Conservatism is the Antidote to Tyranny [Update]

Found the following video today - quite by accident actually. It is absolutely riveting! In the beginning, it asks the question, "Humanity, what have you become? When animals become more human than us...there is a real problem. Near the end you will see the statement, "when animals become more compassionate than humans, it is a sign of the end times. Wake up people." [Note: Some of what is written on the screen of the video doesn't actually apply to this post.]

Loss of Humanity Video Link


As I watched this video, a thought jumped out at me. The parallels of the attacks we view in that video and what is happening in our nation today between the current soft tyranny of government which is incessantly attacking the patriots who believe in liberty, freedom, conservative values and ethics, free speech rights, low taxes etc. cannot be missed or denied. [Note: A few paragraphs down, you will see a second video that serves as a perfect example of the far-left liberal haters and their attacks against anyone who does not believe as they do.]

I started reading Mark Levin's book, "Liberty and Tyranny - A Conservative Manifesto" today. Get this book! It is excellent! I have only completed the first two chapters, but Mark has already brilliantly exposed the differences between the liberal leftist progressive "Statists" and their worldview for America, vs. the Conservative ideals that were the foundation of our nation. I have highlighted so many paragraphs that I would love to share.

Levin explains why he doesn't use the term "liberal," but rather the term "statist" to describe the Modern Liberal in the United States today.

The Modern Liberal believes in the supremacy of the state, thereby rejecting the principles of the Declaration and the order of the civil society, in whole or part. For the Modern Liberal, the individual's imperfection and personal pursuits impede the objective of a utopian state. In this, Modern Liberalism promotes what French historian Alexis de Tocqueville described as a soft tyranny, which becomes increasingly more oppressive, potentially leading to a hard tyranny (some form of totalitarianism). As the word "liberal" is, in its classical meaning, the opposite of authoritarian, it is more accurate, therefore, to characterize the Modern Liberal as Statist.

Oftentimes, a video is worth a thousand word essay. Please watch this exchange between radio talk show host, Laura Ingraham (who subbed for Bill on the O'Reilly Factor yesterday) and Gloria Feldt on the subject of the verbal bashing that Miss California has been receiving from the Lamestream Media and the SILENCE of "feminist" groups (that are supposed to come to the rescue of women being verbally attacked like that).

Hateful Leftist Gloria Feldt Slanders Laura Ingraham-- Attacks Miss California

Certainly doesn't remind us of how the herd of buffalo came back (with reinforcements) to rescue the young calf that was viciously being ganged up on by many tigers in the first video above...does it?

In the following paragraph quotes from Levin's book you will see exactly WHY Ms. Gloria Feldt could not bring herself to defend Miss California for her own personal beliefs (despite the fact that she does not agree with them) and actually jumped on the bandwagon to continue the attacks against this young woman.

Levin's book [with my comments added]:

The Statist [think Gloria Feldt in previous video as just one example] veils his pursuits in moral indignation, intoning in high dudgeon* [see update below]the injustices and inequities of liberty and life itself, for which only he can provide justice and bring a righteous resolution. And when the resolution proves elusive, as it undoubtedly does -- whether the Marxist promise of "the workers' paradise" or the Great Society's "War on poverty" -- the Statist [think Obama and many in Congress today] demands ever more authority to wring out the imperfections of mankind's existence. Unconstrained by constitutional prohibitions,[Obama] what is left to limit the Statist's [Obama and most in Congress] ambitions but his own moral compass, which has already led him astray? He is never circumspect about his own shortcomings. Failure is not the product of his beliefs but merely want of power and resources. Thus are born endless rationalizations for seizing ever more governmental authority. [Obama admin, Congress, courts]

In the midst stands the individual,[think Laura Ingraham defending the free speech rights of Miss California in that video] who was a predominate focus of the Founders. When living freely and pursuing his own legitimate interests, the individual displays qualities that are antithetical to the Statist's [Feldt] - [qualities like Laura's and Carrie Prejean's] initiative, self-reliance, and independence. As the Statist [Feldt, Obama, many in Congress] is building a culture of conformity and dependency, where the ideal citizen takes on dronelike qualities in service to the state, [think ObamaBorg Bots] the individual must be drained of uniqueness and self-worth, and deterred from independent thought or behavior. This is achieved through varying methods of economic punishment and political suppression. [the spending bills, promotion of abortion with tax-payer money, silencing conservatives etc.]

