Dangerous Commentary from a Would-Be Galactic Dictator. Beg for Mercy at firstname.lastname@example.org
Thursday, July 12, 2018
You've Lost Your Freakin' Minds...
There were three separate events today, the implications of which have me ready to barf.
Before I describe these three distressing matters in detail, I want to send a message to a particularly narrow-minded, infantile, ridiculously credulous sort who has an annoying habit of calling him or herself " a Conservative". The truth is that most wouldn't know what being a conservative was if you fed them the ideology via a 72-hour enema. In order to be a Conservative, one must first be a Classical Liberal (if you don't know what that is, look it up, or just keep reading; I'll explain it to you).
Upon being informed of this, most would have seen their heads explode after "Classical" and upon the first syllable of "Liberal". The implication that anything "conservative" has anything to do with being "liberal" sends them into fits of apoplexy, primarily because they are woefully uninformed and unaware that neither term resembles it's commonly-held definition of 100, or even 200, years ago.
The Classical Liberal holds to the following tenets:
1. The individual is sovereign entity. He has innate rights (the conservative says "granted by God", I say "established by political and social compact, since God does not exist"), the list of which begins with the right of security, to own property, to have a say in his society, to be free of the coercion that can be applied by any force outside the confines of codified systems of law, the unwritten rules (as Francis Fukuyama once referred to them) of polite society, or by duly-elected government.
Liberty is the natural state of Man; the individual is more important than the Collective; the sovereign individual is the best arbiter of his own interests; Civil Society is the glue that holds civilization together, Civil Society must be tolerant of unpopular viewpoints and beliefs and protect them in the name of Liberty and the Individual's conscience; Spontaneous Order, in which individuals band together to solve their problems is better than any plan of government; the Rule of Law must be upheld, at all costs; Free Markets work better than any government mandate; Limited government, in that there are things the government is empowered to do by constitution, and should not be allowed to do, not only for the same reason, but because government is often incapable of dealing with specific, unique circumstances without creating injustice or inequality; the right to question, audit, investigate, and call to account those entrusted with power.
2. Governments are established for the purposes of safeguarding those rights and those civilization's needs only by consent of the governed. And for no other reason.
That pretty much covers the basics.
In the history of the West, those principles were created and fostered by Liberal Means -- the free exchange of ideas, the ability to speak and act freely against the dictates of Monarch or Church, the exercise of the power of the citizen to fight against injustice in defiance of an established order.
Men have died for these principles. In the millions. They are, in that context, sacred.
And we no longer have any "Conservatives", in a real sense. Political conservatism died the day National Review lost Florence King, parted ways with Mark Steyn and gave the keys to that fratboy, Rich Lowry, who on a good day, might be able to find his own buttocks with both hands and a road map. That was BEFORE George W. Bush came along and made it "compassionate", super-expensive, and attached firmly to expanded government. But that's all for another post.
Realistically, as "a conservative", what you seek to preserve is that system I've described. This is what conservatism stands for. Or at least, used to stand for.
But, there is a particularly vacuous type of fool running around calling themselves "conservative" with no idea of what the tenets of conservatism are. To some extent, this is an unavoidable consequence of an age of Managerialism (the division of the populace into issue-oriented voting blocs in order to forge momentarily-useful coalitions for electoral gain) and the advent of Identity Politics.
Nowadays, "conservatism" seems pre-occupied with identity to the extent where what it's all about has been lost. Today, people call themselves "conservative" because they practice the "right" religion; they hold the "right" opinions on guns or abortion; they express an unquestioning and undying love of country in which America is ALWAYS right and should always be first (to be honest, I kind of agree with some of this last part; the rest of the planet is full of pig-ignorant douchebags, who piss in the same ponds they drink from, which is largely jealous of this country -- which is why they all want to come here).
Which reminds me of a quote, I think it was Chesterton, and I'm paraphrasing:
"My Country, Right or Wrong, is morally equivalent to My Mother, Drunk or Sober."
Added to this muddy puddle of stupidity which flies in the face of Classical Liberalism, we can add the following, unattractive features: selective racism, hypocrisy, and an inability to understand anything that hasn't been spoon-fed to them by Hannity or Levin (Yes, broad brush. Spare me).
