Gunslinger's Journal: Stealing Thunder

This is a comment - article length comment - from Standing+Wolf over at American Thinker. It's such a great piece, I wanted to share it. The link's on the bottom.

The Gunslinger

______________________________________

Standing+Wolf

"The problem with them though is that there is now a whole lot of little men throwing enough tiny darts so much so that it is liable to bring down this wonderful country and render them to the dictatorship that they secretly admire. Unfortunately, it then becomes a case of 'Be careful of what you wish for.' "

Well said, philliesthoughts. Your term "rage of the tiny man" is a clue. I believe it's a worthy, accurate observation, one that deserves to be explored further.
I thought first of short guys who, from the age of four or five onward, turn aggressive and hyper-aggressive in the hope of seeming taller than they are. I'm sure we've all known one or two of those, so I won't dwell on the topic beyond mentioning this: leftism is positively saturated with individuals who use politics as a means of trying to compensate for deficiencies and defects within themselves.

Let me add this, please: across the board, leftists are people of stunted moral and intellectual stature, and much of the reason they hate us is bitter, vindictive envy. Their endlessly, loudly repeated claims of superiority are whistling in the dark. They know they're moral and intellectual weaklings. They're people who tear others down not to build themselves up, but instead of building themselves up. They hate materially successful people partly because they're unsuccessful, primarily because they've always been afraid to compete in open economic markets and see whether they, too, can succeed. They live in terror and acute, chronic resentment of both failure and success.

I'm reasonably sure all that's irrelevant.

Why would I say such a thing? Because I think we're looking at a false dichotomy between constitutionalism and dictatorship; further, I'm sorry to say this, but believe we're already in post-constitutional America.

The professor's dismissal of the Constitution has impressed me as a distraction. I don't doubt that nasty little vermin believes every word of his irrational, illogical gibberish—but so what? Lots of obnoxious nobodies believe lots of stupid things.

We patriots, of course, reacted with immediate, loud outrage, point by point refutations, more outrage, and dire warnings. What else would we have done? We're constitutionalists. We uphold and swear by and revere the Constitution.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the Constitution has been relegated to a display case in a museum. The choice isn't between constitutional republican government and dictatorship, and in fact, it's a choice that's already been made.

Our constitutional republic is gone in all but name. It's been replaced with a "progressive" oligarchy, not a dictatorship. To the extent we rail against dictatorship, we're wasting time and mental effort; more to the point, to the extent we try to defend the Constitution, we're not only wasting time and mental effort, but deluding ourselves.

The choice has been made. The Constitution no longer applies.

The feral government, whole and complete, is in the hands of "progressive" oligarchs in the same way the city of Chicago is in the hands of a small number of very well connected people at the apex of the Democratic [sic] party there. America still has a constutition, of course; by the same token, I'm sure Chicago still has official governing documents and laws somewhere—but so what? Exactly as Chicago is actually ruled by a handful of highest and mightiest individuals, so is our national government under the control of post-constitutional oligarchs.

The "progressives" got what they worked for a century and longer: control of the national government. They own it. It's theirs the same way Chicago belongs to its oligarchs. In the simplest terms I can think of: they won.

The question we patriots face isn't, "How can we defend the Constitution?" but "How can we prevent the "progressive" oligarchy from ruling us?"

Owning the national government doesn't mean the oligarchy can actually rule us, the people. The oligarchs perverted the entire concept of the consent of the governed into a bitter joke decades ago; most unfortunately for them, they still can't rule us without our willingness to be ruled.

The oligarchs can prevent us from buying 100-watt incandescent light bulbs, for example, but only because we're willing to abide by that perverse law. They can increase tax rates, for another example, but only to the extent people are willing to pay them, and what's more, increasing rates will necessarily deliver lower revenues. President You Didn't Build That may well be economically illiterate enough to believe raising rates will increase revenues, but at least some of his advisors have to be bright enough to know better; even if they were all that stupid, they're still going to end up with reduced revenues as a result of that decision. The oligarchy can outlaw gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds, for yet another example, but only if we're willing to comply with such an idiotic law.

How many people have you seen selling prohibited 100-watt incandescent out of car trunks? I didn't think so. How many people do you suppose will go miles out of their way to earn—or report—incomes below the new threshold? More than just a few, maybe? That's my hunch, too. If Congress rubber-stamps new so-called "gun control" legislation, how much time do you suppose would pass before prohibited so-called "high capacity" magazines started to show up in a black market? Here's my guess: 25 minutes at the most.
Millions of state dependents are ready, willing, and downright eager to be ruled in return for "free" goodies from the feral government; unfortunately for the oligarchy, now that whole election fraud has displaced piecemeal vote fraud, the takers' votes are no longer needed, and the vast majority of takers have nothing to contribute; in fact, all they do at this point is devour "entitlement" dollars by the trillion. If I were high in the oligarchy, I'd have to figure the takers have become an increasingly expensive liability.

The oligarchy needs both the compliance and wealth of the makers. We're the people with each year's tax dollars; more to the point, we're the people who own and invest and manage the accumulated wealth of America. The oligarchs understand we're law-abiding people by nature, and know for a fact they've incrementally pushed and nudged and coaxed and brow-beat us halfway toward compliance with their schemes—but how far can they push us how quickly?

I believe the oligarchy is making several large, decidedly less than intelligent mistakes:
1.) Leftist extremist so-called "gun control," whatever the exact form it will take, has already alienated large numbers of makers, and looks likely to do worse than merely alienate millions more if or when it goes into effect. Black markets are exercises in rebellion. Cunning oligarchs would have waited to try to disarm us commoners until they'd concocted a national emergency to excuse "temporary emergency restrictions."

2.) Each day the oligarchy puts off seizing control of the internet is another day we patriots gather strength, recruit new members, and devise plans to subvert the oligarchy.
Oh, by the way, do we have a plan B, don't we? If or when we lose the internet, how do we plan to communcate? We, umm... aren't dumb enough to keep all our eggs in one basket, are we?

3.) Gradually worsening economic news looks likely to encourage resistance to rather than compliance with the oligarchy's determination to expand and deepen feral government control over all things social and economic. I have a hunch lots of dollars are sprouting little legs and scampering far from sight every month, and many more will follow as taxes take larger and larger bites of the makers' earnings. If I were in on the oligarchy, I believe I'd cook up some good economic news to soothe and pacify the makers' concerns.
You'd hate to go to all the trouble of committing armed robbery against a guy who's carrying only $12.43 and a Timex watch, wouldn't you?

I believe the question we patriots need to answer isn't, "How can we defend the lost Constitution?" but "How can we prevent the "progressive" oligarchy from subverting and taking control of the rest of us, the people?"