Different Floors of the House

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

The Munchausen Politic Part Two: Educating Big Bad Wolves

On June 18th, Kyle-Anne Shiver posted an American Thinker article about what she feels is necessary for conservatives to do:  re-educate a liberal near you with "facts" and "truth".

Oh, how noble!  To sway the mind of one's enemy and to bring harmony to the land through knowledgeable discourse!  

How unrelentingly noble!

And utterly, pathetically, stupid.

I'm fairly conservative as Libertarians go, you know.  But some of my stances, my Libertarian foundation, if you will, just pisses Republicans off to no end.  For instance, while I'm not going downtown to celebrate "diversity" on Gay Pride day--I'm also not going to tell them they can't do it, and will encourage them to do so.  If you got it, no matter what it is, I say flaunt it, because no one else is going to do it for you. Example two:  I have never smoked a joint in my life...but I aint gonna tell you that you can't do it.  There are plenty of "conservatives" and "liberals" out there who will tell you what to do all ready, you don't need my input.  

I'm a Paulist-Dualist, Rothbard-Jeffersonian, Kierkegaardian-Subjectivist, Anti-Fundamentalist/Fundamentalist who believes faith is higher than reason.  Ironically--or hypocritically--then, I'll be the first to tell you that I base my position on reasonable, result-based logic, and not blind faith.  I understand, to a fault at times, the complexity of creating a self-perpetuated belief system and the process of pulling constructable materials from each of the aforementioned philosophic architects in building my own house.  The Lostaglia House, as it is.  There is nothing more powerful than that--to develop your own, personal philosophical infrastructure and reside there in confidence.  To build your spiritual and political house on the foundations of great thinkers requires a complex blueprint that, when fully constructed, is impervious to fire and tyrants, to earthquakes and big bad wolves.

Ah.  Libertarians.  Such easy prey.  They don't stick together, they never agree on anything, they can't win an election, let alone get a decent percentile vote in any race.  Lovable losers?  Maybe.  But the jury is out on whether it's harder work perfecting the "lovable" part or the "loser" part.

Shiver's article is all about making noise.  It's good to see the upsurge of political thought in this country of late (even if I'm sheltered from it by the machine of liberal tyranny here in Oregon, we get a taste of it here and there).  But, we've seen this all before.  The gated-community of our moral betters is the resting place of Neo-Conservatism.  Think this, don't think that.  Hell, even the title of Shiver's article is self-inclusive:  "So What's a Patriot to do?"  Only people who think like Shiver are patriots, apparently.  Gated-community, I say.

The gated community teaches that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian tradition. That's interesting since the term "Judeo-Christian" wasn't even coined in 1776...or 1876 for that matter.  There is ample evidence to suggest the term Judeo-Christian is a World War II phrase concocted by Imperial Socialists attempting to reinforce solidarity against National Socialists.  How apropos then, that the new right has taken the phrase on so hardily.  Funny how two things as different as Judaism and Christianity can, through time and a little mass engineering, become hyphenated buddy-buddies.  Well, Jews certainly are the pinnacle of moral enforcement throughout the world's history; read Leviticus for crying out loud.  And Jesus did travel around with hookers and various and sundry low-lives.  There's simpatico there, for sure!  I think Leviticus says something about an eye for an eye and Jesus says something about cheek turning.  Pretty sure Jesus Christ was arguing against the Levites for pretty much the entire time he was on the planet.  And I'm pretty sure it was those very same Levites who wanted him dead.  Hmm...anyone else sensing some dichotomy there?

The gated community insists that their newfangled version of Levitical social morality is enforceable.  That's not what Goldwater said, now is it?  That's not what Burke, the father of conservatism, argued when he separated the beautiful from the sublime.  Good God, people, you've destroyed conservatism by slamming your dogmatic roof of "that which is beautiful" on the House of The Almighty, which is the awesome, impervious, impregnable fortress of the Sublime.  Only God gets to impose moral authority upon Sodom and Gommorah--whether literally with fireballs or figuratively through Natural Law's restrictions on asexual reproduction in mammalian lifeforms.  Pick one.  I don't care.  Whatever you choose, remember this:  Only Nature's God gets to hand down tablets of Law--literally or figuratively.  Only Nature's God can make the decision to destroy.   You, I'm greatly relieved to report, do not.  YOUR OWN PHILOSOPHERS SAID THIS!


Gated Community of  hypocrites.  Gonna be kind of hard re-educating a Liberal when you can't even educate yourselves.  Half the Neo-Cons out there make fun of Neo-Cons.  They don't even see the log in their own eye...

