Wednesday, March 28, 2012
“What's the deal with all the dumb-asses?”
Scholars have debated the “dumb-ass” equation for millenia. I believe it was Marcus Aurelius in the 4th Century, who first confronted this vexing issue with the grand statement, “...what a dumb-ass...is everyone a dumb-ass or something? ...what's the deal with all of these dumb-asses?”
Later in the 17th century, Descartes was known to ponder the dumb-ass issue with the now seminal philosophical statement, “I think, therefore most others don't think, therefore they are probably dumb-asses.” Later, the 19th century philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche noted profoundly that, "that which does not destroy me has the serious potential of making me a dumb-ass" thus leaving us all with an existential choice of either being destroyed or joining the ranks of dumb-asses. Dumb-asses have indeed been a pivotal part of each and every society, contributing their lack of purpose to humanity with that sense of overwhelming meaninglessness we have all come to appreciate as light entertainment or occasional horror (as in the idea of people voting for someone based on a hypnotic mantra, “Yes we can”).
Dumb-asses are a particularly relevant segment of the populations at K-mart and government offices. Many achieve high office and contribute to a sort of noble malaise so prevalent in the perennial dumb-ass paradigm.
Attempts have been made to confront the dumb-ass societal affliction with such statements as “don't be such a dumb-ass”.
Dumb-asses seem to manifest eternally. They in fact often serve a great purpose to society's well being by allowing us non dumb-asses to feign sympathy for their unique form of victim-hood. The huge sums of money spent by governments to lift people out of dumb-ass inspired inertia is the finest example of how dumb-asses can help one another (though screwing their societies thoroughly).
Remember, dumb-asses are just like you and me...except they're dumb-asses.
(For those on the left who may be reading this. It's light humor - don't be offended...again. Also, don't be a dumb-ass). Should "dumb-ass" be used with a hyphen?
Saturday, March 24, 2012
"Fascists" Who Believe In Individual Self-Government
(Sorry. 'Another lazy re-post. I go through many periods like this where posting new things comes to a virtual (no pun intended) standstill. 'The usual computer problems and a real life beyond cyber-land makes for a mediocre blogger -- Oh well, for now, some old observations).
It's may be accurate to say that the left despises libertarians more than conservatives.
With conservatives, the left can at least try to "argue" that their opponents are "Nazis" and "Fascists." Regardless of how contrary to fact such accusations are, there are some strains of conservatism that are very religious, "flag-waving," or hyper-traditional, so caricatures can be falsely extrapolated to extremes in such cases.
It's considerably more difficult to claim one's opponents are "Nazis" or "Fascists" when the opponent's essential premise is that government should be limited considerably and that individual freedom is the hallmark of a decent and successful society.
Leftists can pretend that conservatives are Fascists but with libertarians they can't even muster a lie effectively. Add to this the fact that leftists actually do favor considerable government "intervention" (control and coercion), and they lose their case immediately.
A socialist of any stripe is more kindred in spirit to fascism and Nazism than anyone even moderately libertarian in outlook. Add to this the fact that many conservatives (those who aren't religious, flag-waving, or hyper-traditional) are rather libertarian, and the leftist finds him or herself looking in that ugly mirror again where their own desire to feed authority to an all-powerful state is imagined instead to be in everyone who opposes their own excessive statist sympathies.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
The Boogeyman Near the Center
For all their references to "Fascists" "Nazis," and "right-wing extremists," did you ever notice that the neocomm left never really gets too worked up over real Fascists, Nazis, or right wing extremists? Their ultimate boogeyman (or women) are the likes of George Bush, Rush Limbaugh, or Sarah Palin et.al. People who believe in the founders establishment of limited constitutional government are "like the Nazis." I sometimes think that real Nazis aren't or weren't of much concern to the Jacobin left. After all, during the rise of Mussolini and Hitler, sympathetic voices could be found among many intellectuals on the far left (prior to WWII). To them, fascism and Nazism were just other philosophies that, although flawed, saw the evils of unbridled bourgeois thinking.Their main concern -- fear -- has always been free markets and free ideas. Looking at party platforms and anti-capitalist rhetoric of the time, one would be hard pressed to discern real differences between National Socialists, Black Shirts, and garden variety Marxian "worker" parties. Oh, they all disagreed on the fine points; nationalism vs. internationalism, racism vs. classism...red vs. brown. But, nothing heats up a statist's hatred more than run-of-the-mill centrists who believe in such antiquated institutions like family and a quaint abode beyond the reach of the local party official. It was the consevative "war-mongers" that looked with the greatest suspicion at communism's kindered spirits in statism.
