Friday, September 24, 2010

Ignoring Intellectual Incest

I was talking to my wife a while ago about how I am glad I don’t have the kind of posters on my blog that she does. She gets a lot of positive feedback, simple agreements, and kind words. She also gets people who criticize her, but it’s usually drowned out by the bevy of supporters she has accumulated.

And why not? My wife’s a great woman who deserves to have people stick up for her.

Personally, I’ve never sought this kind of feedback. I routinely comment on the blogs of people with whom I disagree, and the people who comment on my blog tend to be those very same people with whom I disagree.

To put it simply: I don’t frequent politically left-leaning or atheist blogs. Well, I sometimes comment on atheist blogs, but I definitely don’t want anything to do with liberal blogs.


Liberals have nothing intellectual to offer me. I have absorbed and internalized as much liberalism as is humanly possible. I know the arguments, and I am certifiably the most liberal person I have ever met. I’m so liberal… how liberal are you?… I’m so liberal, I don’t trust Obama’s white half. I didn’t vote for Obama, but I would have voted for that African Socialist that Republicans have been talking about for years… if only he existed…

I have little in common with my ineffectual, castrated Femacrat sisters out there. They revel in political correctness, which is about as gay as it gets. The focus is inevitably on the words I use, not taking into account the fact that I support gay marriage, gays in the military, even gays in my living room (I seriously have no idea what color drapes to get…). What a witless war of words these wailing warriors wage.

The thesaurus is indeed underused, but nothing came up when I looked up “faggotry,” and none of them will help me think of a synonym…

Moreover, I have nothing to gain reading the opinions of people who agree with my basic principles, especially from spineless wimps who have been politically impotent for my entire adult life (plus at least two decades prior). As far as I can tell, no liberal has anything to offer me intellectually (though about my drapes…).

Conservatives, on the other hand, are a wealth of novel information. First of all, there are many different types. Whereas there’s only one type of liberal (the “please don’t hurt me, I’m a feckless coward” kind), there are many brands of conservatism.

Yet, what amazes me is that even though there is more diversity among conservative ideologies, they lockstep and work as one much better than their liberal opponents.

What it comes down to is passion. Republicans are the party of passions, and they absorb so many different subgroups. Libertarians, law-and-order traditionalists, gun lovers, extreme fundamentalist Christians, militant atheists, Pro-Lifers, supporters of capital punishment, the mega wealthy, the dirt poor, hard working blue collar laborers, suits who vacation on their own private islands… it’s really an odd cross section of my country, like an American id.

So even though several of these ideologies are incompatible, it’s okay. The Republicans win by giving the most passionate people a platform to spew their idiocy, because passionate people vote, and votes count regardless of how dumb someone is.

What’s more, Republicans have no problem saying one thing while doing another. Look at “financial responsibility.” The only balanced budget in the last 30 years was during Bill Clinton’s last year. In fact, the lion’s share of our national debt is a direct result of Republicans, not Democrats. But Republicans run on a platform of “fiscal responsibility,” why?

Because Republicans are smart enough to be able to do two things at once. They say what people want to hear, and do what they wanted to do all along. It’s like patting your head while rubbing your tummy, only Republicans are rubbing out the middle class while patting themselves on the back.

Another thing I envy in Republicans is that they get their way. I like that about them. If I were a fan, I would root for the Democrats, but if I was a betting man, I’d have to side with the Republicans. Republicans play to win, Democrats think it’s how you played that counts. In this respect, Democrats make me want to grab them by the shoulders, smack them in the face and say:

“If you don’t win, I’m going to chain you to a radiator until the next election, do you hear me? Quit crying and staring at the ground, you look at me when I’m talking to you! Now fucking get out there and kick some ass. There’s no participation trophy here, you under-aged sandwich.”

[Did he just call him… okay, you’re still paying attention.]