News Flash:  You're a Neo-Con if you think we have the right to impose our will by force across this, God's Green Earth.  You're an Neo-Con if you think personal decisions should be weighed against the "greater good".  You're a Neo-Con if you value safety over independence, to ANY degree greater than spelled out in Madison's unparalleled canon otherwise known as The Constitution of the United States of America--a testament your own Conservative tradition has deemed confluent with Natural Law.  I don't care how loud Mark Levin yells or how many dittoheads have been brainwashed.  They                are                not             Conservatives.  They are muckrakers hell-bent on making a buck.  Tyranny, Mr. Levin, is the profiteering of mass delusion via revisionist snake oil sentimentality.  Go ahead and yell.  Make some noise like Shiver wants you to do.  I was here in '94, I know where that noise gets you.  Liars.  Yes, Mr. Levin.  You are a liar.  And you too, Mr. Hannity.  Not one thing will get done.  Not one.  It's a 1994 deja vu all over again.

Judeo-Christianity...  Talk about putting some sheep's clothing on a wolf.

We Libertarians prefer, emphatically, the unkempt house (that's "rustic" in NeoCon terms) in the country-side to the people-farm gated community of elitist hypocrisy-ville.  I can fix that dilapidated farmhouse any way I like...or not.  Have fun filling out the necessary triplicated forms at gated community headquarters in order to scratch your ass on your own front lawn.

Have fun with that, Mr. Judeo-Christian.  Mr. Little Bad Wolf.  Have fun, Mr. Patriot.

Hey look, I respect Israel and their right to exist as a nation.  No question about it.  But, let's face it, in order to be a Christian, you have to respectfully (or otherwise) disagree with Judaism--a belief system that insists on the illegitimacy of Christ himself.  Let's stop this Judeo-Christian nonsense simply because it heightens our sense of continuity against a common foe:  the Muslim Terrorist.  Certainly I don't want to die to a terrorist bomb.  No sir.  But I will not sacrifice my independence to spiritual terrorism, either.  And that is what belief in Jesus Christ frees me from.  I am not a Judeo-Christian.

Hey Mr. Neo-Con Wolf, I won't come over to your side, ever.  But I'll tell you what, you come huffing and puffing around my front door, be prepared to have your sheeple cloak defrocked and incinerated in the fires of the Tread Not philosopher.

that's all.

Duverger was WRONG and...

...and anyone supporting Duverger's claim is a Nationalist.  Anyone who deals with an association that relies on Duverger's theory of mandatory two-party systems of government is not worthy your time.  In short, Duverger was an elitist scumbag and so is the Independent Caucus.

“Duverger's Law, which essentially says that, 
in a system dominated by two parties, third party 
candidates almost always are either marginalized, 
or serve to help the party which is furthest away 
from the third party's niche.”

The Two-Party System Leads to Totalitarianism
In some areas a member from a particular political party CANNOT WIN.  For instance, if you live in a major metropolitan area that sends a member to the U.S. Congress, chances are, that person is a Democrat.  In some extreme instances, Republicans in these districts receive a pitiful average of 30% of the vote.  Why is that?  The answer is easy:  Education.  Or rather, under-education.  In some cases, blatant mis-Education.  But really, it is a matter of unbalanced education.  The amount of education a child receives in the city from his school far outweighs the education he receives from his parent(s).  Which national party controls the Teachers Unions?  Yeah.  They are arming an electorate and insulating them from exterior influence.  This has NOTHING at all to do with Duverger's "law".  It has everything to do with totalitarianism--in the true sense of the word: "total". Think like us or we'll make you think like us.

In our cities, the role of parents and nuclear families is downplayed (even ridiculed and belittled by leftist academicians--most of whom come from affluent suburban families, ironically) and the role of the child as a social victim is enhanced.  Families are mean, they hurt you, fathers abuse you or abandon you...you don't need them, you've got us...then you grow up under the working assumption that fathers are superfluous and what do you do?  Well, you knock up whomever you want and abandon the results of that action.  If you haven't seen this is action, then you're either one of the affluent white leftists or you live outside the infrastructure of our ever-socializing major cities.  If the latter is the case, a word of warning is in order:  you are a redneck hillbilly white-trash racist bible-thumpin' gun totin' anti-semite, anti-palestinian.  In other words, you're representative is probably a Republican and even though your U.S. Senator had traditionally been a Conservative, she's not now. 
This means that Duverger's theory is wrong at some level (the local level) and in some cases, instead of three or multiple parties (which is the normal counter-argument to Duverger.  i.e. Canada, Great Britain), we get ONLY ONE (i.e. U.S.S.R., China, North Korea, Libya, Venezuela, Cuba).

Less choice is no choice.  That's right.  If you support the two party system, you're an agent of totalitarianism because eventually one of the two parties will FAIL.  Where are the Whigs?  Then something rises up to the champion party only to get knocked down again (Republicans and Democrats have both experienced this phenomenon throughout this nation's history). 

Thank you to the Independent Caucus for not realizing any of this and adopting a broad-sweeping, generic, Marxist approach to "independence".  Thank you for reinforcing the status quo.  Thank you for making the Teachers Union's job all the easier.

You rock.