Thursday, February 24, 2011

New Definition

leftists /lehf'-tists/ (n): People who want to be in charge of the anarchy they encourage.


tim said...

I was thinking about this the other day after seeing the bassist(?) for Rage Against the Machine (famous for being anarchists) joining the protesters at Wisc.

Isn’t anarchy the complete opposite of unionization and also liberalism? I mean, anarchy, is in it’s total theory, without any government or authority, correct? It’s actually closer to conservatism, that being - limited government. While liberalism is all about more government, total government control, hence the union support in this example.

Never understood why the commies, socialist, unions, liberals hung out with the anarchists? Besides their all morons…and the always present, easy, hairy pitted, ugly feminists chicks.

philmon said...

Why? Because revolutionaries need anarchists to tear down the status quo on the one hand, and to give the masses something to be saved from on the other.

It looks to me like commies can only convince about 30% of the population that they are the way to go on their own. They need to tear down enough of any existing system, especially a majority is essentially happy with it, to the point where enough anarchy exists that people cry out for order.

At which point the commies will be only too happy to supply.

But! More guns, less anarchy, I say. It's really hard to rob and rape and pilliage people when they are pointing their guns right back at ya.

Which is just one of the many reasons the Founders enshrined our right to keep AND BEAR them.

Severian said...

And now for a brief moment of pedantry....

Anarchism -- the political "theory" -- is very much of the left. It's based on a bunch of fuzzy, woolly, we-are-the-world feel-good assumptions that basically boil down to: 1) everyone is naturally good and loving and benevolent as all get-out, and would happily slave away all day for "the good of society," provided that 2) the government, which is by definition a tool of "capitalists," is torn down.

Commies and anarchists back in the days -- we're talking the 1850s-80s -- hated each other, much like commies and Nazis hated each other back in the 30s, because there's maybe a dime's worth of difference between 'em.

Our modern leftists are fascists, pure and simple. Take any given Mussolini speech, replace "Italian" with "progressive," and read it back to them... you'd swear it was Obama, and they'd all cheer.

PS Rage Against the Machine are a bunch of douche-tools, but they're a lot of fun. They put on a heck of a show, and for sheer unintentional comedy it's hard to beat a bunch of suburban yuppie white kids with dreadlocks paying $75 a pop to TicketMaster to be lectured about Marxism by millionaires.

philmon said...

The Moussolini speech search and replace sounds like a fun exercise. Someone should persue that. :-)

And the Rage Against the Machine comment I found amusing -- partly because I've never listened to them at all because their name told me all I needed to know about them, and that I wasn't interested.

Have you been following the "Broad Birther Brush" comment chain? It's gotten quite long.

It seems our frend is clinging to the idea that the reason it hasn't been shown is because by state law it's so sooper sekrit that acknowledging its very existence alone puts you on some pretty thin legal ice, and nobody's allowed to go find it even to destroy it (because, after all, it's been replaced and there's no reason for it to exist anymore except that damned state law that puts the thing in the box with Schrödinger's cat keeps them from doing that).

Severian said...


As someone who used to "rage against the machine" himself-- albeit poorly, and unenthusiastically, and because it held out what I perceived to be my only chance of getting laid with fellow lit-majors -- I used to listen to their music a lot, and have seen them several times in concert. They put on an entertaining show, and the crowd is just priceless. Free Mumia!!!

As for the "birther" thread, I couldn't (!) care less anymore. It all sounds like typical boilerplate marxoblather to me. I've heard it said that lawyers have a maxim: when you've got the facts, argue the facts; when you've got the law, argue the law; when you have neither the facts nor the law, obfuscate. Leftists rarely have the law (and almost never the facts), but sixteen years of "education" have given them the tools to obfuscate like a scared squid on crack and steroids.

Really, the only thing that surprises me about any of it is how surprised I still am by their shamelessness. I mean, just the other day our Glorious Leader flat-out told our Newspaper of Record that he's going to violate his oath of office by not enforcing DOMA, which He considers unconstitutional. Now, that's actually, factually grounds for impeachment, and you can bet that had Bush done something similar, they'd... well, they'd keep yelling "impeach Bush!" at every opportunity, but you get my point. These are the same folks who are perfectly fine with "I voted for it before I voted against it" and "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" as defenses for their idols' behavior. For them, whatever Obama does, is right.

But somehow we're the dumb, easily led ones....

philmon said...

Yeah, the DOMA thing really blows me away, because it's so blatant.

Let's see, the judicial branch usurped the legislative process when they started substituting their interpretations for the intent of the lawmakers, and now the executive branch has usurped the judicial branch by deciding that it can declare laws unconstitutional, thereby usurping both of the other branches.

Is our transformation to King President complete?

Severian said...

Yep. Pretty much.

Of course the left will scream "Bush did it too!" -- McCain-Feingold --and in this case they'll be right. But I'll start caring about that the minute the left starts caring about... well, about any of the stuff they claim to.

In other words, if liberals actually had any principles, they'd be conservatives. But we knew that already.