Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Google Search Result: [useless phonies]

What can we generalize regarding the "conservative" mentality? There is a synonym of "conservative," the "right;" ... of course ... they are called the right... Now, "right" in Spanish is: "derecho." And derecho means "upright" or it means "correct and proper." Then maybe "left" would be a sort of zig-zag or improper. Something like that.

Well, something like that does seem to be the case, and "We are always right no matter what we do" is the kind of subjective truth-statement I would associate with the mentality of the "right" sort here in America. Those few that still exist on the intellectual level and that are playing out this atrocity were brought up by my google-search today They are here at the National Review:

And who needs a smug asshole who thinks he is always right? Here there are plenty:

...and also a "lefty"      (Norman: 11/15/11 16:52)  He says he subscribes, to NR. He represents the lefty

who wants to associate with the right, and that would be on-line on the "Corner." (the NR copy: "the first Corner post was written on Wednesday, January 23, 2002, at 11:27 p.m. by Jonah Goldberg", bla bla bla bla bla)

But anyway what can we generalize? About the "right." I'll say this: All resources - like language resources - of the society are open to them. They could be well-educated folks. And they will take all they need; they cling to all the prestige they can get. All they need to do is rearrange their own priviledges: those components of language, or those units of logic. Make a nice story. Make it so the United States is always right. Until you succeed in killing the country, and possibly this is what they want.

Why (i.e. outside of the above devastating remarks) is this kind of idea or this kind of approach inadequate? It is because of problems. Problems either exist or they do not. That is what the right never seem to notice. As far as they are concerned, there aren't any. They are in a continuous pose, the continuous mid-question gesture that innocently asks: "what is a problem?" They've never seen one. They've never seen an injustice. Unless, of course, it is done to them which is a distinct thing, not the same as politics and society. I have encountered some progressive or radical writers saying something about combining "the personal and the political." I don't really know what those radicals mean, but it occurs to me that the right guys definitely are not doing. They are not understanding that distinction. Everything is personal. (Then again, that is all the assholes are doing: selfishly not getting the distinction, but nevertheless glomming them together, making everything personal, but then making others suffer the political consequences of their so-innocent blindness.)

They are just, merely, personal. Personal and that's all. Maybe that's why they are called "individualists."

As the world becomes a crazier and crazier place, they do not seem to be able to see anything. Maybe they are the ones who are crazy. I still like Paul Harvey, though.

No comments:

Post a Comment