PROMETHEAN ANTAGONIST

Ahh, actually, no. Honest observers have noted how little the Republican Party has changed over the years. For decades, it’s been the party of business (capitalism) and held the founder’s suspicions of “big government.” They certainly possess numerous attributes worthy of criticism and more often than not fail to act as a fervent counterbalance to the direction Democrats are taking the country.

The Democrats, for decades, have been accurately described as “liberal,” on most issues holding positions to the left of what Republicans represented.

The far left attempted a seizure of the Democrat party in the presidential election of 1972 when senator George McGovern sought to install the 60s “counter culture” into the White House. Losing that election in a landslide defeat resulted in a more sober appraisal of the nation’s sympathies and a more moderate course in policy.

By far, most Democrats held views that could be described as reasonably “patriotic.” There was no indication that they hated the country or its history. But even back then conservative Republicans were often described as “extreme” or “dangerous.” The dominant news sources already possessed a pro-Democrat bias. The “N-word” (“Nazi”) wasn’t yet bandied about as it is so often today but indirect allusions were there. Barry Goldwater was depicted as a crazed and dangerous extremist, quite contrary to what one could see on talk shows and interviews. If one read his books (e.g. “the Consciousness of a Conservative”) or listened to him express his views it was pretty clear that he was just the conservative alternative to the liberalism already gaining influence over the broader culture. He had a great sense of humor and was unapologetically pro-American and anti-communist. A couple decades later, Ronald Reagan espoused the same values, this time quite successfully. It was at this point that the “Nazi/fascist” moniker started to be applied — to a president that was neither. Unlike the current president, Reagan had a likable relatively humble persona. It was hard to make the extremist monikers stick.

More than a few leftist observers in the past have noted that, if leftism (some variant of compulsorary socialism) was to gain control in America, it would do so through the already “liberal” Democrat party. Today’s establishment leftist now often espouses the popularized title of “Democratic Socialist,” implying a kinder gentler means of imposing government authority.

It was the so-called “Tea Party” that reintroduced a legitimate conservative response to how far cultural leftism had taken the country. Tea Party protests were truly “peaceful protests.” There was no Antifa-style coercion and violence.

The over-arching sentiment of conservative reaction has been suspicion of central government authority — something well in line the the founder’s vision. To be genuinely conservative was, and continues to be, a resistance to the momentum toward statism. In this regard the party most compatible with such a vision is obviously the Republican party. There are always a host of fringe issues (e.g. abortion, “trans rights”) that affiliate on one side of the spectrum or another but, in the most basic confrontation, the divide remains statism vs. the country’s founding principles as outlined in the constitution and Bill of Rights.

The “both sides do it” argument is deceptive and weak and flies in the face of objective appraisal. While an occasional nut-case can emerge on either side of the political spectrum, in our own time, rabid toxic rage has found a firm footing among those who seek to override elections and voters’ sympathies and impose the usual goals of Jacobin/communist thinking. Ironic but rather typical, the socialist rabble has formed a temporary alliance with some very wealthy and powerful people and institutions. This follows the typical “revolutionary” blueprint. Everyone thinks they’ll emerge on top when the revolution has destroyed our current system but that’s never what happens. Some psychopath is no doubt waiting in the wings carried upward by an alliance of deep-state — “color revolution” — operatives, garden variety Marxist revolutionaries, and now, Islamists. All poised to go at each others’ throats after they rid themselves of the “bourgeoisie masses’” experiment in self-government.

The establishment media and their favorite interviewees often talk of the need to “turn down the rhetoric” — typically after one of theirs has expressed or committed acts of violence.

There is a clear difference between each side, what they want, and how they seek to achieve their goals. At some point, aggressive impulse could change with the side on defense flipping. For now, conservatism still merely seeks to maintain a civil society that is free, stable, and prosperous. The left, sensing their successes, smells blood in the water and is willing to commit any act that achieves their revolutionary goals of establishing themselves on the throne of power.

For now, “both sides [don’t] do it.” The left may oppose “kings” but they’re more than fine with a punitive bureau-state.

# posted by Promethean Antagonist @ 6:38 PM 0 comments

The gospel according to Kevin or Ashly. “Oh my god it’s like, you know, it’s kinda like, and then he goes…blessed are the whatever.”

****************

Ever been at some public place like a shopping mall and you see a sign with a picture of a knife and fork? Wouldn’t it be funny if you followed the arrow and it was just a store that sold knives and forks?

***************

“Her outfit leaves nothing to the imagination.” What’s that supposed to mean? I imagine all sorts of things when I see a girl in a skimpy outfit. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say, “her outfit really sparks the imagination?”

***************

I was at the mall and saw one of those places that sell bras. There was a sign that said 50% off…but, it only covered one side.

# posted by Promethean Antagonist @ 9:19 PM 0 comments

A. No tax on tips.

B. A White House ballroom, paid for privately.

# posted by Promethean Antagonist @ 10:58 AM 0 comments