Tue Jul, 18 2006
Just Another Day At The Murderworks
(I don't ordinarily like to ping an UPDATE! like this, but I found that I had not transcribed, into this, emphases from an original text, so it's worth it. This is really important.)
(e-mail out)
Meanwhile:
"It seems to me that the optimal libertarian and fiscal conservative strategy is to seek gridlock."That Henke idiot.
This just drives me fucking crazy with fury. That goddamned little shit-heeled punk. "Optimal strategy" -- yeah, here's a good idea: "we'll just cement the current state of mechanized destruction in place and call it good." [happyface]
This bullshit is worse than dealing with an outright commie, S. At least you can see those guys coming. Any number of morons will read something like what Henke has in mind and not think their way through it, and then go out and vote for it. And they might even live all the way through it, never seeing the end consequences of something like that -- although the way things are going now, I wouldn't bet on it, actuarially.
It's like managing to kill all the termites after they've already eaten out more than half the wood in the frame of the building. "Well, they're not eating it any more."
Motherfucking fuck, already.
Rage.
B.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(deep breath)
"1) In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.("The Anatomy Of Compromise" - Ayn Rand, from The Objectivist Newsletter, January, 1964, re-printed in "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal", 1967, part II, "Current State")
2) In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational who wins.
3) When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side."
Now. If you are the sort of flubber-spined mush-head who flees at the very mention of Her Dread Name, then you're dismissed. You're not going to think about it, and nobody can make you do that. You're a "bigot". (Nevermind the paper-thin definitions that you will unquestionably turn up when you flee to the nearest dictionary: you won't be interested in thinking your way through any of that, either. But that's all a "bigot" is, at the bottom of it all: a person who simply refuses to think.) However, if you can manage to fire a couple of synapses in the right direction, then consider how this "gridlock" horseshit flagrantly violates One and Two, above, and sort of tries to cheat its way around Three.
It is no use even attempting to discuss One ("basic principles") with Henke or anyone like him. That would be "absolutist", you see, and that's right out. To anyone who can see the value of principles, the validity of One should be obvious. This is what "integrity" is all about, and why it's a virtue.
"Gridlock" mainly resides in Two, above. It proposes a collaboration between what we might call -- nominally -- "different basic principles", although the fact of the matter is that the basic principles of the Republicans and the Democrats at not at all that basically different. Both of them -- all of them -- believe that your life is for their disposal at the common cannibal-pot. However, stipulating to a "difference" between them (which is only a matter of degree of application of "basic principles": this is an integrity issue), all that can happen is that the Democrats will teach the Republicans to migrate to the left. Now, look: shut the fuck up, hold still, and don't argue with me. Just look at history in the past eighty years or so. Think about it, and then read the following. I try my best never to do this, for lots of reasons, but there simply is no clearer, better, way to put it:
"The rational (principle, premise, idea, policy, or action) is that which is consonant with the facts of reality; the irrational is that which contradicts the facts and attempts to get away with it. A collaboration is a joint undertaking, a common course of action. The rational (the good) has nothing to gain from the irrational (the evil), except a share of its failures and crimes; the irrational has everything to gain from the rational: a share of its achievements and values."(op. cit.)
Try to understand, ladies and gentlemen: what Henke and all other advocates of "gridlock" are really calling for is the continued looting of productivity by a politics which has already established itself as legitimate in the habits of millions of people, and which is actively destroying this country and will continue that destruction as long it exists in American politics. And that means that "gridlock" advocates are willing to consign that much of future productivity -- nevermind "freedom" -- to the same sink-hole where so much of it has indisputably disappeared in the past. They're talking about sanctifying the host of parasites that already exists, even before we get into the facts of how people who would stand for the opposite principles are being actively destroyed to the degree that they collaborate with it.
(Here's a digression about "facts of reality": so-called "practical" people often sneer at me for not "facing reality" as it exists in current politics. "It's a fact that this is the way things are", so there is no sense in railing -- much less acting -- against it. This is the argument of a puny mind, not able to understand the difference between facts that exist in complete independence of human will -- like hurricanes, earthquakes, or poisonous spiders -- and facts which are the consequence of human action. I know it's not popular among the tremulous to cite the Nazis, but tough shit. Here it is: the murder of the Jews was a 'fact', too. That doesn't make it any less wrong, and it is the natural duty of everyone with any pretense to moral principles to condemn it as wrong, just exactly the way it's wrong to tolerate the bloody socialism with which the "gridlock" punks would have you collaborate. Get it through your heads. Human beings are responsible for the factual consequences of their ideas and actions.)
As for rule Three above:
How often do you come across, in political chimp-bangings, the words "litmus test"? Go look around or listen. I'll wait.
Whenever you hear that, you are hearing the sound of someone who does not want his principles openly and clearly stated. Observe how frantically they deny it. "Oh, I'm not calling for any sort of litmus test..." Listen to them, kids. What they want is to conceal their principles and goals. They will not have them exposed to conceptual integration (this is known as "thinking") and analysis of implications. They want you -- and each other -- to wander around in a mental fog, unable to figure out what they really have in mind, all while they're trying to figure out what each other have in mind, because, after all: even they know that there can be no maneuvering without intelligence on the enemy. And that's what that "litmus test" thing is all about: trying to get a grip on principles without saying out loud that that's what they are. And the ones who deny litmus tests are the ones who are trying to hide their principles so that nobody can figure out their motives and goals.
And these are the people that Henke would cement in place at their current level of malignance.
Are you going to fall for it?
If you do, there is no surfeit of invective strong enough to condemn you.
Not any more. Not at this point in American history.
