Saturday, December 23, 2006

Flesh-Eating Ghouls: How Liberals are Stalking and Crushing Our Innocence with their Monstrous, Oozing Tentacles

In a future less distant than we might suppose, the many books that have been published by right-wing gasbags in recent years will molder on thrift-store shelves, gather dust at flea markets and garage sales, and disintegrate en masse underneath thousands of landfills. Their contents will be as thoroughly forgotten as the works of Louis Dodge. For indeed, there has rarely emerged a more breathtakingly empty genre of literature than the conservative whine.

Despite an apparent multiplicity of subjects, there is only a single guiding idea behind all these books: to point a finger of blame at liberals and leftists. Let us sample a few titles, shall we? (The names of the authors have been concealed to protect them from undeserved attention.)

The Terrible Truth About Liberals; Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild;, The Enemy Within: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Churches, Schools, and Military; Liberal Racism: How Fixating on Race Subverts the American Dream; Liberal-itis: A Thinking Disorder Destroying America; The New Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds; Green Rage: Radical Environmentalism and the Unmaking of Civilization; Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left; The Lethal Liberal Society in America: We Will Bury You!; Surrounded by Idiots: Fighting Liberal Lunacy in America; Liberalism is a Mental Disorder; Liberal Fascism: The Totalitarian Temptation from Mussolini to Hillary Clinton.

Then there are the “how” books—usually a snappy main title, followed by a “how” subtitle outlining the insidious threat. (I’m listing most of these books without the main heading, so as to highlight this aspect of the, um, mental disorder…)

How Liberal Democrats Undercut Our Military, Endanger Our Soldiers and Jeopardize our Security; How Liberals Got It Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First; How the Left Created the Outsourcing Crisis; How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity; How the Left Was Won: An In-Depth Analysis of the Tools and Methodologies Used by Liberals to Undermine Society and Disrupt the Social Order; How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help; How Liberals Brought Corruption Into the Catholic Church; How Their Radical Feminist Assault Is Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military, and Sports; How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought.

You must understand that there is no engagement with actual issues in these books. The problems in our country, in our world, are due to the presence of certain groups who are bent on destroying us—“us” being the right-minded citizens who buy these books and listen to talk radio. The liberals (or the Democrats, leftists, feminists, environmentalists, whatever—the terms are interchangeable) represent a malignant force of motiveless evil. They “assault” everything we hold dear, endanger our safety, undermine our culture. They even “plot” against Christmas. Why? Who knows? They’re just evil, folks, and they need to be stopped at all costs.

In the upcoming publishing cycle we may expect books that explain how liberals want to rape our children, make Satanism the national religion, put LSD in our food supply, force everyone into gay sex, and legalize cannibalism.

I’m trying to imagine the poor credulous reader who buys and eagerly reads these books. What does he get out of it? A confirmation of his status as a victim, perhaps. An echo of every secret, self-pitying complaint against whatever people or groups he hates, or who seem to threaten his imagined privilege. And every succeeding book helps him to snivel a little bit longer, and to get angrier and angrier.

The reader imagines an earlier time, a blissful American Eden that existed before the rise of the dreaded liberals. A time when you could buy almost anything for a nickel, when men were men and neighbors were friendly, when family was the most important thing. A time when black people were in their place, and if they got unruly you could lynch 'em. A time when women knew their role: raising babies at home, not working or voting. The golden age, when there was hardly any crime, no unions, no do-gooders, when you could safely piss into the lake without worrying about the EPA. The golden age, my friends, the American Arcadia.

So what is the solution to our problem? Clearly, if we just lined up all the liberals, feminists, loony leftists, gays, environmentalists, animal rights activists, and antiwar protesters against a wall and shot them—then everything would be ok, right?

I wonder what it will take for people to realize the infantile nature of this thinking, to realize that with all the talk of a “culture of complaint” and the weakness of liberal concern for the victim, that no movement has been more characterized by whining, complaining, and pointing the finger, by a complete and total victim mentality, than this pathetic right-wing movement in America. Why, they could take over all three branches of government (and they did), dominate the media discourse (which they also did), and reduce the Democrats to a cringing, ineffectual minority (it happened, and could happen again), but they are still somehow the victims of a powerful liberal enemy determined to corrupt everything good and decent. Now, imagine if the “enemy within” were finally crushed by the righteous power of the conservative state, what meaning would be left for the right-wing whiners? What on earth would they do?

Wouldn’t they have to find someone else to attack? Maybe the Jews—that’s always a good one. Or maybe they’d just end up eating each other. Because, you see, when you run screaming from your own shadow, there is ultimately no escape.


Anonymous said...

Link to Canada Free Press article

In Spain Mama & Papa are now "Progenitors" and it's official

Spain is a Catholic country, has a deeply religious population and is still recovering from the echoes of General Franco's excesses. Yet a small cabal of atheists, communists and sexually ambivalent political activists have succeeded in implementing changes in the state's method of recording the human condition.

Well you might think a liberal minded internationalist such as Blackdude would applaud what seems to appear like an equalitarian progression, but you would be wrong. In fact I would suggest that it is an act of profound disenfranchisement of our identities as human beings. It is an attack on our connection that is to say between mother and child, father and child and mother and father. Each of these attachments is about the relationship between individuals and is about blood, heritage, love, biology and commitment.

