In a Facebook post on Tuesday, poet Amanda Gorman vowed to fight back. Her poem, “The Hill We Climb” was challenged by the parent of two students at Bob Graham Education Center in Miami Lakes, along with several books.
Celebrating what so many Americans fought and died, or were maimed, for, this Memorial Day, let's begin with the valiant fight against such “radical foreign” ideas emanating out of the Enlightenment, which National Conservative Leader Yoram Hazony has made it his life’s mission to “roll back,” in his book "Conservatism: A Rediscovery,” and with the National Conservative Movement so many are fond of here. A “Mission” picked up from where Willmoore Kendall left off (see attached file), of attacking the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights! A Mission now almost totally achieved, with the almagamation of thought across the U.S. political spectrum of the “necessity” to suppress the idea of “Rights” of "free thought and free speech,” and repress anyone who “resists” that suppression. As Julian Assange is Ex. A for. But here is where that “political theory” originated post-WW II, and handed down to us today as the precursor to Trump, as some have called it, and I would agree: https://nationalinterest.org/feature/why-willmoore-kendall-and-james-burnham-are-prophets-modern-conservatism-184046?page=0%2C1BLUF: "Kendall warned that social revolutionaries who in their zeal would not “take ‘No’ for an answer” and wait in the political “ante-room” would destroy America’s constitutional framework. “Plebiscitary presidential elections,” Kendall wrote, “cannot become the central ritual of our system without destroying the system.” "Specifically, Kendall feared the civil rights movement. In 1963, Kendall confessed privately he was “for segregation of the bulk of the American Negroes”—more so than he had been before Brown v. Board of Education. Not on racial grounds, he added, but because the movement threatened the social consensus and constitutional morality. In practice, Kendall’s concept of social consensus gave veto power to the most recalcitrant parts of society until they could be defeated in Congress. Abstract “consensus” lent theoretical support to Southern white filibustering and domination of Congress through the seniority system.” Ah yes, “Constitutional Morality,” defined to a T by its chief proponent, and put in much more acceptable and elegant terms than how the Ku Klux Klan would have put it, for the identical purpose; “to keep the **ggers down.” Which this “founding document” of the Conservative Movement raises that purpose to a much more acceptable level, with its “legalistic word play,” and Kendall’s typical convoluted language (with the latter by itseld not to be condemned :-) |
Attachment:
Bill of Rights.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
(Willmoore Kendall deserves special recognition on Memorial Day! But for him and his advocacy of manipulating intelligence in whichever direction the intelligence analyst, and/or government wants to justify “policy,” such as with the Vietnam War and Army Intelligence giving Westmoreland the lies he and LBJ wanted, and of course the 2003 Iraq War as the classic example, there would be far fewer graves to “celebrate” over each Memorial Day. With casualties of the Iraq War ("upcoming attractions” soon by way of Russia, China, and Iran) standing as the legacy of his contribution to the Intelligence Community: Politicized Intelligence!) Any hint of “approval” of the above facts as to what was done to attack the Constitution is to be seen as my inept attempt at satire. |
As Chas shared the photo above so representative of the “New Right,” i.e., the National Conservatives, so beloved today by The American Conservative magazine, and American Conservatives, here is more on DeSantisland and its valiant struggle to “roll back” any ideas of “rights” that came out of Enlightenment thought. With that horrid “anti-American” Bill of Rights and the First Amendment having been forced upon the American People, interfering with such noble social and legal “consensus” as the Federalist Party’s “Alien and Sedition Act of 1798, and both Southern and Northern government's “necessary denial” of "free thought and free speech” during the Civil War, enforced by Military Commissions in each. And for the South, long before that as they had to “silence” any abolitionist sympathizers (notwithstanding so many lies perpetrated since by libertarians and Conservatives of the “Freedom” which co-existed with slavery :-). Then the Espionage and Sedition Acts of 1917 and 1918 (pushed as much or more by Republicans as by Wilson) brought Americans even more “Majoritarian Democracy,” and “Freedom.” And building up to the true “Freedom Inspiring” Cold War Acts so beloved by the CIA Boys who brought us National Review magazine and the “Conservative Movement.” And inspiring future generations of Conservatives to do their all to suppress, and repress, any notion of a "right to free thought and free speech,” with adoption of such “wisdom" as this, from the file attached above: Quote: "At the risk of stating it over-graphically, I offer the foflowing thesis: The First Amendment had already