Why Aren’t There Major Protests Against the Unpopular Iran War?

In which, in nine minutes, Glenn refines the nature of the divide in the country.

It’s not about blue and red, R and D, left and right, urban and rural, rich and poor, young and old.

It’s about people who benefit from and (therefore) support the Establishment, and those who revile it.

Once again of course I am way off one end of the spectrum, and I know you don’t need to think too hard about which end.

I don’t think the Establishment consists of just the military-industrial complex, or the Empire, or the billionaires, or the pervasively insidious myths, like higher education being the key to economic prosperity and happiness.

Rather: from inside the Establishment, it seems natural to accept that there must be such things as leaders, Rulers (or “representatives” of the People’s will in the modern allegedly democracy take on things).

That acceptance is garbage, a conspiracy we participate in ourselves, against ourselves.

To the extent that being Civilized means that we must live in settled hierarchical groups instead of tribes with a flatter distribution of assets, wealth, and power … I am anti-Civ, anti-Establishment.

Pro-anarch, Pro-Eden.

Reflexively averse to anyone setting themselves above us. I don’t care what they call themselves: king, president, senator, CEO, boss, chief, cop, judge, anointed, or just the Dean of the division or the chair of the department.

No.

I don’t accept your rule over me, no matter the caliber of your gun, the shine of your badge, the loftiness of your degree, or whether the ‘election’ that sought to put you above me was ‘fair’ or rigged.

Just no.

As a rational being, I have to be wary of what you can do to me, ‘legally’ or otherwise.

But I don’t, and won’t, agree to the made-up social contract bullshit that purports to give you the right to rule.

I do not and will not consent to your attempted Establishment of rulership, even when I’m following the sane or insane rules.