So it is today; the Chomskys, Howard Zinns, and Michael Moores reserve their most fervent vitriol for...Republicans (the horror). You'd think Bill O'Reilly was Heinrich Himmler. No doubt, the left today doesn't really like Nazis (real ones) or fascists (unless they're Chinese or soft-sell corporatist like the current far left/right...who knows what, statist in chief). But, again, you'll seldom hear real concern about any state or group that really is Nazi or fascist in temperament. Cut people's heads off to scare acceptance of a theological police state - one free pass. Rig elections, seize private property, turn schools into indoctrination centers - nothing to see here. Demand that the state and regulation be confined to reasonable constitutional limits and, "what, are you some kind of Nazi or something!?"
It's not the Nazis they hate, it's only if you're, "like a Nazi." - go figure.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Sluts... And Less Favorable Types
An excellent, thought provoking appraisal from The Razor. (I realize this is "old news" by now but this is just one of many scams that have been, and will continue to be, pulled on us by what Breitbart called, "The Democrat - media complex). Sometimes merely calling one a slut is being too kind.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
On the Glories of Kitsch
People have different tastes. But that doesn't mean that bad taste is good.
Friday, March 09, 2012
Down With the Up
You can't say, "down with the system...but give me more system."
Well actually, you can say that, but you can also say, "I'm thirsty. Give me a glass of sand."
Wednesday, March 07, 2012
The Age of Independence
I realize that not everyone takes astrology seriously but it's a hobby of mine that I find offers some occasional insights into the archetypal expressions of personality amongst humanity. (More information on astrology and its relation to political concepts and personalities can be found here).
Sun sign generalization isn't always the most accurate or revealing but sometimes I'm struck by such generalizations. Aquarius is the "sign" of independence and free-spirited rebellion. "It" likes to shock and upset expectations. It's the ultimate non-conformist. Of course there are many people born under the sign with a variety of beliefs. But, I think it's noteworthy that among the sign's luminaries are, Ayn Rand, Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin, and Andrew Breitbart....'just sayin...
The generalization reminds me of something I've observed again and again in my encounters with those who take interest in politics. By far, the most independent-minded and nonconformist in spirit are inevitably conservative. I should first note that, when discussing politics, the generic meaning of "conservative" often does not describe a belief in limited government and a free market. Conservative=traditional is the way most media outlets would like the public to view conservatism and, of course, that perception can be accurate in specific contexts. The mainstream media has often described the Mullahs in Iran as "the conservatives" as they did the party leadership in the former Soviet Union. By their pick and choose definition, a common reader would simply conclude that "conservatism" is, by it's very nature, "the bad guys" - the authoritarian and oppressive. But conservatism, particularly in its libertarian expression, defies the image the left would have us believe. It is often the polar opposite of authoritarian or oppressive. Consevatives don't "love Big Brother."
Again, I can't count the number of stereotypical encounters I've had with people who fancy themselves "rebels" of sorts. These useless idiots really do believe that Che Guevara - a guy who hated rock music, gays, and people of African decent - was a "revolutionary."
What stands out most to me in all my encounters with leftdom is its incredibly blind conformity and stoic pack animal instinct.
