Often a given day is dominated by heated discussion of a handful of important news items. In our post-post-modern era, a news item can mean simply a widely-shared social media post made by someone on either our side or their side, and the reaction to it by both sides.
Many commentary threads lately focus on the destruction of public statuary that been underway around the country and the world during the last three weeks. Among my progressive friends with whom I no longer share fellowship is at least one who I know was very much in favor of the earlier wave of statue pulldowns a couple years ago in the United States, the ones associated with the American Civil War. I wonder how he feels about the latest round of demolitions, now the mob has come for one of our mutual heroes, a figure that one would have thought to have been beyond reproach even a week ago. If I had to guess, I suspect he would say it's sad but necessary to preserve the momentum of the greater movement towards justice. But I could be wrong. On an individual level, people surprise you.
I would assert that we can agree upon at least one rule about all this with absolutely certainty: the probability of certain events coming to pass which were previously ridiculed by progressives as arising from a fear-fantasy of their opponents is increasing at an accelerating rate.
To get a clue as to what the other side will likely do in the near future, look at whatever accusations their prominent figures scoffed at only a short while ago. We just want to remove these few statues that are manifestly offensive to common decency. We'd never, ever tear down those other monuments you mentioned. Are you insane?
Then later, when the outrageous fantasy does indeed come to pass, playing out with a breathtaking abruptness such that no one could dare oppose it as it happened, some of them will shamelessly say: Of course we meant those other ones too!
Along these lines, this morning one of the buzzes in my feed was the commentary in reaction to a fresh tweet from an activist on the other side who is prominent on social media among the The-Slogan-We-Are-All-Supposed-to-Repeat-Right-Now Movement. In line with the scenario I.described above, one of the longstanding tactics used by his side of the war is to advocate doing something hitherto considered too outrageous even to be considered, if you had heard it before that very moment.
This is a tried-and-true ancient tactic of the progressives: propose the outrageous and catch the other side off guard. The suggestion itself is only nominally important. The real purpose is to stun their opponents with their audacious confidence. Specifically it is designed to demoralize and confuse the other side, enfeebling any resistance the other side would offer against their own advance to power. The more outrageous the suggestion is, the better.
Of course many progressives, upon hearing this description of their tactics, might well respond, in an I'm-shocked-shocked tone of voice, that the idea that they do this kind of thing is a paranoid fantasy by our side. This is despite it being explicitly documented, advocated, and studied by famous people on their side, including presidents and presidential candidates. Some of the more innocent progressives don't realize the truth of this, however, or don't want to know it, so their ignorance can be genuine on this point.
But for the ones who are more aware, the bald-faced denial of this tactic, even while in the midst of employing it, makes it especially delicious to wield as a weapon against us. The ones with a darker nature love the look of disorientation in our eyes when they shatter a new taboo of discussion. They thrive on it. They like to catch us unawares. They want to provoke a deeper level of fear in us, so that we blurt out, even with our expressions: What!? You can't possibly be serious!
Of course they are serious. Your stammering reaction was exactly what they were hoping for.
The widely shared tweet this morning was in the category of just such a demoralization missile disguised as a shocking beyond-the-pale suggestion. The activist stated as a fresh demand on the heels of their ongoing success at removing public imagery that they don't like, which they suspect might be beloved, admired, or simply tolerated as historically important by our side (I don't buy at all that they are actually offended by these monuments, so I won't even use those words).
Now that we as a nation have finally been addressing the scourge of colonialist monuments--explorers, founding fathers, army generals, saints, etc---we need to advance to the next logical level, he said. We need to address the oppressive whiteness of the historical depiction of Jesus Christ that is endemic to western art and religion. He demanded that all public images that depict Jesus with identifiably European features, including those inside churches, be removed at once. Of course we all know the manner in which his side removes public monuments these days.
His tweet got a lot of traction across the spectrum, so one can count it a rousing success. The activist is white, for what it's worth.
The reactions of course were varied. It so happens that in my feed I follow many lay Catholic men who are on our side. From what I observed, the response among this particular Twitter subculture to his tweet was generally along the lines of a cool: We'll be waiting for you.
I wish them well, the defenders, and will pray that however it plays out it will be peaceful. Our side has become widely aware that even the raw act of defending ourselves from physical attack from the other side is considered an act of unacceptable violence by the mainstream media.
It should be noted, however, that it's harder to demoralize and confuse the other side, if the people you are trying to demoralize and confuse are anticipating what you are going to say.
This is one of the huge blind spots of the progressives, and one of the reasons their movement is so weak. They think our side is stupid. Good on them for believing that. Our side should do as little as possible to disabuse them of this colossal strategic error.
But making them aware of this, even telling them that we know what they are going to do next, doesn't matter much at this point, I think. They wouldn't believe it anyway. They would rebel against any awareness of our awareness of them. At the moment, they are drunk on their own imagined ability to alter history and reshape reality by their collective will. People in the grip of that kind of ego-delusion are generally impervious to anything that might let them become aware of its limitations, often leading to sudden downfalls. If I were to draw an analogy from classic literature to illustrate this, I might say it is like what happens when one sells one's soul to the devil.
For me personally, there were two words in the activist's tweet this morning that caught my eye more than the others. They were his inclusion of stained glass among the categories of Christian art that are to be extracted from public view by whatever unspecified means. When I read those words in his tweet, I smiled.
Thank you, I said to him, silently. I would have been disappointed if you hadn't included those words.
Now I shall go pray for him, and repent of my pride.
In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti.
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio.
No comments:
Post a Comment