The immorality of Nathan Robinson’s far-left American revolution

WaEx: There are fanatics on the far-right of American politics. But there are also fanatics on the far-left.

Nathan Robinson demonstrated as much Monday when he optimistically warned that revolution is coming to America.

Writing in the Guardian, Robinson explains that America is now imprisoned by a “totalitarian” class of “a few dozen rich white men” in the Senate and on the Supreme Court, who disenfranchise the majority of Americans. Robinson says these men are destined for destruction. “History’s bloody revolutions show us what happens when this gap becomes too large, and the government entirely ceases to effectively represent the governed.” Robinson excitedly continues, “Conservatives will continue to push unpopular policies on an unwilling United States. But it’s unclear how long people will accept having decisions made for them by a few dozen rich white men.”

He might be writing in a high-brow publication, but there isn’t much difference between what Robinson wants and what far-right white supremacists want: the violent annihilation of America as it is. Yes, Robinson, a Harvard University doctoral student and the editor of Current Affairs, is more articulate than the other side’s extremists. But his arguments, like all arguments for revolution against a fundamentally just and appropriately malleable form of government, are no more moral.

When Robinson discusses “bloody revolution,” he means specifically the destruction of the Constitution. The so-called rich white men hold power by the constitutional action of the electorate, the Senate, and past presidents. To remove their power requires the annihilation of our constitutional democracy.

In short, this is authoritarian fanaticism veiled as a liberation struggle. And it is a pathway to bloody misery.

Unless bound to constitutional and democratic will, revolutions mean either unending power struggles that bring evermore bodies, or else unjust totalitarian government. But perhaps Robinson doesn’t care about this. Perhaps, as with European traditions of far-left mythology, Robinson believes that tyranny and violence are worth giving up the free and prosperous country we have now.  more here

14 Comments on The immorality of Nathan Robinson’s far-left American revolution

  1. A “few dozen white men” gave us the greatest government in the history of the world. It’s now at risk from people who do not appreciate that.

    If this yutz actually starts advocating for a bloody revolution and overthrow of the constitution, perhaps he should be reminded that doing so is a very serious crime.

    (Meanwhile, WTH is this “fanatics on the far right” and “white supremacism” crap. I’m getting really tired of the false balance in the media. Aside, the Nazis — those National Socialists — were also “far left”.)

    27
  2. There are about 2-3,000 ‘white nationalists’ whom we could all pretty reasonably call racists. That’s per the leftist SPLC. I don’t know that I would call them right-wing, but then I don’t really know how I would describe right-wing if left-wing is communism. Those racists certainly aren’t libertarian.
    And I am skipping all the minority racists, which we all know don’t count because the leftists love them.
    I’m pretty much in the middle. I like small government that acknowledges and protects my individual rights and the rights of others and defends my country. That’s a middle perspective, right?

    11
  3. However, something’s gotta give. It’s better to annihilate the left and pick up the pieces afterward than it is to sit by and watch them destroy this country.

    19
  4. Mr. Robinson (appears?) to be a cuckold. I read as much as I could stand of his manifesto, and I am pretty sure that he is a faggot. With @janitor stated above, once the bloody revolution begins, Mr. Robinson will be one of the first to hang……. where are the fookin’ animal pictures?
    “Speaking the truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act.” Geo. Orwell

    15
  5. I’m with Tim Buktu and Crackerbaby and Mr Janitor. The time has come. And where are the animal pictures?

    You will not piss on our Constitution with impunity. Serve your ropes well (as you always do), and aim small.

    13
  6. imagine if there were no internet to inform people…We wouuld be part of the EU and worse. Thank God for al gore. eh?

    9
  7. What’s troubling is that the schools and universities are pumping these people out by the tens of thousands. They’ve taken root and aren’t going away and at some point must be confronted. It’s a cultural rot implanted by the left {and foreigners} that can bring us all down and there is no simple answer.
    A free society requires cooperation and agreement between citizens that share a common vision and that cornerstone has been eroded.
    At this point one side or the other must be forced into compliance with the other. We are living in interesting times.

    6
  8. What *is* it with those on the Right (in this case, the author of the WaEx article) having the hand-wringing *need* to mention “the radical right” when criticizing the Radical (now, more and more the Center) Left?!?

    Have you *ever* read or heard a Leftist starting out with, “There are fanatics on the far-left of American politics. But there are also fanatics on the far-right.” or “He might be writing in a high-brow publication, but there isn’t much difference between what Robinson wants and what far-left identity supremacists want”?!?

    The Left must be ANNIHILATED. Don’t think they’ll hesitate a SECOND to crush us, should they ever take substantial control *ever* again.

    7
  9. Everyone take a chill, if the basement dwelling soy boy latte chuggers want a war vs war veteran first responders bring it.

    We have your six my friends…

    4
  10. “….But it’s unclear how long people will accept having decisions made for them by a few dozen rich white men.”

    Let me answer that for you Nathan. 2016 and the election of Donald J. Trump. Were it not for him, the “bloody revolution” would, in my mind be well under way.

    3
  11. “… the government entirely ceases to effectively represent the governed.”

    The “government” isn’t supposed to “represent” the “governed.”
    In a “representative Republic” the “governed” ARE the “government!”
    See the distinction? Sense the difference?

    But you would have a limitless “government” “represent” the “governed?”

    Ein Volk
    Ein Reich
    Ein Fuehrer?

    Didn’t the Fuehrer represent the “will” of the whole people?
    Didn’t Lenin “personify” the “will” of the whole “proletariat?”

    If we would abide by our Constitution, we would be self-governing and not having to concern ourselves with being “governed” by mysterious white men. But, alas, asshats like you continue to expand the power of the bureaucracy over the sovereign people until we are, indeed, “governed” by nameless, faceless, mysterious judges, bureaucrats, and Wall Street moguls.

    Fuck You.
    Eat Shit.
    And Die.

    izlamo delenda est …

    5

Comments are closed.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!