Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is an intriguing guy...[he] asks great questions and answers others with style, flair, reason and wit. On the blogroll he goes. Make him a part of your regular blogospheric reading. I certainly will.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Common Sense Junction: Misha @ Anti-Idiotarian never ceases to amaze me. He keeps finding other good blogs. I went over to A.I. this morning for my daily Misha fix and he had found this guy named Morgan Freeberg in Fair Oaks, California, that has a blog, House of Eratosthenes. Freeberg says its "The Blog That Nobody Reads" but it may now become the blog that everybody reads.
Jaded Haven: Good God, Morgan, you cover a topic from front to back with a screwy thoroughness I find mind boggling. I'm in awe of your thought proccesses, my friend, you're an exceptional talent. You start by throwing in the kitchen sink, tie in someone's syphilitic uncle, bend around a rip tide of brilliance and bring it all home in a neat, diamond dripping package of an exceptionally readable moment of damn fine wordsmithing. I love reading you.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
Philmon: When Morgan meanders, stick with him - he's got a point and it'll be worth it in the end. He's not a hit-and-run snarky quip kind of guy. The pieces all fall into place like tumblers in a lock and bang! He's opened a cognative door for you.
Rightlinx: Morgan at House of Eratosthenes is one of the best writers out there. I read him nearly every day because he manages to provide an interesting perspective, even though I don't always agree.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
It’s like the source of The Nile. I’ve been looking and looking and looking…
Our left-wingers obviously care more about collective rights than individual rights. When there’s a “wealth gap” they get all alarmed…now, what’s cause and what’s effect? Is it necessary for us all to bring home the same amount of money if we’re a collectivist society — or do we become a collectivist society because we’re in a potato sack race, with our legs bound together, no one allowed to become too different from anybody else?
They love abortions. Is that cause, or is that effect?
When they don’t have too many demands made of their time…which is often, since nobody really trusts them with too much of anything…they engage in activities that are non-edifying. They don’t go to Wikipedia, unless they’re “admins” determined to make sure the “other side” doesn’t have the last word about something. They want to watch Jeopardy. Or even better, The Kardashians. Once again — is that cause, or is that effect?
They think global warming is a threat. They think radical Islamic terrorism is not. Now why is that? They don’t believe in God. How come? Is it necessary to doubt the existence of God because they know they’re going to Hell? Or do they become liberals because they always hated being dragged off to church?
There must be a root cause — something that kicks off the chain reaction, that actuates all the other things. I’ve been looking for it and looking for it and looking for it. What is it? Are they just plain cowardly? Do they feel bad when someone is mugged or raped…and they aren’t able to sneak off, because someone else is trying to stop the mugging/raping so they can’t look good while they’re high-tailing it out of there? Is that why they’re so full of hate?
Blogger friend Phil enlightens.
…[Socialism and Communism] are based on the same premise — that liberty in the economic sphere is rigged to the advantage of the wealthy. This is true to a limited extent. No system is perfect.
But Socialism/Communism both rest on the premise human nature being truly altruistic, and that once envy is eliminated via wealth redistribution, people will just enthusiastically produce for each other with no angle toward personal gain, because “everybody’s” gain is their gain and they’ll just all see it that way and everybody will be happy.
This, of course, requires humans to be something other than what we are. Some idealized form of human that does not now nor will ever exist.
Progressives believe that human nature is evolving toward that, and that they can push that evolution along. The worst progressives don’t even mind killing off those who they feel are holding that evolution back. For the good of the future of Mankind, of course. That, in a nutshell, is what Progressivism is all about. The basic premise of Progressivism is the evolution human nature. Cultural Dawrinism.
Our system is the worst one ever, except for all the others. Our system gives me incentive to work hard and make new things because it will give ME a more comfortable existence and opportunities to do things I can’t do today. If I don’t like what I’m doing, I can decide to change jobs. If I want to work less, I must be willing to suffer the cut in compensation or find some legal and ingenious way to make up the difference.
In their system … all must be equalized. If I make too much, money must be taken from me to give to someone else. If I don’t make enough, money must be taken from someone else to give to me.
There is no incentive to produce outside of coersion, and the only people with the power to coerce is the government.
This is why socialism and communism, which are again based on the same false premises — inevitably deteriorate into totalitarian, trickle-up poverty.
Ah…this explains everything, plus a bonus: Why they’re so fascinated with Darwinism/evolution. It also explains that jitterbugging that they do. You know what I mean. During the odd minutes they’re all “I’m for complete rights for EVERYBODY! no matter what!!” Drug dealers, homeless people, terrorists at Guantanamo. They all have to have everything, three square nutritious hot meals every single day.
During the even minutes they define people out of existence. Oh no, you don’t count. You’re an unborn baby. You’re a teabagger. You’re a Boy Scout, or a Boy Scout’s homemaker Mom. You don’t count.
