Skip to content

The Modern Devils: Of Misfits And Elitists

05 September 2017 @ 21:16

Mark Steyn has, once again, written a very penetrating analysis of one aspect of The Present Crisis.

Entitled The Coming Terror, it is a warning that we must take very seriously, that must enter in as a major consideration when we strategize on how we are going to Restore Freedom and Ordered Liberty.

Two highlights…

-The first concerns a little-mentioned fact:

…the violence on American streets derives from today’s paramilitary wing of the Democrat Party — antifa — working itself up over yesterday’s paramilitary wing of the Democrat Party — the Ku Klux Klan. Both have stupid pseudo-exotic self-romanticizing names and, as many commentators have observed, both have strict dress codes intended to conceal their identities. From white sheets to black bandanas is a mere fashion evolution: the purpose is the same — to do ugly things one could not confidently do with one’s face known to all.

Both AntiFa and the Klan are non-surprising products of a political party that has in it’s very name the essence of it’s Evil: Democratic — Democrat, Democracy.  Mob rule.  And the Party has been infused with this foul spirit since it was founded by Thomas Jefferson — an Elitist who enjoyed watching his minions create Havoc and commit Mayhem from a safe distance [my emphasis on this trait will become clear if you read on].

-At one point, Mark mentions the case of one Mark Brey, lecturer in history at the Gender Research Institute at Dartmouth College(1)…

…Antifa, says Mark Bray, “have no allegiance to liberal democracy, which they believe has failed the marginalized communities they’re defending.” …Dartmouth College is in the town of Hanover (median family income $129,000), in the state of New Hampshire (93.9 per cent white, 1.1 per cent black). So, when it comes to “marginalizing” communities, Professor Bray knows whereof he speaks. It’s so much more rewarding, don’t you find, to defend marginalized communities from a safe distance: They look a lot more marginalized when they’re on the far horizon, somewhere south of the Massachusetts line.

Does Professor Bray want antifa rampaging down his pretty little Main Street and hurling bricks through Hanover’s upscale boutiques and bistros and its delightful designer gelato emporium? One would think not. But maybe he does. “White privilege” of the kind Mark Bray and Todd Gitlin and Wolf Blitzer enjoy is comfortable and lucrative, but kind of boring. The heady, seductive glamour of violence is one of the oldest siren songs on earth — which is why so many of antifa’s revolting masses are, in fact, upper-middle-class white students enjoying a leisurely, pampering, undemanding varsity, and for whom taking a truncheon to an Ann Coulter fan is far more satisfying than dozing through Transgender and Colonialism Studies at GRID. From pseudo-scholarship to pseudo-grievances to pseudo-heroism is an easy progress — easier than, say, volunteering to help out in Texas. Because it’s always easier to destroy than to build — and certainly much easier to destroy than to re-build:

Almost every word painstakingly engraved on that obelisk has been obliterated. It stood for 225 years, and it was destroyed in the blink of an eye.

When the statues are gone, what or who will be next? My humdrum observation, after time in Belfast, Mostar, Tikrit, the West Bank and elsewhere, is that violence is intoxicating — and, once you’ve picked up the habit, kicking it is awfully difficult.

More or less exactly 224 years ago, Bertrand Barère, a moneyed journalist, lawyer and intellectual and member of France’s Committee of Public Safety, told his fellow revolutionaries:

Plaçons la terreur à l’ordre du jour!

Let us make terror the order of the day! It will be, if this fever keeps up….

Indeed, the chances that constant Terrorism will come to the streets of America via Revolutionaries rather than via Muslims, I would say, is higher because the Elites are behind the former all-the-way.(2)  Considering the way they shed tears of joy over #Occupy’s actions but a few years ago and considering their deeply felt and hidden Nihilism, the Elites can’t wait to watch the ‘Fascists’ get a good beating at the hands of their Commie Dupes  [they will ‘watch’, mind you, on a TV or smart device far away from where their Tools are doing the deeds].

And these Masterminds would obviously prefer home-grown Terrorists to one’s that come from outside The West.  You see, the Muslims…well, they just lack a certain Romantic air that the Western Misfits have in spades [can I say that?].  I mean, what’s a young man in a Super Bowl loser’s championship tee-shirt, a ‘loyal customer rewards’ coupon for the local strip joint in his pocket, and stolen sneakers with a home-made suicide vest compared to a transgendered, bi-curious, bi-polar WASP, who is a graduate in Feminist Studies and wears a black silk scarf over his/her/its/[see footnote #1 again] face and carries an iPhone in his/her/its/yada-yada’s designer backpack?