With the removal of our identities in one bureaucratic sweep, ostensibly to give equal rights to gay and lesbian parents, the state has shifted heterosexual society to minimise discrimination against homosexuals. On the face of it, it may look just but I suggest that it would not serve anyone's interests but those that wish to attack the identities of all individuals. In fact I would say that the agenda for those who have implemented this bizarre policy aim to cause a societal paradigm shift. To what end, who knows. Possibly to weaken the idea of a society, community and ultimately want to lead us to total alienation from even our kith and kin.

Don't be mistaken, it is not about homosexual rights that I am objecting to but rather the idea of reducing the role of parenthood. This is at the core of my argument; I find it hard to accept a state of physical and psychosexual dissonance as the baseline by which the reproduction of the human species is defined. It is this new and incongruous definition that is an attack on gay and straight human beings. Any gay person who has a child is a mother or father. They are the committed parents of the child with all their inalienable rights there in its permanencies. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with the potential to produce a child.

Chris Dashiell said...

I think I'd have to consider this spam. And I disagree fundamentally with it as well.

Anonymous said...

I sorry you take my comment as spam. But I suppose it saves you trouble of considering my argument. Please allow me to say that I am a liberal in the non-American definition and oddly enough strongly identify with your constitution which I think falls in line with the traditional and original definition of liberalism.

I am sure that can you imagine the revolutionary, ground breaking and remarkable document it was at a time when the men who wrote it were soiled with the deficiencies of their age. The effort of the collective was far superior than any one of the contributors could have achieved alone. The idea of equal rights, freedom of religion, expression, assembly - all inalienable and permanent, wow! Excuse my enthusiasm; after all I am considering it all in the context in which it was written.

Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that these articles in the American constitution are the fundamentals of liberalism in its true definition. Liberalism is an honourable ambition that defends the most basic rights and desires of human beings. However, in our life time, every lunatic fringe agenda, subversion of society and new age-ism has been tacked on to the back of the word liberal. Bear in mind that the liberal ideals were formed in the crucible of the Enlightenment by the greatest philosophers of the age and it has been hijacked by both ends of the political spectrum for their own agendas.

Over and out,

Anonymous said...

Blackdude: I wonder why you, as a self-professed liberal, would chose to let yourself, in your relations to others, be defined by something as petty and mundane as a state bureaucracy.
The human relation between partners, children and parents, or friends is defined by the participants, period. I simply cannot conceive of making it pertinent on the use of a particular word on official documents. What you're saying basically amounts to a rewording of the conservative position that recognition of gay relationships leads to devaluation of heterosexual marriage. IMO, that's a load of bull.

Chris: There is at least a major contender for championship in whining, victim mentality etc., and they're not coincidentally closely tied to the American right. The zionists have throughout their history cynically exploited (really existing or invented) anti-Semitism to their own colonial ends. Pretending to speak and act in the name of all Jews worldwide, they're actually holding the Jews hostage, with or against their will, for the zionists' politics vis-a-vis the Palestinians. Thus, ironically, they've become a major source of anti-Semitism themselves - but certainly not within the American right. The latter have of course long found an external "enemy" to attack; it's the Arabs (or even Islam, as right-wing pundits have already suggested).

Chris Dashiell said...

To clarify, I called it spam because it wasn't really about my article, which made fun of all the demonizing books about liberals and the left. The comment was about the issue of gay marriage in Spain, which has nothing to do with I wrote.
For the record, I think government should not be in the marriage business. Everyone--gay, straight, whatever--should be able to get domestic partner benefits. Marriage should be left to the religious or spiritual traditions, or whatever non-government tradition wishes to practice it. The opponents of gay marriage talk as if their religious rights are being violated. But if gay marriage is outlawed, what about those churches that have chosen to marry gay people? Aren't their religious rights therefore being violated? The real trouble is mixing legal rights and benefits with traditional, usually religious, notions of marriage. They should be separate. But failing that, I support gay marriage because I strongly support the principle of equality in public life.

runlevel0 said...

Re to: "Spain is a Catholic country whit deeply religiuos..."

My name is Enric Martínez, it happens that I AM Spanish...

Spain is only "Catholic" in the CIA World factobook, because on our own official statistics Spain has a 25% of agnostic population and only a 20% of practizing catholics. The rest´s idea of being "deeply religiuos" is attending to church at weddings and baptisms as a part of the day-long booze-intensive party held to celebrate this kind of things.

Spain, has a very old tradition of anticlericalism, even among the "christians": We once, in the XIX century wiped the country almost as clean from priests as we did with jews and muslims during the XV. Century.

We are the only country in the world where blasphemy is used to spice phrases or just as commas and fulls stops are used in other: An occasion for the speaker to take a breathe of air. It´s not even considered strong language. The expresion "Gacuendios" is used almost as mucht as "joder" (one means ´I sh*t in God´ and the second one ´f*ck*ng´).

Thus said, Spaniards, like any other Europeans believe very strongly in "live and let live". The right wing whines, like they know to do, but the rest of the society just don´t care if a family is a man and a woman or a man and a green parrot ¿Why should we?

There are so many kinds of "families" that does not fit into the ´traditional´ concept that it just makes no sense: Many people are unmarried living toghether, many other adults in the citys don´t have a home of their own (not even hired) because of the prizes and live at their parent´s homes...

Spain has the _lowest_ birth rate of the whole world: 1.01%

And we have a percentage of homo´s that representes a 10% of our population.

Just sum it all toghether and you will have a nice picture of how concerned we are about "destruction of the family", "christian values" or even family or chistrianity itself.