Punchinello’s Chronicles

April 17, 2009

Upholding the Law is Not a Protest!

Filed under: Word of the Day — Punchinello @ 2:55 pm
Tags: , , , ,

Semantically speaking, a protest is a declaration of disagreement. Protests carry no particular moral judgment, they’re just a statement of opposition to any other statement or action. The Baby Boomer generation is one of the most divided generations in modern history. Half the group wanted to pretty much maintain the status quo, the other half wanted a “revolution.” The war in Viet Nam became a flash-point, and half the Boomer generation learned about protest marches.

The Viet Nam war and Civil Rights Movement ushered in things like Eastern philosophies and religions, meditation, yoga, and drugs. Everyone started learning about civil disobedience. Mahatma Gandhi used passive disobedience to successfully bring about independence for the nation of India. The peace-and-love generation here in America followed suit.

The question is what sort of tyranny and slavery were the Baby Boomers concerned about? Nobody knew. It was a mystery. All we knew was that “they,” the “establishment” and the military-industrial complex were repressing freedom everywhere. By demanding responsible, rational and moral obligations to go along with freedom, the establishment was enslaving the youth generation.

A “protest,” following all the civil unrest of the 1960s, has come to mean marches and crowds, gatherings and signs, linked arms and chanting songs like “We Shall Overcome.” Overcome what? It’s come to mean a watchful group of “freedom fighters” opposing government action when that action is clearly immoral and unjust. Basically, a protest means interfering with The Government.

What’s particularly interesting about the April 15 tea party protests and gatherings is that they’re upholding the US Constitution.

Let’s suppose a group of people are witnessing a crime taking place. Perhaps they see a rape about to happen, or a gang attacking a person in a park. If that group moves to intervene, prevent the crime and take the perpetrators into custody, is that a “protest?” There’s a connotation and context to the word protest. It assumes a basic platform of truth.

Protests generally indicate a disagreement over an action. Argument, opposition, rebuttal refer to disagreement over statements and logic. We protest and action of some kind. We disagree with a statement of some sort.

Back in the 60s, the people protesting America’s actions in Viet Nam tended mostly to be the so-called hippies. Those hippies wanted communes, social freedom, no rules, and wanted to tear down all the established behavioral systems of the past. It’s true that the black population, women, and 18-yearolds were disenfranchised (not allowed to vote), and so those three basic rights became the moral justification for tearing down everything else.

Disagreement was sufficient. Anyone could and should protest. Sadly, those hippies never had anything to replace the rules of society. They only wanted to be able to do whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted, as long as it felt good. They were “doing their own thing, man,” with protests against anyone who told them “no.”

From there, the hippies moved into academia. They understood that changing the way children were educated would eventually change the overall foundation of the nation. Modern education, modern linguistics, the psychology of self-esteem, fairness, multi-culturalism, deconstructionism all became the social weapons of the hippies.

And so today we have a nation of people, half of whom have no idea what makes a society. The Baby Boomers are now the parents and grandparents of the next generations. Those generations also are split, right down the middle. But what exactly is the “establishment?” Nobody knows. It’s a mystery.

The Establishment is the foundation of America. It’s the United States Constitution and the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence. The Establishment is fair-market capitalism, open markets, limited government, limited taxation. The Establishment is a nation with a sound currency, owned and managed by the government of the people.

That’s what the hippies wanted to tear down. And they succeeded. What do they have as a replacement? Socialism, big government, redistribution of wealth, and most importantly, the freedom to do whatever feels good at the moment. It’s a combination of hedonism with socialism, where nobody has to face consequences or be responsible for anything.

Do the people struggling to lay down sandbags in the face of a flooding river “protest” the flood? Are firefighters “protesting” a burning building? Are the police and law-enforcement officers “protesting” criminal actions?

Presupposing that there is such a thing as moral virtue, right and just actions, a legal system, values, and an organized society, are we “protesting” the destruction of that system?

The tax-day tea parties may be a protest. But the active impediment to the destruction of the American foundation can’t be called a protest. We don’t protest a home invasion, the torture and plundering of a person’s home, and the murder of the people in that home. We stand in forceful opposition to lawless invasions. And that’s where modern linguistics and the destruction of the language have finally succeeded.

With today’s liberals (and progressives) having mostly grown out of the hippie movement of the 1960s, any disagreement of any kind, with any sort of proposition is a “protest.” And just like in the 60s, protests are routinely met with police in riot gear. They’re met with “established” opposition. The hippies then are today The Establishment.

The real question is what “establishment” do we want, here in America? Do we want the established nation of America as set forth by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution? Or do we want a “changed,” new establishment? What would that new establishment look like? Socialism and communes? Free love? Dope for everyone? A handout from “mommy and daddy” dressed up as the New Government?

Yes. That’s exactly what the hippies want! They want to do whatever they feel like doing. Intentions matter more than results and consequences. And when failed intentions produce disastrous consequences, they want mommy and daddy to step in to clean up the mess, accept a sincere apology, and provide a “do-over.”

People with an organized system of virtue resist and intervene against actions designed to tear apart that system. When a lawful nation sets out on a wrong course, the citizens should protest. Moral people should stand against tyranny, slavery, robbery, plundering, and irresponsible action.

But when an unlawful group of thugs take over a government, plunder the treasury, steal the wealth and shut down the organization of a healthy system, they should be removed and thrown in jail. Honorable citizens don’t “protest” a tyrannical dictator like Saddam Hussein! The invasion of Iraq wasn’t a “protest!” A morality of virtue underlies rightful action to overcome criminal government. That’s what today’s liberals don’t understand. They don’t believe in virtue, therefore it doesn’t exist.


Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: