a certain attitude developed toward immigrants that favors new migrants over older migrants; that is new migrants are allowed to dispossess older migrants in much the same way that the exogenous peoples originally dispossessed the indigenous peoples.
It is no surprise then that Mr. Heet was been made senior editor of the US Communist magazine The New Republic while older migrants perhaps more qualified were passed over. While, from reading Mr. Heet’s work, I am sure there must be more qualified people from an earlier wave of migrants who understand that strange beast, the American psyche, better. I must believe that Mr. Heet is unqualified for the position he enjoys, I don’t see the necessary acumen.
Mr. Heet titles his article: The Right Is Giving Up On Democracy. He does this without realizing the Left’s definition of democracy. He apparently thinks theirs is the only definition while there are many others. In mid-twentieth century US democracy was understood to mean that class distinctions had a minimal effect on any and individual’s right to achieve whatever his abilities permitted. At the three quarter point of the century the Liberal reinterpretation of democracy began to replace the traditional idea.
Democracy since that point has been interpreted to mean that collectives have rights to extort whatever they can to dominate society disregarding individual rights. Each collective is supposed to have a right to a proportional representation regardless of individual ability that displaces merit. Thus the lesser able or qualified displace the meritorious. For instance, since women constitute roughly 50% of the population it is thought right that 50% of all, say, executives must be women regardless of merit if they are not then democracy is being violated. Racially it is thought that executives must ‘look like’ the population. That is the colored should displace whites regardless of merit. No tests of ability are permitted because that might be discriminatory. Thus the best will be shunted aside to satisfy ideology. That seems to be how Mr. Heet got his job.
So, he says the right is giving up on democracy, but the Left abandoned democracy long ago. Apparently Mr. Heet cannot recognize that the Leftist president, Barack Obama created an authoritarian dictatorship eight years ago. Obama has rigged the system. He assumes the roles of the executive, legislative and judicial in himself. He was in the process of appointing stooges to the Supreme Court who wouldn’t challenge his preemption of Congress by issuing executive orders because the ‘emergency’ of the moment required it. The Left calls this democracy.
It is no wonder then that the Right realizing that democracy had been aborted began searching for an alternative. Catching this sets Mr. Heet off on his rant. He follows the Leftist rhetoric. Naturally he builds his case on a rejection of his scapegoat Trump. Because in the Third Debate in a provocative question from the Jewish moderator, Chris Wallace, who demanded irrelevantly of Trump whether, as I understood it, Trump would contest the count if it went against him. Trump’s answer was a reasonable, we’ll wait and see. Mr. Heet interpreted the question and answer to mean Trump would lead an armed uprising, hence giving up on democracy.
It was of course a set up question as Hillary answered decidedly Yes. But, of course, if your party were rigging the election in your favor who wouldn’t.
Trump’s answer then prompted Mr. Heet to come to the startling conclusion: ‘As always with Trump the temptation is to interpret this apostasy through the lens of individual psychology.’ [By ‘apostasy’ I presume Mr. Heet means from democracy as though democracy were a religion.]
Heet continues: This diagnosis is easy enough: By discounting the election results beforehand, Trump was preemptively assuming the role of a sore loser, exhibiting an irresponsible peevishness all too characteristic of his runaway narcissism and his sexism….
Whew! He’s got the words but not the rhythm. Sexism? What’s that? Aren’t homosexuals and lesbians sexist by their very nature? Isn’t feminism sexist for the same reason? Aren’t those groups aggressive in their sexism? Are not they narcissistic by definition? You see how Mr. Heet undermines his own argument.
And then…Mr. Heet slams half the country, dividing it into two camps …’and bringing the yahoos of the Republican base along with him.’ The left has a lot of defamatory names for those who disagree with them. Defamation is their mode of argument. Obama called us Domestic Terrorists among many others, racists. Knuckle draggers, that is, I presume, gorillas (gorilla is a racist word in the US, ape, monkey) but the Left don’t pay no mind unless it is used against them.
Then comes another unwarranted assumption: ‘Yet such a personalized account of Trump’s behavior has the effect of letting his political party and supporters off the hook. Not just for supporting him but for sharing his grim view of American democracy.’
Can Mr. Heet support such inflammatory opinions, for that is all they are. I don’t think he has accurately represented me in his blanket condemnation of Trump supporters. But Mr. Heet is just getting started. I’m just hitting the high spots now. Nearly every sentence is wildly wide of the mark.
After excoriating Trump in his first couple pages or four or five hundred words Mr. Heet then turns to the matter of his article’s title, that of the right giving up on democracy. Which of many versions of democracy he doesn’t say but one presumes all democracy but more especially the ‘our’ democracy of the Left.
He does however provide a reason for the Right’s giving up on democracy, he says: ‘Beyond this election, beyond even the fate of the Republican Party, there is a significant minority of Americans who are giving up on democracy because it doesn’t serve their purpose of upholding a white Christian patriarchy.’
If one dissects this sentence one quickly discerns that what we have here is a religious fear. Mr. Heet isolates the religious fear of democracy as a White Christian matter. This begs the question of the fear of democracy of other religions. How exclusive is this fear to Christianity? Certainly the Semitic religions are consumed by fear of democracy they being in essence authoritarian in nature. Does Mr. Heet think that Moslemism is democratic in its beliefs? Surely, he jests. There is no more authoritarian patriarchal religion and government than Moslemism. Has Mr. Heet never heard of ISIS? Need I say more? Nor is the Judaic religion any more democratic than Moslemism. Judaism is the father of Moslemism.
We have no way of knowing whether Mr. Heet is Moslem or Hindu but need I remind Mr. Heet that Hinduism is a caste society where neither equality or democracy has been known for millennia. Mr. Heet must know all this so that isolating Christianity as paternalistic and undemocratic is sheer and total bigotry. Therefore we are right to treat Mr. Heet himself as an unbalanced bigot.
How then ae we to treat Mr. Heet’s ridiculous statement: ‘Trump’s anti-democratic rhetoric- and the eagerness of so many good white patriotic Americans to cheer it and believe it- as a symptom of the larger trend on the political right toward doubting the legitimacy of the American system. The question that we need to be asking isn’t, “Why is Trump being such a jerk?” It’s why is the American Right giving up on democracy?’
Why indeed? Could it be that anti-democratic forces such as the Moslems, the Jews and Negroes have very nearly subverted democracy itself making its maintenance impossible in a multi-cultural environment in which so many of those cultures have no tradition of democracy, don’t understand it and see no reason to maintain it.
While fashionably inveighing against authoritarian government that is the very form of government they wish to impose making themselves the supreme law giving culture. Thus we have the Moslem wish to impose Sharia law in the West, the Jewish wish to impose Jewish law, the Negro wish to impose African supremacy and so on. The chorus of all is that Whites have to submit to their particular mores, laws and culture. Whites simply cannot exist.
Mr. Heet must know this and our Mike Sellers ought to know this. Please abandon the hypocrisy. Democracy is over, murdered by the very people appearing to laud it. Today it is culture against culture, all against one and one against all.
Whites should bloc vote for Trump; it is every culture for itself. Vote Trump or get on your knees.