Never a 9/11 goes by that I didn’t wish Al Gore had been president… there sure wouldn’t be a PATRIOT ACT. Can you imagine the hell Republicans would have raised about a bill that intrusive, with that much bureaucracy? We certainly wouldn’t have gone into Iraq. We’ll never know what might have been…

But we got eight long years of Bush selling us shit we didn’t need, racking up debts that won’t even be paid off by the time his daughters die of cirrhosis. And what did we get? A several trillion-dollar fireworks show in the Middle East that is so cool, people go to jail when they try to show us.

I have so much to learn from Republicans, Libertarians, and right-wingers of every stripe. Republicans can teach me how to sell hiking boots to a paraplegic. Libertarians can teach me how to avoid having a politically viable ideology go completely ignored by the American public. Finally, right-wingers in general can teach me how to take the gloves off and go for the eyes (which is the most vulnerable place on a Democrat, since they have no balls).


  1. This is such an awesome post. I totally agree.

  2. The PATRIOT act was written under Clinton...

    You don't actually think we would not be in the Mid East if Gore would have had the helm of the Titanic?

    The are all ruled by the same oligarchy, and Gore/Clinton were as much a set of neocon puppets as Dick the devil and his pet Lil' Bush the retarded was.

    Putting militant atheist/anarchists or libertarians is bullshit and you know it, nice to see your back up to your true talents, I just needed a break from having to facepalm reading your stuff.

    You should feel better now.

  3. To clear the above up ...

    Putting militant atheist/anarchists or libertarians -in with republicrats - is bullshit and you know it - I forgot the part about the nasty neocon republicans.

  4. You're right, militant anything is worse than Republicans or Democrats. That was foolish of me to compare them.

  5. I'm a militant believer in non-aggression. I guess that makes me worse than a halfhearted dictator.

  6. Support for the proliferation of civilian weapons constitutes non-aggression these days, huh?

  7. I didn't know owning a gun constituted a form of aggression. No wonder I have such a difficult time comprehending your comments and posts; you're using a different dictionary than the rest of us.

  8. Well then I'm asexual, and don't mind all the porn in my browser history.

  9. Ginx, you seriously have no idea what aggression means, do you?

  10. I know that people think aggression implies some difference from pacifism, but if one uses force against what they perceive to be force... that can still be aggression. Just ask any of the people who die due to accidental vigilantism.

    Seance anyone?

  11. Aggression in defense is generally accepted as justified, and is the instance where individualist anarchists (I am not, but they are the only group besides real pacifists who have codified this) accept aggression as justified.

    As far as asking about aggression from the victims of vigilantism we can get to them when we finish asking all the victims of police abuse, currently there seem to be about 15 to 1 police abuse of state power to vigilante accidents so that would take a while. If we add actual accidents then the numbers get even more skewed.

  12. Violence is always justified in the mind of the violent.

  13. Excessive non-violence is always advocated by those who wish to have the state do their bidding on their behalf. There are always people who would rather manipulate power than accept the mantle of responsibility.

    Not only does the state now have a monopoly on violence but historically it has had the monopoly on violence.

    Statistically speaking the vast majority of murder is committed by the various states past and present, the comparison is likely over 10,000 to one with one individual murder to 10,000 murders directed by the manipulators of power.

    Any fool can cast aspersions, but the fact is that most individuals have never killed/murdered another (myself included) - Ted Kennedy (may his corpse be placed in a urinal) on the other hand did.

  14. Excessive non-violence... that's a new one. Sounds like it will pair nicely with "extreme moderation." Though I do find it unfortunate that you think I would have the police use armed force. I would prefer police come armed only with patience, and I certainly see no need for a standing army.

    So the state is killing everyone... they have been... but pacifism is wrong because then the government will still kill most people. Got it.

    Let me paint you a picture: in what world will the dissolution of not just the US, but all states, ever occur? Because let's face it... if the US descends into anarchy, people on the West Coast are going to be learning Mandarin in a few years, and you think there's an "immigration" problem now... my guess is that the drug cartels could bitch-whip Tejas back into Mexico in no time flat.