Then there's another distasteful trait that makes all the others pale in significance, which is the Cult of Personality. These same people worshiped Reagan, who could do no wrong, and have applied the same process of beatification to Trump. Neither can be criticized, even fairly, that it doesn't bring you back an accusation of being a commie faggot.
Which is rich, considering these are the same people who complained as if you shoved a thorny bush up their collective ass, sideways, about the Left behaving in similar fashion for either Clinton, any Kennedy, or Obama. And they have the same, ready-made excuse the left uses when they're called out on it:
"It's different when we do it because shut the fuck up."
Actually, that's too trite. Even if it is accurate. The way the "conservative" sees things, if they engage in diatribe, if they worship their current Messiah, if they will lie and are willing to be lied to in defense of what they hold dear, then that's just the price they're willing to let YOU pay so that they can enjoy their orgy of fucktard.
Call then out on it, and you get the other stock response you got from the Left when you called them out:
"We're fighting against years of oppression and injustice, therefore, anything we do, say or believe is automatically right."
Except that it isn't. Lies should not be answered with lies; abuses of power are not to be responded to with abuses of power; that which is obviously wrong must be corrected; when you fight stupid with stupid it quickly becomes a race to the bottom. And in the meantime you're probably going to justify some of the things the Left says about you, because, frankly, you're not the best and the brightest, either.
If you were, you wouldn't be in the examples I'm about to give.
Example #1 - Someone posts on Facebook that Judge Andrew Napolitano is "masquerading as a Conservative" on FoxNews.
What prompted this outburst is a criticism of Trump made by the Judge. The nature of the criticism, whether the criticism is warranted or justified, whether there is an intellectual defense to be made against the Judge, is not debated. The Judge has committed apostasy by maligning the Messiah, and, therefore, must be exposed and stoned in the public square as a Leftist operative. Worse, he did so on what is supposed to be a "conservative" network.
a) Umm, what part of "Fair and Balanced" did you miss?
b) Point out that Napolitano is a Libertarian, not a conservative and has never claimed to be a Conservative --and that this could be verified with a 5-second Google search -- and suddenly you're a sad, snowflake loser who is crying because Hillary lost, who isn't getting laid, and probably fondles children.
Somehow, people possessed of this level of deep-seeded moron are allowed to vote.
Example #2 - Confirmation Bias, or, Uncritical Acceptance of Obviously-Stupid Internet Memes That Can Be Debunked in Four Seconds or Less.
The meme posted at the start of this screed appeared in my Facebook feed today. If you didn't know it was satire, because you don't read the Babylon Bee, a notorious satire site (now added to the Blogroll), and you were an unblinkered dullard with no Google skillzzz, you would have fallen for this hook, line, and sinker, because it confirms your worst fears (and inner fucktard). The Clinical Term is Confirmation Bias.
I knew the source of those quotes was satire, because as I've said, I read the Bee, and the original article. But the dead giveaway was the Biblical Quotation. Only a conservative-who-doesn't-know-what-Conservatism-is would attach a Biblical quotation to...well, anything that wasn't related to religion. Like pedophiles in a Daycare center, they just can't help themselves. Everything is an allusion to the Rapture (if there ever is one, I do hope that non-existent God applies an IQ test to weed out the weak minds, first).
Obviously, someone either fell for a piece of "Fake News" because it confirmed his own prejudices, and therefore, it must be true, or one of the smarter sheep deliberately promulgated an item of "Fake News" in order to rile up the rest of the herd. Whatever the case may be, its obvious that people who scream about "Fake News" and the dishonesty of the media either often wouldn't know "Fake News" if it bit them on the ass, or are quite willing to use their own "Fake News" when it suits their purposes, which makes them just as filthy.
The same folks will then lay claim to a higher moral standard.
Example #3 - D-List Minor Celebrutard Commits 3rd-Grade Level Act of Political Theater. Let's Lie About It.
Another example of stupid in the Facebook feed, another example of an attempt to turn it into something it isn't.
