Archive for October 7th, 2009

Why I Wrote About the March on Rome

Once again, let me explain why I wrote something.

Several times here I have discussed the fact that Mussolini almost missed The March on Rome that put him into power. He made a speech, probably not for the first time, that the Italian people should march on Rome and force a government that would GOVERN.

As I say, he had probably said that a hundred times. But this time it hit a note, and while Mussolini went about his routine, the March was building up and being organized. He found out about it at the last minute and rushed to lead it.

I am reminded of 1992 when Larry King asked Ross Perot if he would be willing to run for the presidency and Perot said yes. Within days Perot had a spontaneous national campaign organization and with in a couple of weeks he was way ahead in a three-way poll.

These are extreme examples, but a thinking person should see the importance of them. If the actual leaders have no idea what the unrest is like, if they come within view of taking power without even feeling the waves, how about the rest of us, especially the “experts?”

I have discussed the fact that as the USSR was going down cartoons depicted Estonians and Ukrainians demanding independence as drunks in Confederate uniforms. Within DAYS of that barrage of cartoons they began to pull out in mass.

These are giant examples. They have all been carefully forgotten. But there are endless smaller examples.

I have agreed with liberals that if Obama had been white it would have been a landslide. Bush left us both a financial crisis as big as any since 1929 AND an unsinkable, endless war with no exit strategy. EACH of those things took out a historical president who went from a landslide win to a landslide loss, Hoover and Johnson.

BOTH of them combined got Obama a respectable victory.

There has been talk about he tea parties, but you have no idea what is going on unless you see the world as I, and I hope WE, do. Once again, let me repeat what I have said many times: respectable conservatives have always been conservative respectable.

In respectable conservatives you are saying these are conservatives who are respectable. You’ve got their priorities backward. Their first and only real loyalty has been to respectability. National Review has always made it clear that they are part of the establishment first, that they will ditch anybody who really offends liberals. They are first and foremost respectable and any disagreement with Political Correctness is way down on the list.

What shocked the bejesus out of liberals was that a huge groundswell of those lamb like respectables suddenly became blatantly unrespectable, shouting, threatening, violently cowing their opponents the way only leftists have ever been allowed to do.

Every issue of National Review contains at least one apology for it.

No one can analyze this unless he looks at the examples of the March on Rome, Perot’s lead for the presidency which only a psycho could have screwed up, and the world press’s laughter at the idea that the Soviet Republics would secede.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

2 Comments