Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – “That’s what blobists are, they’re majoritarians. They think because if they have a majority then they can force you and they can force me into the majority by virtue of that majority power even though we’re in the minority. Folks, this is why a system of democracy is a crock.” Check out today’s transcript for the rest….
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
Moreover, argued Kendall, the legacy of the Lincolnian heresy gives birth to the modern liberal concept that it is the responsibility of the central national government to promote leveling, and in particular, it is the solemn duty of the President to lead the attack. It is a succession of strong Presidents, each looking more deeply into the ultimate meaning of an American tradition rooted in leveling, which will launch the nation on a continuing series of missions. These missions will entail marshaling majoritarian mandates for the long-term purpose of bringing us finally to the perfected egalitarian society. Those opposing the egalitarian New Jerusalem [Mike: Boy howdy, is that a bold but correct statement right up in there.] will have to be labeled for what they are—selfish recalcitrants and obstructionists, and with the unrelenting pressure of exposure and “education” their resistance can be overcome.
An integral part of liberal egalitarianism is unshakable confidence in majoritarianism . . .
Mike: That’s what blobists are, they’re majoritarians. They think because if they have a majority then they can force you and they can force me into the majority by virtue of that majority power even though we’re in the minority. Folks, this is why a system of democracy is a crock. It is a smelly crock of stinky Mr. Ed you-know-what. [mocking] “Yeah, but everybody gets a vote.” So? What if I’m right and I’m on the losing side of the vote. You get to take my house? Really? What a great system. I can’t wait to participate in that one.
As Kendall viewed it, in modern liberal hands an additional corollary has been added to the majoritarian concept which demands the abolition of all obstacles to the instant expression of the majority will. In specific terms of the American experience, this means the elimination of the seniority system, the filibuster, staggered elections, the amending process, non-programmed political parties, and in general, anything that inhibits instant expression of majority preferences.
In fine, liberal ideology seeks to establish a system based upon plebiscitary mandates, and it is a cardinal tenet of liberal ideology that if the majority will can be unshackled, it will vote in an egalitarian society. Thus, in Kendall’s analysis, all liberal thinking ultimately returns to the touchstone of leveling.
Mike: Let’s skip ahead a little bit and then we’ll get to the topic at hand today with Veronique de Rugy carping and crying and complaining about how statists out there are in mayors’ houses, mayors’ homes and in statehouses. Certainly there are statists, but certainly they’re not all statists.
Kendall argued that it is not in abstract, natural rights wrenched out of the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights in which one finds the core of American political thought as envisioned by the Framers; rather, it is to the Preamble and The Federalist that one must look. From Kendall’s perspective, the Preamble is the “finest statement of purpose” of the American experiment. Instead of speaking of Rights, Equality, Power, and Demands, the Preamble speaks of union, justice, tranquility, the common defense, the general welfare, and the blessings of liberty . . .
How are the goals of the Preamble to be achieved? As Kendall analyzed the intention of the Framers, they are to be attained by self-government. In the eloquent words of Publius: “The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.” . . .
It is then from careful textual analysis of The Federalist, that Kendall extracted the basic symbols of the American political tradition, which over and against contemporary liberalism, is the conservative tradition, and the principal competitor of the modern liberal orthodoxy. As indicated, the goals are symbolized in the Preamble, and are to be achieved through self-government. The supreme symbol that Kendall extracted out of The Federalist is that showing in what manner we are to achieve self-rule. As Kendall read Publius, self-government is to be achieved by “the deliberate sense of a virtuous people.” Publius spoke of “the cool and deliberate sense of the community,” of the importance of “reflection and choice,” and of the “fullest and most mature deliberation.”
It is then the deliberative process which is the supreme symbol of The Federalist. The end product of the deliberative process is consensus on how best to deal with concrete problems at specific points in history in order to achieve, in the words of Publius . . .
Mike: Remember, Publius was the pen name given the authors of The Federalist. By the way, if you don’t know this, if you’re a new listener here to the Mike Church Show on the Crusade Channel, part of the Veritas Radio Network, The Federalist Papers were not called The Federalist Papers when they were published. They simply weren’t. Anyone that tells you that they were is lying to you; they weren’t. What they were called was The Federalist. It didn’t say “Papers.” They were published what we would call newspaper editorials today. You can still see original copies of them online if you look them up. You can see how they were originally printed as opinion pieces in newspapers. They weren’t issued – they weren’t carried on giant gilded stretchers by men in fancy suits with fancy hats and placed on a fine linen-shrouded pedestal where everybody got down on their knees and went: Ahhhh!! Nothing of the sort.
As a matter of fact, it’s dubious to even say that The Federalist had anything to do with ratifying the Constitution seeing as how they were published in October, November, and December of 1787, and at that time New York had a convention, was meeting in December of 1787, and refused to ratify. They wouldn’t even put it to a vote. So to think that The Federalist had any real impact is ridiculous. That’s historically ignorant. New York would not ratify until July of 1788, and then only after they learned that Virginia had ratified. If they had had telegraphs back then, neither one of them would have ratified. We wouldn’t be having this conversation. We probably wouldn’t be stuck with Mordor on the Potomac River. Alas, we are. Too bad.
To the subject of what – I’m going to leave that Federalist discussion there. We got a little taste now. I would just say, to what John P. East has written here, that I would disagree that it was a good thing that the founders came to the wonderful, revolutionary revelation that all power ascends from the bottom up, from the people. That is an absolutely destructive and rotten way to organize a government. You know how I know? Because we are the end result of that.