    I mean, suggesting anarchy as a workable model is about as fanciful as suggesting all people should just put down their weapons and come together for one big group hug, ending all our differences, allowing us to live in peace and harmony. It's hippy crap, the pathetic belief that dividing the ocean into little ponds will do anything but cause the big fish to die.

    If small, independent, well managed countries were the way to go, Europe would have accomplished more than the US by this point, but they didn't. What they are doing is trying to team up, because the larger a group is, the more it can accomplish. The State isn't a thing, it's an abstract idea wielded like a machine. When the people of a nation as large as the US is operating a state that has not been adequately restricted and regulated, things as great as our journeys to the moon came because of it, and the other side of the coin has been the wholesale slaughter of millions in undeniably foolish wars.

    There's nothing to be gained by pretending another state won't replace the old. Sure, it probably won't call itself a "state," just like most normal people without politicophobia wouldn't call what we have now "the state." Most people call it a "nation" or "country" or something along that lines, and frankly it doesn't matter if it's called "company" or "co-op," there will still be power enough to be abused.

    And if there's a way, there's a jackass being born this very minute who will find it.

  15. Ginx talks out of his ass again, presents usual straw man arguments against anarchy, and the state continues its march to the ash heap of history.

  16. By excessive non-violence I am talking about the typical elitist who has the nerve to spew that an armed citizen is more dangerous than the state.

    Fact is a fact, the "state" or states current and historical are the greatest murderers of all time, with staggering numbers that are hard for the common man to even comprehend.

    The liberal I worry about is the snotty elitist that would tell another, "I don't have an icky gun and therefore you don't need one either, lets just change the laws and have the big, strong, nanny state just take away all your penis extensions" a childish bully-like attitude of "if I can't have it you can't" that seems to be a clear sign of some form of narcissistic disorder.

    Sigmund Freud is often attached to a misattributed quote about weapons that is used mistakenly by the "pro-gun" types. What is more interesting is that in Oppenheim vs. Tanay disputing "Neurotic Attachment to Guns" (by Tany, the original source for the "penis extensions" bullshit) what is missed are other more relevant quotes and ideas by Freud where Freud associates retarded sexual and emotional development not with gun ownership, but with fear and loathing of weapons - blowing (ha) the penis extension argument out of the water.

    For your information I am NOT an anarchist, I may even agree with your thoughts on "vacuum theory" (lack of a state invites tyranny). I am however anti-statist in the same way Jefferson and other agrarians (who are minarchists) who understand the potential evil of the "state" and it's long history of murder and manipulation by predatory parasites. Even Jefferson later in life would come to lament the abuse of state power he had while president!

    Surely a nation in lockstep can accomplish many great things, and MUCH evil. Your are not under the impression that the "space" program's real goal was to go to the moon? The original goal of the "space program" was to provide an outlet for the needed science and a non-military outer shell to help progress with advanced missile systems!

    The only reason Europe and to be honest Germany in particular is where they are now (and not 50 years ahead) is not because we were bigger and therefore better but because we let the Soviets grind their people on the eastern front and pushed from the other - eliminating the productive competition. Our supremacy in the world was from an act of "competition elimination".

    The Soviet Union with the help of the US (and the incompetence of the German Chancellor) pitched lots of supplies and men into the grinder of WWII and then crushed Germany. The victors stripped the country down attempting to implement the Morgenthau plan. The US later would determine that the Soviet Union was a new "threat" and could crank up the military industrial complex again, now without competition from Gremany and Japan, and with loads of new skilled workers and production capacity built what would later start to fall apart.

    BTW the Soviet system fell on it's own weight (not because of Reagan's cold war shenanigans - they only accelerated it) just as the far to huge and far too divided US will eventually.