Phil’s explanation is perfect. It explains why I keep thinking of liberals when I see Star Trek episodes…especially the ones with the bald French guy who drinks tea. It’s all about evolution. Some of us are leading the way — like Barack Hussein Obama. Others of us are holding everyone else back, and must be defined out of existence. They/we must be put down, just like a dog at the pound. So that the narrower, “real” definition of “everybody” can be allowed to skip on down the conveyor belt, toward its ultimate destiny…no war, no disease, no starvation, warp speed, inter-galactic travel, making friends with the aliens with rubber masks on their faces who speak perfect English.
This is why they are screwballs, it explains why they cannot carry a coherent thought in a straight line. It has to do with themselves. They are something that, they themselves cannot admit this is what they really are.
They want to represent “everybody” after they get done re-defining what exactly that is. They supposedly think you have a whole bunch of rights, after your mother chooses to carry you to term and you make it past that magical vaginal finish line. In truth, that is metaphorical of something else: You have to make it to your mother’s vagina, you have to get born, have your cord cut, breathe air, and then you have to donate to democrats and vote for them. If you don’t do all these things, you are a non-person. You’re a counterweight that is holding back the entire human condition, and are to be dealt with in kind.
You are to be eradicated. Put in a gas chamber.
This explains why they go through the motions of representing “everyone,” but then, at the same time, seem to be so eager to whittle down that definition of what “everyone” really is. To find people who exist outside of it, so that they can call ‘em out, and gain universal recognition for the plain and simple fact that these outliers simply don’t belong. It explains why, through the years, so many of them have figured out people like me should be cast out — but in all of those years, not a single one of them has taken on the task of giving voice to exactly what place it is that I should be sent. Why they want to send so many people to oblivion, and why so many of them seem to have so much passion about doing it, but why not a single one among them has the balls to say the word “oblivion.”
Let me state this more coherently: We meet good friends and neighbors who voted for Obama, whom we know to be decent, hard-working and honest. And then we meet scumbags who voted for Obama. We meet people like Joe America, who are liked by other people whom we like, but then hurl insults at us every single chance they get. We see people like Hillary Clinton telling obvious fibs, like that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. Al Gore reprises the “man behind the curtain” scene from Wizard of Oz, almost word for word, telling us not to think about the East Anglia scientists caught red-handed in their shenanigans — world’s still ending, forget everything else. Except for voting for democrats of course.
From this, we conclude there is a massive scam going on. There are the foolers and the foolees. We then get distracted debating other things…well yes, both sides practice deceptions but the liberal side does more of it…et cetera. Meanwhile, we have made up our minds that there are layers to liberalism, sort of a pudding with skin on it. People on the top know what’s going on, they fool the other 99 percent.
Here is my epiphany. Since the current administration was so obviously taken by surprise with the whole nuclear thing — needed the dimbulb Eskimo whore to go on teevee and explain what’s cockeyed about this, and then they were caught just slipping on their shit trying to make sense of it all. They clearly hadn’t done any advance thinking.
Bearing that in mind, I cogitate on the following question:
What if things like character, decency, honesty, or deficiencies in these things are entirely irrelevant to being a liberal? What if we’ve all been over-thinking it? What if there is no skin on the pudding, no strata. What if the entire thing is a one-celled creature. What if Thing I Know #230 explains everything as opposed to ninety-nine percent:
We’d call them “rationalists” if they thought things through rationally; that’s why they’re called “socialists.”
These are all people who haven’t been thinking things out. They are all the kid who didn’t do his homework and wants to copy the answers off your paper. Some are smart, some are stupid, some are decent, some are creeps, some are actually quite brave and some are craven and cowardly. The only thing they have in common is they just haven’t been doing the thinking.
Consider the ramifications. Obama’s nuclear policy never was supposed to make us more secure, or do anything good for anybody. Just make “us” more liked. The health care bill never was supposed to get people covered.
They don’t give a flying fuck what’s going to happen if we abolish the death penalty, they just want it abolished. And no, nobody thinks convicts have a “right” not to be executed, or that killing is “wrong” when the state does it. They are just wasting your time when they say things like that.
It goes back to what Phil said. They just want to evolve to the next level, and the only way for them to do that is to affect public policy. To pass some laws that will make us better liked. By…somebody. This part of it they simply haven’t thought out. They don’t know who, exactly, is supposed to like us better. They know what they expect the reaction to be, and for them that’s plenty good enough. Again, these are kids that don’t do their homework. They are accustomed to not thinking things out all the way through. This is quite alright in their world, because it’s a world in which things do not happen because of other things. People there just do…whatever. Whatever brings a positive response from others.