We, baby killers all. We, war criminals or living under a government that commits war crimes daily. We, producing drone operators that have no problem killing people that they can see on video camera feeds in the third world and countries they can’t even identify on a map. We, marrying sodomites. We, talking about making now holy or allegedly holy ground inside brothels that are called bars because homosexuals were shot in there. The list can go on and on. We, who can’t even tell the difference officially between a man and a woman. We, who are about to bring to the discussion pederasty as a social benefit. We, who are about to elect Donald Trump as president. The list could go on and on.
We’re a virtuous people? Ha! Are there virtuous people in America? Yeah. Is the United States as it presents itself to the world virtuous? [mocking] “Mike, you should not say that.” Well, prove me wrong. Where’s the evidence? So to assuage your guilty conscience you chip a couple bucks into a Red Cross fund for some people that survive. Look at those poor brown people. They survived a tsunami. Wah, wah, wah. Sure, yeah, that’s great. Go to the inner city in Detroit. Go find some kids who haven’t eaten in a couple days. You think maybe somebody would do something about that? Oh, no.
You know what we ought to do? Take some of the thinking that’s gone into the wars for the establishment of American exceptionalism across the planet. What we ought to do, since war is so beneficial to people in Afghanistan according to some neocons who still listen to this show from time to time and write me, I often suggest to them, and they have no answer for this – Ryan S., you think we ought to maybe, I don’t know, bomb Detroit? Look how well it looked out for the Japanese. We ought to go nuke another. Look, if you’ve got a city somewhere that’s starving, if you have a city somewhere that’s struggling, the best thing that could happen to them is for the United States to drop a 50 kiloton atomic weapon on them. Yeah, it’s going to fry 700,000 but that’s okay.
Please, Mr. Church, we can’t be bothered by these details. We’re Americans. [mocking] “Mitter Church, look at the long-term benefit. The Japanese kick our butt in manufacturing. We did them a favor.” I have actually witnessed people saying this, that we did the Japanese a favor. Well, good. Why don’t we do the people of Detroit a favor? Just imagine if we vaporize Ford, Chrysler – I was going to say the big three, but there aren’t three anymore, are there? Isn’t it just really the big one? Just imagine if we vaporize Ford and General Motors – well, you know what? Don’t hit them with a neutron bomb. Well, yeah, hit them with a neutron bomb because that just kills everything organic. No, we need a kind of bomb that destroys buildings, because that’s what the Japanese got and that’s to their benefit. The wonders of dropping nukes on people. [mocking] “Mike, you’re making that up. No conservative I know of talks like that.” You wanna bet? Would you like me to prove it to you?
Cousin Eddie said to Clark Griswold in National Lampoon’s Vacation: You know, Clark, it looks like you’re doing pretty good. You think you could maybe give us a loan, loan us a little spare cash? Sure, Eddie. How much you need? About $52,000. I don’t need $52,000; $5,200 today would be fantastic. I probably won’t get it through membership sales and book sales and all that, but that’s a nice goal for today. Back to the discussion at hand here. I have actually heard people say that. I’ll wager you the $5,200 and I’ll prove it to you.
What we need to do with Detroit and other cities that are struggling is we need an atomic weapon that destroys things. We want the burned-out bodies, too, because that’s fun to look at on YouTube and say: They got what they deserved. I’m sure the people in Detroit, according to some of you, will get what they deserved. You’ve got to have the destruction, too, that way there has to be a rebuilding. When there’s rebuilding, that’s always beneficial. If you have a city that’s underperforming in America, to use the intellectual ramblings of your average conservative Republican member of the Tea Party, drop a couple of nukes there, problem solved.
Number one, you won’t have to deal with these idiots any longer. When the new people move back in and build the city back up all shiny and new, bammo, instant construction, instant jobs. You name it, baby, they get it all. What a great jobs plan. Jobs through nukes. What a fantastic idea. What a great American campaign slogan. Hey, what are you for? I’m for jobs through nukes. How does that work? Well, we find a city that’s in need of a nuclear holocaust because they’re underperforming. Then we just drop a bomb on there and blow half the city to kingdom come, vaporize every living organic soul there. The ones that survive serve as an example to other cities: Don’t become a jobs through nukes city. What a great idea. I’m going to patent that. Copyright 2016 King Dude “Jobs Through Nukes.”
This is all prelude to this. We talked a little bit about federalism. We talked a little bit about the federal system. We talked about – let me finish one more point. If power doesn’t come from the ground up, if it doesn’t come from the people up and then boils up to the elite, where does it come from then? That’s a good question. I hate to keep being repetitive about this and being accused of, [mocking] “You and your Catholicism. You had to mention it again.”
You know what Christopher and I are going to do later today? I am going to work on a sound effect. Whenever I’m getting ready to go Catholic on this show, I’m just going to hit the button to warn you. That way it’s kind of like a bomb, like an air raid siren. You’ll hear the air raid siren and then you’ll hear Handel’s “Messiah.” That’ll be your clue that the C word is about to come up. All of you that it so angers and so convinces you that my career is in jeopardy, you did it again, the very existence of the Crusade Channel is tethered and hanging on the balance of me uttering the C word, maybe I’ll just start warning people. That way your friend won’t get angry when he hears it used in a sentence.
End Mike Church Show Transcript