The teat fit is never a pretty thing, but we rarely consider it life threatening.
It can be.
Let me tell you a true tale from the Sepoy Mutiny in India, when the country was ruled by the East India Company (that’s right, capitalists). I only want to make a single, simple point here, but first need to set it up.
In 1857 this country of 500 million was managed by an army of clerks and businessmen who lived in white-only enclaves and palatial mansions much like Tara in Gone With the Wind. The Angrezi (English) memsahibs dressed like the female royalty of the Old South, in crinolated dresses, gliding up and down spiral staircases, and tittering over the finest Darjeeling tea and biscuits, while the men lounged at the club, and ran the many businesses that made up the East India Tea Company.
They led very genteel lives, with household help even cheaper to keep than the slaves in Mississippi.
The Company’s military shield at the time were English officers seconded by the British Army, its infantry called sepoys, made up of Hindus, and the cavalry, called sirdars, made up of Muslims horsemen from what is now Pakistan.
The Mutiny occurred because the Indian al Qaida of the day accelerated a blunder by the military provisioners into a full scale war, for it was widely whispered the Army contracted grease for the cotton wadding in their muskets made with both beef fat (an abomination to Hindus) and pork fat (an abomination to Muslims).
Such a tiny thing, you might think.
But suddenly, one day without warning, this native army rose in revolt, first killing officers who had led them for dozens of years. They stormed garrisons and besieged the towns of the sahibs, cities like Lucknow. It took a year and many battles to put the mutiny down, and when it was over, the British Crown, under a Viceroy, replaced the Company as the rulers of India.
There are dozens of stories of individual heroism from those early days of the revolt, some successful, some not so much, especially as the mutineers stormed many of the mansions throughout the region. One gentleman held off several sepoys with a single revolver while the rest of the household escaped to safety before he finally fell.
But there are also stories of individual infamy. One lady died because she refused to take off her crinoline, as it wasn’t seemly that the menfolk should see her thus. Two men then died trying to assist her as she tripped over the consarned thing in the attempted getaway, always making me wonder how many young men died on 9/11 because they wore their trousers halfway down their ass, and had to try to run with one hand holding their pants up. Or how many people they might have killed, if they fell, especially on stairs, tripping over them, to be trampled themselves?
Again, such a tiny thing, you might think.
But for absolute suicidal teat-fittery, I always conjur up the picture of the young woman who stood in the doorway of her father’s mansion, heedless to the urgings of her parents to run with them out the back way, stomping her feet in absolute rapturous indignation, “Make them go ’round to the back door, Mama, make them go ’round to the back door!” She was hacked to death.
Lots of lessons to be learned here, but the hardest one for me to swallow is the dark reality that, just as heroes will put aside the normal instincts of human survival and rush into a hail of bullets or a burning building, teat fittery can also suspend those survival instincts in people.
I’ve never understood this. Still, it exists. And it can kill.
This has scared me for years, for I know, properly massaged and induced, teat-fittery can be the most destructive force in American history…and we are rushing headlong into a period where it can be outcome determinative.
Obama’s Invisible Voters
This morning on a local talk show I listened to a man call in to say he just couldn’t vote for Mitt Romney. He just couldn’t. He could, though, vote for Ron Paul, who to date, isn’t likely to be on any national ballot, begging the obvious follow-up. “You staying home?”
Now, I’m one of those people who wants to vote “for” something when I can. But I shelved that rule in 2008, only to notice millions of other “conservatives” did not. If they couldn’t vote “for” the man or idea to their liking, by God, they’d take their ball and bat and go home.
Although Obama would likely have won in 2008 anyway, these “conservatives” still bear responsibility for some of the destruction he’s wrought, especially Obamacare, for it would never have passed in the form it did had Obama won by a much smaller margin, with a few extra Republicans sitting in the House and Senate.
The conservative non-vote in 2008 was instructive, for they had done the same thing in 2006, punishing the GOP (they thought) by handing the House over to Nancy Pelosi.
We can’t survive a three-fer.
In 2006 and 2008 these so-called “conservatives” and “libertarians” voted their condition, which clearly has trumped ideology and good sense.
My question is, does this condition also trump survival? If that little lady standing in the portico of her mansion in Lucknow is any indication, we should have cause for concern.
So, Now Hear This. (The fatwa)
There is only one candidate in this election. Only one. You either vote “for” Barack Obama or you vote “against” Barack Obama. If you vote for Ron Paul or Virgil Goode or Gary Johnson, you cast a vote “for” Barack Obama.
And if you crawl away in the corner and suck your thumb in morose silence, or scolding teat-fittery because Herman Cain isn’t the candidate, and Mitt Romney is, you also have cast a vote “for” Barack Obama.
A conservative who can’t critically reason, isn’t. A libertarian who can’t critically reason, isn’t. This is a simple “yes” or “no” election on national survival.
If you cannot understand this one simple rule of survival you are almost as big an enemy to the republic as the Obamailis themselves.
So, maybe we need to redefine “conservative” to include actions, for it’s clear to me that many professing conservatives and libertarians haven’t got a lick of practical sense, or any inclination for action other than sitting around in a barber shop commiserating about whoever the son of a bitch is in the White House.
True conservatives also act. They don’t just spout platitudes. And they act 1) like men (excuse me ladies, something of a misnomer, I know, since teat-fittery runs deeper these days among men than women, witness that Paulbots are male.) and 2) they know when to hold ’em and when to fold them. True conservatives understand that politics is the continuation of war by other means (von Clausewitz), and if the non-vote of teat-fittery ends the politics of liberty, and Obama and his people gain the dominion they seek, we still have a Plan B, and C, and D, that includes everything from scorching their behinds to scorching the earth, until we run out of lighter fluid.
While personally I don’t mind, like that young foot-stompin’ Scarlett O’Hara in India, you getting hacked to death over your cupidity, I cannot allow you to enslave me and mine in the bargain, without maybe Vinnie and Augie should come over to your house.
Bottom Line
While we’re spending a lot of time watching for voter suppression and vote theft from all the usual Democrat suspects, the Ron Paul-affected and disaffected conservative may be the biggest catch of all for the Democrats. And they’re fair game, because all the Dems have to do is press certain buttons. They don’t have to lie, steal or kill to get a single spoiled brat to stay home on November 6th.