Semantics can do wonders in flipping honest appraisal on its head. A true "dawning of the age of Aquarius" will be a period when the individual will rein supreme over his or her own life and genuine diversity of values and lifestyle will flourish, expressed unbridled by the state and lock-step clowns of leftist anti-rebellion.
Again; Rand, Reagan, Palin, and Breitbart. Real rebels for a new age.
Sunday, March 04, 2012
Inspired by Breitbart
I had never really paid much attention to the work of, recently deceased, Andrew Breitbart. I looked at his websites occasionally or arrived at them from links from other sites. I really hadn't a clue who he was. Then, coincidentally, only a couple of weeks ago I saw a clip of him speaking at a CPAC conference and even more recently, the non-censored version of the trailer from the not yet released documentary "Hating Breitbart." Near the end if the trailer he expresses the utter contempt many of us conservatives feel toward the stacked deck of dishonesty, insult, and hate the left regularly throws our way.
Breitbart's focus on the "Democrat/media complex" and all its cultural tentacles in entertainment and academia really hit home. What most struck me was Breitbart's brusk lack of decorum, forfeiting the usual apologies expressed by so many of us on the right who try to be civil dealing with people who are basically condescending authoritarian savages. In the movie trailer, after his expression of indignation over tea party protestors being endlessly called racists and potential Timothy McVeighs, he stops, focuses, and says in sharp distinct words..."Fuck You!". I was hooked. Why didn't I ever say that to these people? It was a revelation. Really. Why couldn't conservatives finally just say, "Fuck You!" to all the cliche' lies and all the power around us that dares perpetually paint itself as some victim, font of goodness, or champion of the underdog when in fact modern leftism is the very heir to history's most vile "experiments" in cruelty and oppression? Like most of us who live decently and believe in responsible and limited government, why couldn't I just respond to the never-ending barrage of taunts and condescension with something equally direct that may lack proper recitation of facts or debate form but...got to the point.
Breitbart was a guy who had that special earthy honesty so lacking in leftism -- he wasn't...full of shit (like so many of them, from Hollywood stars and news journalists to the charlatans of post modern academia). This was a guy I felt I could have a drink with, unlike so many uptight "sensitive" intellectuals who constrain every conversation to fit their neatly tethered P.C. guidelines.
The day before he died I posted a "like" entry to his Facebook page (no doubt pissing off more than a few true believers I know). A few days before that I had downloaded and begun listening to the audiobook of his recent book, "Righteous Indignation."
His disgust with Clarence Thomas's treatment before the Democrat-Jacobin wolves was moving. I found his book to be, in parts, a sort of grunge era, college age "Catcher in the Rye" – quite entertaining in spite of the serious issues it addressed. He just sounded cool so honestly describing his own early weaknesses and his ability to shift in his life to sounder awareness, seeing the entire left wing edifice for what it is and has always been; pure rot, insincerity, arrogance, and an establishment of self-righteous bullying.
I couldn't believe that this new hero I was just now coming to be familiar with died as I was still listening to his story in his own words.
We on the right tend not to get caught up in idol worship the way the leftist mob does. Occasionally we come close with figures like Ronald Reagan (but then we don't decide he should be called R.W.R. To conjure some fake intimacy).
Like Breitbart, I've had it -- 'sick of simply stating my case and defending my position before people who insult my existence and describe my stance in ways nowhere resembling who I am or what I believe (so they can simply feel superior and have more control over others' lives).
Breitbart was right when he said - in so many words - "I'm sick of apologizing for who I am..." This guy's work is an inspiration to all of us who know the values of honor and dignity embellished with sound awareness of economic principles and the need to keep the coercive bureau state well bound. What do those on the left have on their side? Pompous self-righteous elitism with weakness of character and - stated simply - a lack of honor.
Rest in peace Andrew Breitbart. You revealed all the "debate" in mainstream culture for what it truly is - bullshit. We're being bullshited into tyranny, but we no longer have to play along. We won't.