Yes, yes, everyone recognizes this is a blatant, brutishly-insulting argument against libertarianism. Hell, even *I* show you silver-hoarding freakos more respect than this article.
…But doesn’t that strike you as being a little strange?
Michael Lind is both a pedigreed author and well-connected member of the Cathedral; guest lecturer for Harvard Law, the works. I am a twenty-something statist writing under the pseudonym of a Japanese video game monster… Yet Lind’s the one blatantly trolling the Paultards. Something doesn’t add up. This article is a sub-par effort by even Salon’s Vaisya standards… Salon may not be The New York Times or The Atlantic, but neither is it Cracked.com.
What I’m getting at is that in a culture driven by subliminal messaging and viral social marketing, when something is *this* obvious it shouldn’t anger you, it should alarm you.
So, if this article isn’t meant to be a valid intellectual debunking of libertarianism (and it’s NOT), then what is the purpose?
While my fellow travelers are doing some amazing work both online and in meatspace, there are those of us at TRS that feel more could and should be done to seize the decline of the West. Why should we content ourselves with simply riding the tiger; why not work to aim the beast in a direction of our choosing?
From numerous discussions upon the subject was born Anti-Prometheism (Anti-Pro or Apro for short), a new and exciting intellectual frontier for my brothers to conquer.
The ultimate goal of this project is to weaken Western Civilization through the support and advancement of Liberal “progress” beyond the society’s tolerances, particularly within the United States. Push the idiotic narrative to such extremes, push the general population so far that for them reaction becomes blunt necessity, and not merely intellectual convenience.
Perhaps this project will strike many of my readers as being too radical (hare-brained) a means for achieving our desired reactionary ends. Why in the world should someone seek to create more of what they wish to destroy? How does one hope to kill Liberalism by making it stronger?
It is a profoundly-sad reflection upon our age that Greg Karber’s actions in the video are confused with actual human kindness. All I see is a man throwing clothes at some smelly human-shaped objects for the purpose of getting the librul wimminz moist.
…What, you didn’t notice that the focus is on the clothing, and not the human beings?
There is perhaps nothing more detestable and toxic in present day political discourse than the unwarranted arrogance and snarky attitude displayed by conventional liberals thoroughly convinced that their oh so enlightened social views are based on science. Apparently passing high school biology, watching Carl Sagan’s Cosmos and thumbing various Neil Degrasse Tyson memes on Facebook has lead these intellectual nobodies to believe that they are qualified to speak with authority on topics ranging from biological evolution to the proper application of the scientific method. Unsurprisingly the conclusion they draw from all this scientific expertise is that non-liberal political and social views are unscientific. What a shocker.
The hysterically pathetic irony of this world view is the blatant religiosity of it. Countless debates with “scientific” minded liberals and an examination of their beliefs have made it evident that this system of thought contains a soft, nuggety core of pure theology masquerading as “science” for outside observers. This illusion of intellectual authority is further reinforced by the adoption of a pedestrian form of “scientific atheism” that allows these liberals to fancy themselves as over and above those stupid Creationists. While theist notions of “science” such as intelligent design may be laughable, this paucity of intellectual credence does not work to elevate non-religious science by default. As we will examine, supposedly non-religious science is still warped by confirmation bias emanating from a clearly defined ideology that presupposes certain premises. Unlike most scientific methods of inquiry, liberal scientism starts with certain a priori universal assumptions, akin to religious values for atheistic liberals, which are then “proven” through deductive reasoning rather than inductive science.
What are these assumptions? Why, they are the same old spooks that we have been getting from self-styled progressives for the last century or so.
Ron Paul, our generation’s William Jennings Bryan, has largely run his course. The man who for decades bravely griefed Congress and disrupted Republican Primaries, now talks shit about dead people on twitter. He who lives by the troll dies by the troll, I suppose.
Following his not-so-stellar progress in 2010-11, these actions certainly don’t surprise me; here was a man ultimately less interested in cultivating a meaningful counter-narrative, and more interested in pissing people off before collecting his Congressional pension.
“There are a lot of smart people out there (that justify their success thus:) ‘It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.’ Let me tell you something: There are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.” -President Barack Obama, July 13th 2012
Observation: In our day and age, it isn’t necessary to weave a coherent narrative or construct a logical system of belief. In fact, all one needs to do is simply spew specific words/phrases and create appealing sound bites; let the vulgar rabble fill in the blanks and vote.