The Statist also knows that despite his successful usurpations, enough citizens are still skeptical and even distrustful of politicians and government that he cannot force his will all at once. [this is where Obama and the majority in Congress are making HUGE mistakes - because they are both forcing their will upon the people at a rate that makes the average patriot's head spin!] Thus he marches in incremental steps, [well - used to do it that way], adjusting his pace as circumstances dictate. [like using a financial crisis to get taxpayer money for 9,000 earmarks and porkulus spending]. Today his pace is more rapid, [yup!] for resistance has slowed. [NOT ANYMORE! TEA Party power!!] And at no time does the Statist do an about-face. But not so with some who claim the mantle of conservatism but are, in truth, neo-Statists, [like that traitor Arlen Spector, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins] who would have the Conservative abandon the high ground of the founding principles for the quicksand of a soft tyranny. [Obama & cohorts]

Mark goes on and describes the fact that "liberty's treasures defy cataloguing." The Statist's scorn for liberty is misplaced and highly corrosive. Levin observes:

Liberty's permeance in American society often makes its manifestations elusive or invisible to those born into it. Even if liberty is acknowledged, it is often taken for granted and its permanence assumed.

WOW! What a powerful point he makes! In fact, this is why I think that many college students were led astray into the Kool-Aid cult of Obamaland during the campaign. They don't study history and know not of the dangers of socialism. To them, it was something knew (that is...if they even knew what Obama meant by his brand of "hope" and "change.")

I have seen many bumper stickers that have the "COEXIST" word accompanied by different religious symbols on it. That's all well and good, one might say. The fact that we live in a primarily Christian nation allows such freedoms. But the trouble is, when it comes to governing, the Marxism/Socialism/Communism/Islamism agenda of the Obama Admin. doesn't so easily "coexist" with the liberty of our Constitutional Republic. All of those "isms" are, each and of themselves, an increasingly corrosive threat to liberty!! As Mark states in chapter 2 - "the Statist's Utopia can take many forms (see above) but they are all of the same species - tyranny." What's more, as we saw in the Laura Ingraham vs. Gloria Feldt conversation (more like argument!), "the primary principle around with the Statist organizes can be summed up in a single word -equality."

Now watch this. Mark Levin brilliantly lays out the differences between what the Founders meant by the term "equality" vs. how the Statists use (actually - misuse) the term.

Equality, as understood by the Founders, is the natural right of every individual to live freely under self-government, to acquire and retain property he creates through his own labor, and to be treated impartially before a just law. Moreover, equality should not be confused with perfection, for man is also imperfect, making his application of equalism, even in the most just society, imperfect. Otherwise, inequality is the natural state of man in the sense that each individual is born unique in all his human characteristics. Therefore, equality and inequality, properly comprehended, are both engines of liberty.

The Statist, however, misuses equality to pursue uniform economic and social outcomes. He must continuously enhance his power at the expense of self-government and violate the individual's property rights at the expense of individual liberty, for he believes that through persuasion, deception, and coercion he can tame man's natural state and man's perfection can, therefore, be achieved in Utopia. The Statist must claim the power to make that which is unequal equal and that which is imperfect perfect. This is the hope the Statist offers, if only the individual surrenders himself to the all-powerful state. Only then can the impossible be made possible.

During the campaign, Obama is quoted as saying, "[O]ur individual salvation depends on collective salvation." But Mark Levin points out that "salvation is not government's to give. Indeed, it is not a grant to mankind from mankind. Under the wrong conditions and in the wrong hands, this deviant view is a powerful tool against humanity."

This is what millions of Americans, including the TEA Party participants, are sensing from Obama. They are all seeing this soft tyranny creeping up and are highly concerned of what it will look like four years from now. One good thing to note is that our American history and traditions make it more difficult to transform our civil society towards tyranny. And Mark makes this excellent point:

[S]till, tyranny is a threat that looms over all societies, preventable only by the active vigilance of the people.

Levin concludes the first chapter:

The Conservative does not despise government. He despises tyranny. This is precisely why the Conservative reveres the Constitution and insists on adherence to it. An "effective" government that operates outside its constitutional limitations is a dangerous government. By abandoning principle for efficiency, the neo-Statist,[think RINOS] it seems, is no more bound to the Constitution than is the Statist.