become, long before it was ever written, the potentially-I am tempted to say unavoidably-explosive problem of the American Republic. With only minor exceptions (such as whether wire tapping is an unreasonable search or seizure or whether the self-incrimination provision of.Amendment V extends to the House Un-American Activities Committee), the problem of the Bill of Rights and American freedom is and has been, ever since Mason made his motion at Philadelphia, the problem of the First Amendment and American freedom. (Emphasis added.) Perhaps someone will say I should have entitled this essay "The First Amendment and American Freedom." But I couldn't: the controversies, articulately, were over a bill of rights, and we must start out from there. (p. 306, Contra Mundum) . . . Quote: "A pretty convincing case, in the opinion of this writer, and, insofar as convincing, let me add, as convincing a case for repealing the First Amendment as ever it was against adopting it." (p. 310, Contra Mundum) So the above expressions of hostility toward even the “idea” of rights, or “rights talk," fully explains the “New Right’s” own hostility, as exemplified by the “Conservative Movement” Trump and DeSantis fall under, with their connections to the Straussian Conservatives of Hillsdale and Claremont (hereafter, "H & C”). So here is how the kind of suppression of the "right to free thought and free speech” works today as an exemplary example of “New Right” censorship. As would have had the full approval of Willmoore Kendall, to maintain “Consensus.” So give a “hat tip” to Willmoore Kendall for these examples: Quote: "A poem written for President Joe Biden's inauguration has been placed on a restricted list at a South Florida elementary school after one parent’s complaint. In a Facebook post on Tuesday, poet Amanda Gorman vowed to fight back. Her poem, “The Hill We Climb” was challenged by the parent of two students at Bob Graham Education Center in Miami Lakes, along with several books. “I’m gutted,” she wrote. “Robbing children of the chance to find their voices in literature is a violation of their right to free thought and free speech.” Unfortunately, that’s the point; there is no “right to free thought and free speech,” for children, nor for adult Americans! Not according to the figuratively resuscitated Willmoore Kendall, with the celebrations of him as the forerunner to Trumpism, as he’s proclaimed as. And indirectly, by way of the “heroization” of Kendall, goes as well to the original figurehead of the "Conservative Movement” as it was being brought to life: Joe McCarthy! As I’ve emphasized here, and will continue to as the 2024 POTUS campaign continues, the CIA “founders” of the Conservative Movement and National Review magazine, particularly Willmoore Kendall, joined later by another Conservative as co-author of The Basic Symbols, could not have been more emphatic that American citizens did not in actuality have “Rights,” as they regularly denounced the Bill of Rights, particularly, and especially, the First Amendment! And while that noxious docrine is now “official” USG policy regardless of party, it is the docrine principally of Republicans/Conservatives following in the footstep of their founding ideologists. Whose doctrine has unfortunately first “seeped” into the Democrats, and with 9/11 and the full embrace of Militarism by the U.S. public, flooded into the Demcrats, as we are now seeing against any peep of opposition to the war on Russia and China. I share this information (over some ongoing objections) because its “Origin” must be understood so that it can “knowledgeably” be condemned! And in the post-WW II era we’re in, that “doctrine” is entirely attributable to the “Conservative Movement,” so celebrated in four recent books on “Conservatism,” with the fourth of those four to be criticized by me soon as it fails to condemn the ex officio CIA project of the founders of that “Movement,” as I shared yesterday: https://newrepublic.com/article/139348/trumps-war-cia-deep-right-wing-roots. And the latter book, as the other three, fails to condemn those “founders” of our "National Security State Ideology,” whose militaritic ideology fully supported policies similar to the Japanese government we had just defeated, while advocating adopting the practices and “symbolism" of the Leader of the Italian government once correctly identified as "Chief of the Republican Fascist Government” (see below). And when the Democrats are rightfully condemned for their current full-blown ideology of militarism, don’t forget this guy and his Republican cohorts, to include his China War-First maddened colleagues who speak the same way on China, following in the footsteps of the Conservative Movement Founders, as daisy-chained down to the present: https://www.foxnews.com/video/6328384901112 With that long introduction to who the original book banners/burners were in the post-WW II era, and their doctrine: |
Attachment:
pdf4Pky9Fdeok.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
