- WND - http://www.wnd.com -
Depends on what the meaning of the word 'destroy' is
Posted By Erik Rush On 02/17/2011 @ 12:00 am In Commentary | Comments Disabled
â€¨â€¨As America’s economic and geopolitical situation becomes more and more grave, conservative and libertarian-leaning observers become baffled and at odds with each other over their respective analyses of the Obama administration’s policies.
President Obama’s nauseatingly contrite foreign policy and appeasement of Islamists have emboldened our enemies worldwide, and it may well be years before we know to what degree this has factored into recent events in Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, Yemen, Tunisia and other Middle Eastern nations. His singleminded determination to continue “spending while the economy burns” (whilst attempting to convince us that he is being prudent) appears nothing less than madness to many.
However, the charge made by some (including myself) that the president is intent upon “destroying America” has invited ridicule, since the left and the press in particular typically paint all Obama detractors with a very wide brush. Logically, of course, it doesn’t make any sense that a world leader of any political persuasion would intentionally destroy his country.
Well, this would depend upon what the meaning of the word “destroy” is.
If the meaning of “destroy” is turning America into a barren, smoldering, toxic moonscape from coast to coast, something out of “The Road Warrior” or “Resident Evil,” then Obama almost certainly does not wish to destroy America. This paradigm of destruction would be dismissed by Americans as ludicrous – at least as far as someone wanting to bring it about intentionally.
But there are other kinds of destruction. A family can be destroyed without its members being slaughtered and their house burned down. Varying brands of calamity and/or dysfunction have served to consign family units to a state of non-being. It happens all the time. Similarly, nations throughout history have been destroyed without the wholesale annihilation of their people, their farms being burned and their cities razed to the ground.
Apparently, semantics matter these days. Bill Clinton brought the study of semantics to new heights when he forced America to put the words “sex” and “is” under an electron microscope. I pointed out on Sean Hannity’s television show that President Obama has shown a marked aversion for the “J-word” (jihad) in reference to Islamic fascists, although that’s what the Islamic fascists call what they’re doing.
Many of the president’s supporters are aware of how briskly we are moving toward socialism, and damn glad of it. Even Rev. Al Sharpton declared last year that Americans had voted for socialism when they voted for Obama, and appeared surprised that they might not have been aware of this. Still, the man himself (Obama) dances around the “S-word” issue; it is clearly not an appellation he wishes to claim publicly. He’ll call himself a “progressive,” though, which in my view is analogous to the difference between “pimp” and “procurer.”
We can look to Europe to ascertain what occurs under socialism. In Europe, the state became the sole arbiter of morality and attempted to supply every need. Personal responsibility went the way of the 8-track; social malaise proliferated as families were rendered obsolete; hostile immigrants outbred the locals; and the economy steadily declined. The upshot is that Europe is dying, culturally and economically, whether or not ABC, NBC, CBS or CNN report it to the plebes in America.
To advance their malignant process, it was necessary for American progressives to distract a population that was reasonably intelligent in the aggregate away from the glaring indicators that they were being shepherded to hell by an avaricious political class, as occurred in Europe. The distractions were provided through everything from hedonism to superficial political infighting.
Which brings us back to “the destruction of America …”
Progressives (American neo-Marxists) have long known that given the American sociopolitical dynamic, this nation would require a significantly different “undoing” than would Egypt, a European nation or some Central American banana republic, for them to effectively actualize their vision. This is what they have been working toward for decades, and what the Obama administration has accelerated dramatically since 2009.
Americans want comfort and stability – in some cases, even more than their liberty – and this attitude has been encouraged by liberals over the years via the psychology of dependency and entitlement. So, just how unpleasant will things have to get before the American people become willing to trade their remaining liberties for food, fuel, medicine and safety from hordes of gang-bangers and looters?
That is what this administration intends to find out. As in 45 B.C., when Julius Caesar was essentially given Rome by a spoiled, terrified populace, our entrenched and patient domestic enemies know that sooner or later, increasing socioeconomic turmoil, pervasive division and fear will drive Americans to their breaking point. It’s just a matter of time. And while Caesar did not rule for long after he became emperor, it does bear mentioning that his rule marked the end of the Republic.
The point is that bringing all of this about may not destroy America in the physical sense – but it will in every sense that matters.
Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com
URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2011/02/264401/
© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.