The left has its taboos. It’s verboten to discuss the origins of COVID, the efficacy of COVID “vaccines,” or any alternative method of treatment. Nor will the left allow any analysis of election fraud during the 2020 presidential election cycle. Orwellian, isn’t it?
Well, the right has its taboo topics too — its prima facie treasons. One, you will not challenge FBI Whistleblowers. You will accept the imprimatur of popular “conservative” personalities. If not, they’ll rage for you to sit in a corner, bend to their narrative, and above all else, be silent.
Second, you will not oppose the “defund the FBI” babble. If you do, you might be called the equivalent of the left’s rage slur, “racist.” On the right, people will Tweet that you’re a communist. It’s farcical, but that’s what passes for clever from the bot-like, purple-faced acolytes of some radio and podcast personalities.
Tyrants aren’t exclusively products of the left, and ideologues come in many forms.
At the heart of ideological tyranny is a manic attachment to narrative even in the face of unambiguous evidence. The rallying cry of the conservative movement has always been “come let us reason together.” But the unhinged, who careen across the heaving decks of the U.S.S Conservative America, have snapped their lashings and fire profane volleys at anyone who refuses to waive their branded standard.
The tyrannical impulse has asserted itself in force on the right and seeks to abolish the intellectualism and collegial debate exemplified and championed by the father of conservatism, William F. Buckley. It has long since forsaken its noble roots, but Buckley’s National Review was a forum for the free expression of conservative thought for decades.
Now, petty tyrants dot the conservative landscape who obscenely malign and bully. I understand, to a degree, why they’re angry. No one likes being taken to the proverbial woodshed.
Dr. Jordan Peterson says it well, “the truth is something that burns. It burns off dead wood. And people don’t like having the dead wood burnt off, often because they’re 95 percent dead wood.”
However, it’s not easy admitting you were wrong, having to step away from something you’ve invested in emotionally and financially. But that’s what adults do.
There are a few shining lights left to us, like Mark Levin or Tucker Carlson. Unfortunately, some of their proteges have turned to the darkness, and prefer the cozy lair of their echo chambers where obsequious fan boys and girls minister to their colossal egos.
The conservative dregs are those whose only response to polite challenge is to spew the bile of invective, distort truth, and sensationalize the mundane. They’re easy to identify. Just look for the ones with ballooning forehead veins, and eyes bulging as though afflicted with a bad case of Graves disease. They perpetually stoke the rage machine because, well, it’s good for engagement.
So there is no ambiguity, I’ll speak plainly: I do not support abolishing the FBI because it’s a stupid idea. First, because it’s not going to happen. Second, because there’s no viable alternative. And third, because federal law enforcement, though not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, is not prohibited therein. Primarily, the Constitution is a document of negative rights, meaning — it tells the government what it cannot do.
In the late 1920’s, law enforcement was a hodgepodge of uncoordinated local jurisdictions. All you had to do to evade justice was cross state lines. Many years later, Hoover’s great innovation was the professionalization of the practice of law enforcement. What we’re left with today, is a shadow of that FBI.
Furthermore, DOJ is the head of the snake. The “abolish the FBI” slogan does nothing to address the larger issues.
The FBI is in need of radical reformation, the same way Martin Luther initiated the Protestant Reformation. A Ninety-five Theses should be nailed to the door of FBI HQ, and the first proposition should be: clean out the 7th floor. If you’re in favor of abolishing something, abolish all the infantile, reductionist slogans and let’s all get down to business.
In addition, I do not blindly support every self-styled FBI whistleblower. Because some have behaved so reprehensibly, I’m compelled to oppose their lionization. I’ll leave it to you to decide who those people may be. The homework is easy — just check their Twitter feeds. You’ll find instances of doxing and other abusive behavior. For those critical of that claim, even professor Google knows the answer to that one — doxing is “the action or process of searching for and publishing private or identifying information about a particular individual on the internet, typically with malicious intent.”
Here’s a real-world example: would you consider yourself to have been doxed if someone publicized your photo, first and last name, the business where you are employed, and the floor on which you work — all for the purpose of intimidation? Easy answer, right?
And, please don’t claim to occupy the moral high ground if you think doxing a Supreme Court Justice is reprehensible, but doxing a street agents is just fine. You’re bereft of principle.
Conversely, there are whistleblowers I do support. Former FBI Special Agent Nicole Parker is a credible, thoughtful professional who resigned in protest, in stark contrast to others who are using the title of whistleblower in an effort to rehabilitate the ugly reality of a failed FBI career. I also respect and admire Thomas J. Baker, a retired FBI agent with 33 years of experience. His book, The Fall Of The FBI is a must read. He’s also been featured on Mark Levin’s podcast.
Bullies will tell you to sit down and be quiet. However, we are all duty bound to speak the truth. Like Dr. Jordan Peterson wisely said, “if you don’t say what you think, then you kill your unborn self. When you have something to say, silence is a lie.”
https://townhall.com/columnists/johnnantz/2023/06/20/when-youre-told-to-sit-down-stand-up-n2624709
No comments:
Post a Comment