what follows is who they are now, as in that identical “ideological line of descent.” Some here won’t think the argument made against book banning in The Nation article below is that persuasive, with the examples used of de Sade, and seeming lack of recognition of “age appropriate” material. And it’s failing to distinguish the difference between what one might do finding a child "browsing pornographic website,” and requiring a child to read what is considered “pornographic” by some in their community, as has been charged frequently by Conservatives, as part of their curriculum. Which is the argument made by the “book banners.” With The Nation argument, it’s relatively easy to justify “book banning” to the general public. But what if protecting children from “sexually explicit” material isn’t the real purpose of the “DeSantis Censors?” But instead it has an explicit “political purpose,” as Willmoore Kendall advocated as necessary censorship (I’ve thoroughly read all of Kendall’s published work, and shared much of it here) to “maintain consensus” in society? Quote from The Nation article below: "Books about sex aren’t the only ones being banned these days. At the top of the list are books about slavery (The Bluest Eye, by Toni Morrison), . . . American cruelty on various subcultures (The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian, by Sherman Alexie). What are the book banners afraid of? Well, we all know: They are afraid of readers—especially young readers—learning the truth about humans, about American history, about, perhaps, their own lives.” And of readers becoming “alert citizens.” So DeSantis’ censorship doesn’t only go to “protecting children” from learning about sex, putting aside when that’s appropriate, or how it should be done, but is to “protect children” (satire) against facts which raise doubts of “American Exceptionalism," as applicable to their own lives, and U.S. politics. And that same so-called “protection” is applied against adults, as one sees in the zealous support of Israel by DeSantis against the truth-telling, and "right to free thought and free speech,” of the BDS Movement, and using “legal tactics” intended as “State Terrorism” to suppress any criticism of the Israeli Apartheid State, he is such a zealot for. As Israel uses in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, as I saw when I attended a so-called “Military Court” proceeding while in Jerusalem recently. Per DeSantis, I would be the “enemy,” as I support the BDS Movement, as we all should. But “libertarian”/Conservative Oligarchs, like the Kochs, have funded the anti-BDS Movement, which was explained well in this documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8MuXsmto1Q "In his speech, DeSantis also complained about the UN and international organizations’ criticism of Israel, and said that groups "targeting the one Jewish state” were engaged in antisemitism. "He added that "U.S. policy should recognize the truth" on Jerusalem as Israel's "eternal" capital, while bragging about Florida's record against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction movement and taking issue with the categorization of the West Bank as occupied territory. “It’s disputed,” he said, calling the area “the most historic Jewish lands there are going back thousands of years” and stating that he “wouldn’t fund” the Palestinian Authority or the United Nations agency dedicated to Palestinian refugees if the Palestinians “are engaged in terrorism against Jews.”
And, DeSantis has the always pro-war Marc Thiessen’s support, which says a lot, using the contemporary slur of “Wokeism,” as Conservatives once did with “Communist,” as always charged against “Liberals.” With denunciations of “Liberal” then, still serving as a slur today. Tactics identical to how the CIA would stir up public opinion in countries slated for its coups, like Iran, Indonesia, Brazil, Chile, . . . . Identical to what Arthur Finkelstein put to use in US and Israeli “Conservative” political campaigns beginning in 1972 for Nixon.
Perhaps its past time for a comparative “political theory” analysis of the present New Right, with other “Right” Movements of the past, so as to recognize it by its “true name?” Here are some clues: From George Will, in explaining why a replica may not beat the prototype: "DeSantis does not merely boast, as he is entitled to, that he has triumphed over Florida’s Democratic Party. Rather, he gloats crudely that the party is “basically a dead, rotten carcass on the side of the road.” "Now, many Americans apparently want a swaggering president who talks like that. But those Americans are, it is safe to say, not nearly a majority. They probably purr with contentment about the name of DeSantis’s super PAC, Never Back Down, which burnishes his jut-jawed, spoiling-for-a-fight persona.” (Emphasis added.) Quote: “In his report on Mussolini’s last days, TIME correspondent Reg Ingraham recalled one of the dictator’s famous lines from earlier in World War II: “If I retreat, kill me!” What is this fetish of New Right Republicans to adopt fascist symbols and similar slogans? Like with Melania Trump’s English translation of the Fascist slogan "Me ne frego?” https://overland.org.au/2018/06/a-brief-fascist-history-of-i-dont-care/ How long before this title can be applied to the POTUS? “Xxxxxxxx - Chief of the Republican Fascist Government"
|
|
|
|