    You cannot be foolish enough to thing the Mexico could beat out the Texas citizens do you? Mexico is run by drug thugs and money from our pockets in the US. Non drug Remittances are Mexico's No. 2 source of income after oil, fluctuating from $20+ to 30+ billion each year. They may could take south Texas, but without income from the US Mexico couldn't keep it's own infrastructure up, they may well try, but it will be bloody and the Mexicans would get their asses kicked 20 to 1 in a slam dunk trying to take over any areas not already majority hispanic.

  17. Interesting debate and post.

    I'm the same way. I'm attracted to blogs and commenters who differ from me.

    Might I suggest Man of Roma blog (link off my site)? It's a stimulating and civil place and coddles to a different T.C.

  18. Do anarchists seek to get rid of language in order to end the abuse of lying?

  19. T.C., just so you know, you're always welcome to place a direct link (assuming it's not something like a porn site) in the comments.

    In this case, I'll do it for you: Man of Roma

  20. Let's put this in language even a moron can understand: The aggressor is the one who initiates force, not the one who responds, even to the point of violence (in self-defense), to that initiation of force.

  21. Will do.

    I think it's a place you guys may enjoy. It focuses on Italy/Ancient Rome (especially the classics) but it goes well beyond that given the quality of the commenters.

  22. So who initiates the force if someone shoots an "intruder" who turns out to be a family member? Or who initiates force when someone kills another who they believe to be the murderer of their child? I'm just asking if fear is defining measure of justice for a citizen's right to carry out personal capital punishment.

  23. Let's put this in language even a moron can understand

    Apparently I was a little too optimistic.

  24. Bret…

    First, not everyone who does not march lockstep with your version of "liberal" is on the "other side" political thought is far more complicated than that... I for one don't like getting lumped in with the brainless neocon republicans because I happen to be anti-statist, in fact I hate the "conservatives" as much as I pity the "progressives".

    Look, we need to go over this rationally, and with a bit more mature analytical skills. I have mentioned multiple times about how you continue to argue like the religious fundamentalist christians, and here is exactly how this is working…

    When we argue with the religious we often have to break down to this simple axiom - you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are NOT entitled to you own FACTS!

    You continue to spew out anti-gun and anti-self defense propaganda but you are so wrong in so many ways, with a typical "religious reaction" each time… So just to get you to stop spewing about "bad guns", and "citizens are irresponsible", and "you are all dangerous monsters" - below are the FACTS.

    The CDC Website is where you can break down the data from totals by age, race, hispanic/non, sex, and region/state, it becomes more interesting when you use the tools to break it down.

    To keep this on the up and up and not have the stupid anti-gunners twisting the numbers I present all the age groups as listed by the CDC, the anti-gunners like to count all 19 years old or younger as "children" and of course this is absolutely stupid as we well know a teen thug is not the same as a 5 year old kid!

    The below are all numbers for the TOTAL of the USA for a full year (2007 the most recent year available) ALL races/ethnic groups, BOTH sexes, and I added the Non Hispanic White numbers on firearms for comparison (NHW).

    What shocked me is that the numbers for accidental/unintentional death by firearm were much LOWER than I had expected, I understood it would be low, but not even into the quad digits for each age group was shocking for a population of 330 million. What was even more shocking to me is that although the numbers of personal firearms has risen considerably the actual numbers of accidental/unintentional death by firearms has DROPPED slowly from 1999, statistically I would expect a rise to match the rise in the number of guns, so BRAVO to parents and adults for improvement of their gun safety!

  25. Second half

    Category is "unintentional injury" most recent figures from including all ages where "unintentional injury" is the most prevalent cause of death, all races, both sexes. Unintentional injury is the #1 cause of death ages 1 year to 44 years, after 44 this drops to #3,4, and 9 (65+) I have included the first two listed #1 and #2 cause of death under "unintentional injury". There are typically 8 to 12 causes of unintentional injury from #2 to the firearm category.

    The Firearm category is broken into the following sub categories.