Remember the beginning of 2009? The season of “Hope-Is-In-The-Air?” They swore in their hopey-changey President, and with all this stuff broken from the last eight years of “Failed Policies of the Bush Administration” (FaPoBuAd) and the opposition finally gutterballed, having complete control of everything and eager to show everyone what they were all about, they settled in, rolled up their sleeves, and busily set about…talking shit about their opponents and not getting a damn thing done. Yeah, oh yeah! We made them not count before, but we’re gonna really make them not count now! Yay for us!
Us. Them. We. They. They’re going to bring us all together and end our petty bickering, but they never do get there because you can’t have anyone in the club if you don’t leave someone out of the club. Truth is, they don’t want to be in charge. “Winning” an election, or an argument, is about as close as they ever want to get to running anything. If you’ve ever built something, especially something upon which your future fortune is going to depend…perhaps your very life?…you have become accustomed to saying to yourself “Hold it — there’s a little nugget over there that, perhaps, I have not yet thought out all the way.” And when you start doing that, you alienate yourself from them. These are people who think out only the fun stuff, and then stop. All of life is companionship and fellowship.
I’ve been saying this for awhile. My epiphany over the last few weeks is that this goes all the way up to the top. Al Gore doesn’t think things out. There is no sinister plot to fool people into believing in global warming, and wrecking the economy. He was just another pain-in-the-ass tree-hugging environmentalist all anxious to show what a decent good person he was…obviously you’re a better person when you care about “The Planet,” than you would be if you didn’t. He made some money doing it, so it started feeling really good to keep doing it some more. And then there was more money connected to it, and more and more. Simple as that. Al Gore doesn’t care about the East Anglia scandal, because he doesn’t understand it and isn’t too excited about figuring any of it out. It’s just some of that boring science-and-facts stuff as far as he’s concerned. The same goes for our President and the nuclear policy. What’ll the bad guys do about it? Feh. Who cares. That foreign policy stuff is so boring. My new edict makes Me a better person, it’ll make us all better people. That’s all that matters. We’re gonna keep evolving.
What’s this have to do with replacing President Soetoro in 2012, and immobilizing Him in 2010? How do we talk to these people? You have to remember: There is a spectrum of leftism, with extremist zealots and wishy-washy moderates, and then there is a spectrum of devotion to the cause. Generally, an extremist zealot is going to be a hardcore zealot and a wishy-washy-mod is going to be a casual experimenter. Keep in mind this is not always the case, though.
You want to make contact only with the casual experimenters, those who have just dunked their toes in the water. The Persephones who merely nibbled on the pomegranates. These are the folks who haven’t thought out the ramifications to ObamaCare, would like to think it out, but don’t know where to start with it. Don’t know where to start with any of it — but meanwhile, just want to stay out of the arguing part of it and be liked. I’ve found a lot of these people are perfectly capable of thinking things through, if only they get a little bit of help finding the relevant facts.
If they start accusing you of being a bad person, just move on. It means you’re not talking to one of those people, you’re talking to a devoted disciple. He may be ideologically so-called-moderate. But he’s learned to do his thinking by calling other people nasty names. He’s a drowning man who will pull you under. A fight will start and it will be all your fault; he said you’re a Nazi so it must be true.
Our current President is enormously popular personally. Even with His approval ratings hitting bedrock and then boring downward through the bedrock — with most people, if they could just have Him without having to accept His policies, they’d take it. So this is the point that has to get hammered home: He’s a package deal. You have to take His policies if you take Him. And we cannot afford His policies.
Defending Palin? Most of the time, it should not be necessary. She still doesn’t have a “real job”; she doesn’t really count. Palin-friends and Palin-foes, alike, forget routinely about the very real possibility that she won’t ever run for anything from here on out.
Point is, in 2008 you got to vote for a personality, rather than for ideas. Even if you’re not ready to express your regret over that…and it seems roughly half of ’08 Obama supporters are ready (although most have yet to apologize)…nevertheless, this was not a properly executed decision. Obama is just chock full of ideas that should have been evaluated on the campaign trail, in a more scrutinizing, balanced way. Just about everyone with a working brain is ready to concede that much. It’s silly to try to avoid it.
And so, going forward, it has to be all about the ideas. And their consequences. This, I believe, is how you reach the truly thoughtful, not-yet-lost, discontented and despondent Obama voter. It’s not about whether Sarah Palin knows how to pronounce the word “nuclear.” It’s about — welcome to the world where you’re completely fucked if you don’t think everything out. Now that you’ve figured out facts are important, here are some. That’s what reaches people.
Just don’t go “reaching” people who don’t wanna be reached. I’d say about two-thirds of them are just spoiling for a fight — and of those, only one-third started out that way. The balance of ‘em just walked into a room one day and said “I voted for Obama!” expecting everyone to be pleased about it, discovered “everyone” wasn’t so happy about it, grasped desperately for some kind of way to react, and ended up being pit bulls. They’d think things out, as opposed to just snarking at people, if they could. They just don’t know how to get started. And so this whole “evolution” path has some appeal for them. It seems to fill in a missing piece.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.