George Lopez (he's still alive? Who knew?) SIMULATES urinating on Trump's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fucktards, and you would have thought World War III had begun. I won't link to the posted article because it is a) written by a functional illiterate, b) commits a lie of omission (I'll explain), c) belongs to one of a series of new websites that caters to the phony "conservative" (that is, it is written for idiots by bigger idiots, but because it has the word "Patriot", "Right" or "American" in it, its somehow solid info), and d) makes reference to a bodily function and genitalia, which is sure to excite the tightasses to no end.
First, Lopez did not urinate, anywhere. He simulated urination with a water bottle. The article does not report this, but other sources did. Even the video ones.
Second, let's not treat anything done by George Lopez with any level of seriousness. The man is (supposedly) a comedian. He is not some leftist lightning rod, a Pied Piper of the Unwashed Socialist Hordes who will encourage mass public urination in Hollywood (because they've already been doing that for years), nor is he at the forefront of any massive threat to cover America in Mexican Urine. Before today, if you asked people who George Lopez was and what his politics were, 98% of them would stand there slack-jawed, scratching their asses, before asking "Who's George Lopez? Was he the jockey who won the Kentucky Derby?"
But, "Hollywood", even the fifth-rate association with Hollywood represented by George Lopez, is the manifestation of the forces of Gog and Magog, come to destroy the Godly people.
Frankly, if they freak at a little simulated urination in a relatively minor act of political dissent and schoolyard humor, then they probably need to be destroyed. People this touchy, with guns, are capable of anything, after all.
When informed the act of public pee-pee was all a setup, that no whizz was actually released, that anyone with half a brain who paid nine seconds of attention to this farce already knew it, and the source deliberately left this part out so as to piddle...I mean, peddle...phony outrage, the answer I got was what you'd expect to get from a Leftist (paraphrased):
What's a little lie of omission? They've done it to us for years, on a grander scale. Two wrongs make a right because Trump.
The Right has always protested it is better than this. It's demonstrating that it isn't.
So, to re-iterate:
1. You are NOT a Conservative. You have adopted a political identity which has nothing to do with politics, and which has co-opted a political label -- like the left did with "Liberal"; it's a marketing scheme. You are not "Patriots", you are not "Fighting Fire With Fire", you are not just giving the Other Guy a taste of his own medicine. You are a doofus who has combined his prejudices and biases into a new Cognitive Dissonance for the Right, to match the one already present on the Left and behaving just as badly -- and in some cases, worse -- than the Left does.
2. You are gullible. You will eagerly repeat anything whispered in your ears, dropped in your inbox, or fed to you by others just as dumb as you are. Congratulations! You have recreated the Leftist Echo Chamber on Rightist terms, complete with your own dishonest media and affinity for living 24-hours a day under the drumbeat of your own propaganda. Good going, Assholes!
3. If you can't identify your own hypocrisy and dumbass then please have the good taste to keep it to yourselves. I may have to tolerate it, I may try to be helpful and correct you, but this doesn't make me a loser snowflake Hillary-lover. That sort of response just proves I've hit a nerve -- you've been presented with your own idiot on a silver platter -- and tells me all I need to know to successfully rebut your butthead the next time you hit me with it, and in a way that produces the most-severe butthurt imaginable. You fear proving the left was correct about many of you, vis-a-vis the lack of intellect, and then you go and prove it.
I promise, I'm quite well-equipped to bombard you with your own retard over a prolonged period in a very sustainable manner, so next time, just say "thank you", absorb the lesson, and then shut the fuck up.
4. We are better than this. We have always been better than this.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
You took the words right out of my mouth. Although you did put them in better order. AND you explained why when I registered to vote, being a young idealistic and naive young woman, I registered as a Dem. Believing that they were the party of open minds, freedom of speech, and progressive in thought. All-encompassing, no matter your beliefs. The meanings and definitions have changed since then, or I have grown old enough to see that labels are for cans. I have a hard time with people that either ask or say that I am either. I am multi-faceted and am able to change my mind when new facts come along. I voted for Trump. I don't like that he tweets like a person that drank too many red bulls and is up with his uncensored thoughts and hits send, not fond of his speeches either when will he start using his good words? I am very, very, very, annoyed with his lack of OH WAIT! He's not talking down to us, is he? I've heard him speaking at different meetings and he sound every bit the successful businessman he is.I guess that he is also a multi-faceted person.
Post a Comment