    Handgun discharge (the highest category for ages 5-14 this seems to be "playing with handgun" and is in both age ranges 50% or more of the deaths by firearm).

    Rifle, shotgun, and larger firearm discharge (Hunting/Sporting related - the highest for the 14-34 age range "hunting accidents").

    Unspecified firearms discharge from "other" and additions/combination of first two categories as unreported/not categorized to CDC.

    So here are the numbers.

    Age 35-44 -----------------------------------------------------------
    Poisoning - 44.7%(Total Deaths: 7575, OD recreational drugs/alcohol 7368)
    Motor Vehicle - 36.2% (Total Deaths: 6135)
    Firearm - .5% (Total Deaths: 91, NHW 65)

    Age 25-34 -----------------------------------------------------------
    Poisoning - 45.7% (Total Deaths: 6842, OD recreational drugs/alcohol 5553)
    Motor Vehicle - 38.1% (Total Deaths: 5700)
    Firearm - .6% (Total Deaths: 94, NHW 47)

    Age 15-24 -----------------------------------------------------------
    Motor Vehicle - 64.6% (Total Deaths: 10272)
    Poisoning - 19.9% (Total Deaths: 3159, OD recreational drugs/alcohol 3047)
    Firearm - 1% (Total Deaths: 155, NHW 72)

    Age 10-14 -----------------------------------------------------------
    Motor Vehicle - 56.6% (Total Deaths: 696)
    Drowning - 19.9% (Total Deaths: 102)
    Firearm - 2.1% (Total Deaths: 26, NHW 20)

    Age 5-9 -----------------------------------------------------------
    Motor Vehicle - 47.3% (Total Deaths: 456)
    Fire/Burn - 14.1% (Total Deaths: 136)
    Firearm - 2.1% (Total Deaths: 20, NHW 8)

    Age 1-4 -----------------------------------------------------------
    Drowning - 28.8% (Total Deaths: 458)
    Motor Vehicle - 20.7% (Total Deaths: 428)
    Firearm - 1.1% (Total Deaths: 18, NHW 8)

    In summation, you are far safer at a range full of citizens firing full automatic weapons (yes it is legal in many states) than you would be driving to the grocery store or drinking beer or taking your choice of intoxicating substances!

    Please get a grip or I will give in to the desire to ask you to roll a joint, grab a six pack and go for a drive!

  26. Well, I've always been of the opinion it was all excited liberal propaganda the anti-gun law. I think they over reacted to accidental deaths where kids were killed by unsecure guns. They also go off into detail scenarios that rarely happen - what if you shoot your drunk Uncle! But the facts, as you state, never really supported their claims.

    Much like up here with the gun registry. There's no proof it actually saves lives and even if it did the numbers are too small to justify the obscene cost to run it.

  27. Put another way, they skewed the reality. When a child is (accidentally) shot by a shot gun the nature of the tragedy is that much more magnified. It doesn't matter if it's a rare occurence, liberals believe it must never happen again. Ergo, more laws to protect people from themselves. It's all misguided.

    The other thing I hate is sometimes I hear on the radio some a-hole liberal commentator chew out people who take their kids to the shooting range or hunting.

    Moralistic, judgmental a-holes.

    My uncle and father took me hunting and target shooting when I was 11. Did it make them irresponsible? I turned out alright - relatively speaking.

  28. One other thing - to return to the overall point of the post - the important thing, Ginx, is I hope you've learned along the way things you might otherwise have not considered. To read something merely to "mock" or "sneer" at is not to read at all.

    Personally, I've learned quite a bit from other opinions. I may not agree with them but I collect each bit of information. Knowledge is all about bouncing ideas off one another.

  29. By the way, I'm not saying you "sneer." Just as a general point I've noticed in my life. Ok. I'm done here. Off to comment on the porno video.


If the post you are commenting on is more than 30 days old, your comment will have to await approval before being published. Rest assured, however, that as long as it is not spam, it will be published in due time.

Related Posts with Thumbnails