[T]he Conservative is alarmed by the ascent of a soft tyranny and its cheery acceptance by the neo-Statist. He knows that liberty once lost is rarely recovered. He knows of the decline and eventual failure of past republics. And he knows that the best prescription for addressing society's real and perceived ailments if no to further empower an already enormous federal government beyond its constitutional limits, but to return to the founding principles. A free people living in a civil society, working in self-interested coorperation, and a government operating within the limits of its authority promote more prosperity, opportunity, and happiness for more people than any alternative. Conservatism is the antidote to tyranny precisely because its principles are the founding principles.

Conservatism is the antidote to tyranny for many reasons. But perhaps one of the most important reasons of all is because we believe, as the Founding Fathers did that prudence must be exercised in assessing change.

Levin:

Prudence is the highest virtue for it is judgment drawn on wisdom. The proposed change should be informed by the experience, knowledge, and traditions of society, tailored for a specific purpose, and accomplished through a constitutional construct that ensures thoughtful deliberation by the community. Change unconstrained by prudence produces unpredictable consequences, threatening ordered liberty with chaos and ultimately despotism, and placing at risk the very principles the Conservative holds dear.

Sounds EXACTLY like what we are going through right now...doesn't it?

Source:
Liberty and Tyranny - A Conservative Manifesto by Mark Levin; Threshold Editions of Simon and Schuster, Inc. 2009 pp. 4, 8-11, 14, 18-19.

*******
* Update:

I have to confess, I really didn't know the complete meaning of the term "dudgeon" when I first quoted it from Mark Levin's book. I figured that it meant something like "anger" and "hatred." This morning, I decided to look up the word in the dictionary. It is a highly descriptive word and fits EXACTLY to the situation that readers have witnessed in the exchange between Laura Ingraham and Gloria Feldt regarding Miss California.

dudg⋅eon1   /ˈdʌdʒən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [duhj-uhn] Show IPA
–noun a feeling of offense or resentment; anger: We left in high dudgeon.

Origin:
1565–75; orig. uncert.


Synonyms:
indignation, pique.

Notice that the first definition claims that the origin was "uncertain."

Now, look at this "obsolete" entry at dictionary.com:

dudg⋅eon2   /ˈdʌdʒən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [duhj-uhn] Show IPA
–noun Obsolete. 1. a kind of wood used esp. for the handles of knives, daggers, etc.
2. a handle or hilt made of this wood.
3. a dagger having such a hilt.

Origin:
1400–50; late ME; cf. AF digeon

There is more! The following entry describes the "smiling Ms. Feldt" quite well as she systematically shoots daggers of hatred against Miss California!

dudg·eon 1 (dŭj'ən)
n. A sullen, angry, or indignant humor: "Slamming the door in Meg's face, Aunt March drove off in high dudgeon" (Louisa May Alcott).

[Origin unknown.]

dudg·eon 2 (dŭj'ən)
n.
Obsolete A kind of wood used in making knife handles.
Archaic
A dagger with a hilt made of this wood.
The hilt of a dagger.

[Middle English dogeon, possibly from Anglo-Norman.]

The following describes how the term "dudgeon" relates to our current use of the term "daggers" when we use it metaphorically to describe "throwing daggers" in verbal spewings of hate:

Dudgeon

Dudg"eon\, n. 1. The root of the box tree, of which hafts for daggers were made. --Gerarde (1597).

2. The haft of a dagger. --Shak.

3. A dudgeon-hafted dagger; a dagger. --Hudibras.
Dudgeon

Dudg"eon\, n. [W. dygen anger, grudge.] Resentment; ill will; anger; displeasure.

I drink it to thee in dudgeon and hostility.

Sir T. Scott.
Dudgeon

Dudg"eon\, a. Homely; rude; coarse. [Obs.]

By my troth, though I am plain and dudgeon, I would not be an ass. --Beau. & Fl.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
Cite This Source

Notice the synonyms:

Synonyms

huff
miff
pique
resentment
ruffled feathers
umbrage
bitterness
anger
displeasure
fury

Did you see that first one - "huff"?? Reminds me of Ariana Huffington! Sometimes people DO live up to the meaning of their name!!! LOL!!!

P.S. Wayne of Jeremiah Films has placed this post (via my Protect Biblical Marriage blog) in his headline list today.

Thanks Wayne! LOTS of good information to read over there!!