The buttoned-down Revolutionaries always prefer their lesser [in their minds] comrades to be, basically, from the same stock as they are [see: The French and Russian Revolutions and, for a more literary portrait, The Devils by Dostoevsky(3)].  They’re easier to manipulate, don’t you know.

I had thought that in the aftermath of #Occupy this kind of Terrorism would take off.  I was wrong.  It seems it needed a few years to incubate in the lecture halls and internet cafes of America.  —Or, perhaps, the #Occupy’s failure forced a retreat and a regrouping, during which, by happy happenstance, Donald J. Trump, Demon Of Demons, came on the scene and was elected President.  I suppose we have to leave this kind of speculation to future Historians of The West — if there are any left.

I do take some satisfaction — grim-laced though it may be — that, if the Left triumphs, many of the Elites who sat back on their tailored arses, sipping fine wines and encouraging the Malcontents and Misfits, will find themselves subject to the dictates of their more committed comrades — their Strelnikovs — like Lenin:

We’ll ask the man, where do you stand on the question of the revolution?

Are you for it or against it?

If he’s against it, we’ll stand him up against a wall.

This is the way all Revolutions go — all of them.

  1. Then shouldn’t it read ‘lecturer in his/herstory’? or ‘lecturer in itsstory’? or, keeping grammatically correct [why, I don’t know, at this point]: ‘lecturer in zestory/xyrstory‘? or…[falls to the floor drooling and babbling-on about how ‘my brain hurts!’].
  2. This is not to claim that the Mohammedins will not play their part in the Revolution, but the Masterminds of The Left In America believe that they will be able to control the Allah Acolytes — Awakening, meet Rude.
  3. Reading The Devils [sometimes known as The Possessed or Demons] is not a pleasant experience.  There’s no one to root for, no hero.  What is portrayed is a world gone absolutely Mad, one that is populated by Souls that are either Desiccated or Dead or Dying slowly and painfully.  Feodor Dostoevsky’s fiction was, sadly, no exaggeration.  However, I would highly recommend you read it at least once to help in your understanding of The Leftist Mindset.  I would recommend the translation by David Magarshack.
  1. 06 September 2017 @ 10:38 10:38

    The only two decent revolutions were the Glorious and American.

    Every once since then has been more about drowning imagined enemies in blood.

    • 06 September 2017 @ 13:59 13:59


      The difference between the two Revolutions you mentioned and all of the others is that the former were conducted under the old definition of ‘revolution’.

      As Russell Kirk wrote [re-paragraphing mine]:

      We need first to examine definitions of that ambiguous word “revolution.” The signification of the word was altered greatly by the catastrophic events of the French Revolution, commencing only two years after the Constitutional Convention of the United States.

      Before the French explosion of 1789-99, “revolution” commonly was employed to describe a round of periodic or recurrent changes or events – that is, the process of coming full cycle; or the act of rolling back or moving back, a return to a point previously occupied.

      Not until the French radicals utterly overturned the old political and social order in their country did the word “revolution” acquire its present general meaning of a truly radical change in social and governmental institutions, a tremendous convulsion in society, producing huge alterations that might never be undone.

      Thus when the eighteenth-century Whigs praised the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688, which established their party’s domination, they did not mean that William and Mary, the Act of Settlement, and the Declaration of Rights had produced a radically new English political and social order. On the contrary, they argued that the English Revolution had restored tried and true constitutional practices, preservative of immemorial ways. It was James II, they contended, who had been perverting the English constitution; his overthrow had been a return, a rollingback, to old constitutional order; the Revolution of 1688, in short, had been a healthy reaction, not a bold innovation.

      The Whigs, Burke among them, here were employing that word “revolution” in its older sense….
      [from A Revolution Not Made But Prevented]

  2. Adobe_Walls permalink
    06 September 2017 @ 17:38 17:38

    One suspects that neither the current elitists or their dogs will measure up to the ideal of ”of the New Man” that all ”revolutions” since our founding have striven for.

    • 07 September 2017 @ 08:29 08:29

      Well, there’s The Soviet Man…wait, that didn’t work out to0 well…ummm, well, it hasn’t really been tried yet.


  1. You Say You Want A Revolution?… | The Camp Of The Saints

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: