Tactical Maneuverings

Last Sunday (April 22) Fran Porretto took on one of the rules terrible that keeps the political system working quite favorably to suit our ever more elitist American ruling class.

The reception Fran received from extreme Leftists (fans of James Wolcott) for writing it truly demonstrates the workings of one of my long standing concepts: The Ideological Corral.

I plan in the next weeks to explain the corral like never before. It is an important element in my story about Ronald Reagan. The following is a start on that.

In a comment at The New Segregationists Part 2I wrote the following in response to one of Fran's co-contributors, Aaron Brenzel:

Aaron, Tocqueville’s observation is actively in play here: The tyrant cares less you love him provided you hate your fellow subjects. Rather than see Wolcott’s accusation as ridiculous, better for you to spread understanding why it would be deliberate.

Wolcott is proudly a Leftist-liberal. He sees inequality everywhere and hates it. (Aside: Does he realize that failing to achieve Utopia his side would install universal Dystopia just to be fair? I suspect he does.)

Effectively that means he’s very disinclined to permit liberty for individuals and very demanding of freedom for government (would erase constitutional limits that hinder his desires).

This is why I have long skipped past the liberal facade and directly label such a position as Leftist-statist. (I hope someone finally makes that distinction popular. For only when it is widely understood will the position’s undeserved aura of compassion be stripped away).

Operating from such a political position, Wolcott intends to convert Fran’s warning into Fran’s desire. “See? Government must be allowed to censor Francis before he harms some minorities.”

Our government has and will go extra constitutional in times of crisis.

Thus, the Left-statist, ever seeking government growth, is constantly erecting crises in the hopes that one or more will be accepted.

And then the Right-statist (typical RINO) steps in and demands the rest of us be reasonable and compromise by accepting one of the crises and subsequent government growth.

In summary: Wolcott has no reason to give Francis any credit for seeking to solve conditions that would eliminate a threat that the Left-Statists have worked so hard to establish in the first place.

The tactic employed by Wolcott, whether he knows it or not, is one that is meant to horrify the general public. For it has become a knee jerk reaction by the public that minorities are good and majorities are bad. For the sake of those who gain from it, a response has been conditioned in most of us that nobody in the majority should be believed as honestly seeking to remedy the problems. Any hint of racism is bad. And most reactionary-like, any discussion from the Right that is a legitimate attempt to remedy the hatefulness is considered not just fair to attack, but imperative to attack.

The idea is to make the Right side of the Left-Right political spectrum be too painful to get near. They make the Right unpleasant, even repellent like an electrified fence on one side of a corral does to livestock. This is as deliberate conditioning as ever there was.

Thus the Right side of the corral is occupied by those who, while they may not understand why they are being attacked (and I'm dedicated to remedying that), see good reasons to be there. It is mostly occupied by good people who feel that that side is so important that a little pain is well worth the price.

The rest of the population, being inclined towards where is most comfortable, gravitates to wherever the media allows the "middle" to be defined. And when the middle doesn't, naturally, allow the solving of problems, the media makes the Left side seem pleasant and well meaning. And that is despite the "occasional" outrageousness of those who own the Left side.

More to follow.

New Reasons For Reopening Debate On Executing Killers [Updated]

Summary: Circumstances have changed since most Western countries and many American states abolished capital punishment. Sudden effacement of many key safeguards which bolstered those anti-death penalty policies demands that the conscientious reopen the debate over the need for executions of society's worst killers.

This article that appeared in the Brisbane Times (h/t Wretchard at the Belmont Club) , tells of heightened threats to public safety being recognized and seriously confronted by prison authorities. The new threat arose due to concerted efforts of radical immans to convert to Islam the most unsavory of the incarcerated in the New South Wales prison populations. The story provides more than sufficient evidence that many premises that guaranteed general public safety and were heretofore key to Western civilizations' inclination to abolish capital punishment have become perilously thin and penetrable.

Update 4/28/07:
Saudis Arrest 172 in Alleged Terror Plot . Pertinent to the commentary below is this excerpt The militants also planned to storm Saudi prisons to free jailed militants, the ministry's statement said. Do you suppose the Saudis used Western standard interrogation techniques to break up this threat?

Commentary

Time and again obstructionists to capital punishment have argued that the incarceration of murderers is all that is needed to remove their threat to society. "Life in prison without the possibility of parole" they say is sufficient to protect society from new threats from these monsters.

There are a number of other arguments that partly defeat this premise -- such as the presence of known killers in the prison population being an unmitigatible lethal threat to guards and to those convicted of non-capital offenses. But no other arguments, including chances of a breakout from prison by any one murderer, outright defeated the life-in-prison argument entirely. At least not until now.


Here are just three new developments that I can think of now that undermine the idea that killers put away for life terms will never again arise to threaten society as a whole:

1. Their continued existence makes them an object of sympathy of the radical Islamists, providing the latter another reason to lash out at our society in general.
2. The radicals may decide to attack one or more of our already high security prisons -- a threat that should already have and will increase costs of running such institutions.
3. Every murderer is now a higher risk (to society) of being freed -- an event no longer solely in the hands of parole boards, but now also in the hands of fate. The fate of a successful prison break orchestrated with Saudi or other similar limitless money.

I am sure readers can come up with more reasons. But here is a special thing to remember. No matter how many times Leftists are dealt devastating blows to their premises, they manage, with the great help of establishment media, to drown out that fact. And then they go on to insert new and preposterous arguments into the discussion as if they haven't been revealed to be wholly devoid of humility and desire to protect our societies. Please be prepared. Don't let them get away with the stunts this time.

Tear Off Your Blinders and See -- A Foreword

 
Perhaps it needed a rest. However, I fear I’ve let this one device languish for too long. I hope you will forgive me.

A concept I once roughly sketched acquired a prominent champion: Ronald Reagan.

Although the idea affected Mr. Reagan’s thinking, proven by the fact that he gave a speech clearly built from it, the idea never took off.

I think the reason for its lapse is clear enough as I expect many of you will see when you read it. Power seeking people can not gain from the wide-spread understanding of this concept. They have good reason to suppress it.

Back in the early 1980s, anyone who dared speak of the control of mass media by a biased core was belittled to say the least. However, that was in the days long before the Internet. The tables have since turned. It is those who deny the bias who are now subjects of ridicule.

So, I’m going to try to rekindle this idea.

I will do it in short segments.

I hope to persuade just a few of you of the wisdom in this concept. Then you, in turn, may influence others. Political blinders have been emplaced upon most all of us from a very early age. This concept permits much clearer vision, and thereby opens opportunities to fight back otherwise not in sight.

Perhaps one of you will reach some new American champion just as one of my early listeners apparently reached Mr. Reagan.

Yes. It is possible. Such a leader may once again inspire Americans to keep lit Mr Reagan's famous Beacon Upon The Hill.