For sale or rent: me
Prager University? Beck / Blaze TV? PJM? Freedom Works? Someone with a video camera and the ability to put together an informative, important discussion / lectures series with relatively high production values and maybe a few titties, if that’ll help? — and who then has the organizational muscle to disseminate it? To post it as a series of webinars, then maybe combine it all together into a DVD or dowloadable / streaming presentation?
I’m cheap. No, seriously, I am.
It wasn’t always that way, of course — I used to have a decent reputation as something other than a pseudo-intellectual, psyscho-sexually sociopathic marauder of high-charactered fighters for Good and Right — but then, I didn’t always have anarchist / nihilist groups, leftwing academics, and right-side “pragmatists” committed to forming their own insular link exchanges aligned against me. I’m the Devil, you see. My horns hidden largely by my menacing hairline.
Still, if you’re interested, and it helps for liability purposes, I’d be willing to be spritzed with holy water or some such, just so you can be sure the evil is not strong in me before you go and invest. If I burn up, start speaking in tongues, turn my head completely around and begin masturbating with a crucifix, feel free to thank me for my time and send me home. If not, then I’d be willing to put together a series on language / meaning / interpretation, et al. — beginning with a very simple and basic introduction to the simplest useful form of semiotic — that in a very engaging (I hope) way attempts to familiarize people with the various terminology (eg., sometimes SCOTUS Justices like Scalia use “intentionalism” in a way that is actually antithetical to what it is, particular as it exists in a legal hermeneutic setting), and the contemporary school of thought regarding interpretation, which, for all the various subspecialties, all boil down to the same thing: the usurpation of the individual and his agency by a motivated collective who presumes the authority to claim and shape that individual’s meaning.
What you might need to know:
Before my first son was born, I taught several popular honor’s level literature courses at a private university that will host one of this year’s Presidential debates. My courses touched upon these semantic, rhetorical, and hermeneutic themes. When I did so, before 9/11/01, I had no real political affiliation, though if asked I likely would have identified as Democrat, that being the fallback designation of any academic who is largely unconcerned with politics. Yet still, I supported Steve Forbes and his flat tax, before he dropped from the 1996 Presidential race — and my subsequent work on racial theory and interpretation theory naturally moved me to the right, politically, because that’s where logic and rigor and intellectual consistency took me.
– And to “the right,” I mean only that it moved me away from the stultifying and dangerous assumptions at the heart of linguistic theory preferred by the left, and suggested to me that where liberty, individual autonomy, natural rights, a stable rule of law, and equality of opportunity (as opposed to technocratic-enforced / police state egalitarianism) was, to my surprise, on the “right” side of the current political spectrum.
I tested my ideas out in the crucible of the School of Literary Criticism and Theory at Cornell (I was the first student, though a creative writer and grad student, and not a theorist or an assistant professor, or adjunct, to be accepted twice). I was largely alone then in my thinking, but over the course of those summers I won over a number of grudging converts, many of whom I sure reverted thanks to the pressures of ideological conformity so evident in many Humanities departments, and certainly evident during hiring interviews, a few of which I sat in on.
I’ve long described myself as a classical liberal. Others, over the years, have moved me to fringe extremist racist homophobe teabagger who hates and is tolerant of intolerance — a crime of hate, this hateful toleration of hate, though as defined, naturally, by those who have redefined “hateful” and “tolerance” themselves — and yet, as far back as 2005, I was excommunicated from proper academic culture by a former professor of mine for the crime of defending free speech, resisting the willful authoritarian tendencies that provide PC platitudes their real-world shaming power, and positing, well in advance of the TEA Party, a logistical grass roots uprising that would force those who believe in and value the ideals of our founding and the mechanisms for securing such, to eventually break from those who do not.
I called it a soft civil war, and I envisioned it happening through group migration to states whose governance matched the desires of an increasingly molested citizenry. I have since posited that it will have to be strong governors and self-assertive states willing to reclaim the 9th and 10th Amendments that lead the way toward a reclamation of the country as founded. Refusal to comply with federal dictates and bureaucratic mandates could (and perhaps should) be the ignition point for a national clash of ideas and visions.
Still, all that is secondary. Because we don’t need guns to fight a soft civil war. We need the language.
It has been taken from us, and it is to my everlasting consternation that even prominent “conservatives” oftentimes will fall into the trap of further institutionalizing and entrenching the mechanism of their own road to serfdom.
On my sidebar, under “language/ intentionalism,” “identity politics,” and “academics” are a series of archived posts I’ve written over the years explaining my position. In the early days of protein wisdom, this was a very wide-open site, inviting of debate (in fact, people who have since cast me as evil incarnate were once welcome here as guest posters, because I was under the illusion at that time that we were engaging in public intellectualism, not marking our territories with squirts of concentrated sophistic piss). And so much of the real back and forth of the debate takes place in the comments, where people raise questions or objections to my arguments, and I do my best to reply in turn.
Back then, many of early blogosphere’s prominent leftist “thinkers” and academics chimed in, mostly trying to pawn off jargon and (at the time) current academic cant to dismiss me without engaging my ideas with any rigor. Such, incidentally, is one of the most frequently learned tools one picks up in graduate studies: how to name drop, sniff, and pretend to have dismissed what you have not dismissed. That is, mockery, followed by a declaration of victory and then a hope that you’ve shamed your interlocutor into silence.
I wasn’t the guy to try that with and still am not.
The bottom line is this: my arguments haven’t changed to meet any new literary theory fad. Language function, within a communication chain where the object is to be understood, is so very simple that those who’ve used it to subvert truth and change its function have worked to make it seem hopelessly complicated. Their prose is often impenetrable. Their jargon is itself but a rhetorical cue suggestive of who their audience is and who they are hoping to freeze out.
The destruction of the Enlightenment paradigm upon which American exceptionalism was built and has thrived, is in full force. We see everyday the symptoms of the disease, but we refuse to dig deeper to identify, isolate, and illuminate what the disease is and how precisely it works on us. And that’s because even many of those on the side of liberty have been contaminated and refuse to recognize it.
There is a way back. And while part of that might have to do with canvassing for GOP candidates, for the most part such a gesture is less even than a Band-aid. Winning elections, then having your policies hamstrung for fear they’ll be cast in a way that will prevent your re-election, is merely a circle-jerk of ineptitude.
It is time to fix the problem by addressing it at its root level.
I want to help.
So. Give me a ring.
Not that I’m counting on any such thing. If I want to spread the word and get a message out through Twitter, I’m better off talking about how Todd Akin and Mitt Romney’s presumptuousness have already cost us the election.
That — and the newest daily poll — is what sells.