February 27, 2014

I’m just going to put this out there:

If you are a Republican, and you believe attacking the TEA Party is a sound strategy — even if, after calling its supporters senile, drooling, bullying imbeciles, you later “correct” your statements to note that your differences with them isn’t personal, merely “tactical” — you are not only part of the problem with this country, you are one of the seminal problems with this country as it is currently trending.

We understand who the left is. In fact, we have reached that refreshing stage in the political and culture wars where “progressives” openly admit to and support an imperial executive, a fluid rule of law, and outright, unabashed cronyism that, in addition to providing perks and special dispensation for its political allies, is actively and rather openly trying to use law to squelch political dissent.

— Which is why it’s been my (highly unpopular, but downright necessary) goal on this site over the past few years to flush out who and what the Republican Party and its members truly are; and that, when all is said and done, will have been, along with my work on language here, one of the most important contributions I’ll feel I made to the political trajectory of this country.

We see who you are. And we know now that, when push comes to shove, your allegiances are with big government, the status quo, corporatism, and yes, progressive statism.

You may want lower taxes — but that is mostly for your business buddies, as is your push for cheap imported labor. And so in many ways, you are worse than the left. Because you pretend to represent us, and then, once elected, not only refuse to do so, but you piss on us, belittle us, condescend to us, and presume to lord over us as if we were mindless rubes created solely to provide you with votes you can consistently count on, relying as you do on our deciding to choose between the lesser of two evils. Which still requires that we choose evil. Only with you the ascendent demons.

You call us purists, and yet it is you who won’t support a TEA Party candidate who defeats a sitting establishment candidate in a primary (hi, Lugar, you traitorous and self-serving shithead! Hello, Murkowsky, you aristocratic hag) — and in fact, your election strategy going forward to 2014 appears to be to defeat the TEA Party and push back the grass roots rather than do a damn thing to beat back the progressive’s agenda. You not only don’t offer support, but you actively run these challengers down.

And so I consider you enablers for the left and for Utopian statists. Not “pragmatists” or “realists” who have unconsciously accepted the left’s paradigm of historical materialism, leading you to embrace an entirely ridiculous “we need to win to fight” backward-ass tactical approach to electoral politics; but rather it’s co-conspirators.

When neither party supports — or worse, when both parties marginalize, demonize, and scapegoat — those of us who wish to return to a stable rule of law, separation of powers, the rights of states to exercise constitutional sovereignty, and the primacy of the individual to live life unmolested by bureaucratic agencies empowered to create roadblocks to our liberty, property, industry, and prosperity, then neither party is worth supporting.

And both, therefore, are worth defeating.

Were we truly the senile, drooling, imbecilic cranks that the GOP and the New Left Democrats, along with their media cohort, make us out to be, they’d have nothing to fear from us.

And yet every time I hear of their gathering to figure out ways to rebrand themselves “conservative” while moving that designation leftward, it tells me they still think they have to fool the rubes in order to keep them at bay.

Only we’re on to all this. And so to win, we’re going to force you to show your hands and ante up all the money in your war chests. And even then, we’ll be back the next time, pressing our principled case while you mouth platitudes and then, once elected, turn your back on those you are supposed to be representing in order to push forward with your own big government, corrupt, nest-feathering inside-the-Beltway agenda.

Get used to it.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 11:29am

Comments (40)

  1. Lunatic teabagger Ted Cruz totally had the wrong strategy! The right time to fight wasn’t on the budget! The absolute perfect, both tactically and strategically, time to stand and fight for some sort of fiscal sanity was when the debt ceiling came around! And you motherfuckers handed Obama a blank check without so much as a “Baaaa….”

    In fact, the only squealing you milquetoast turncoats did was to bleat at the aforementioned lunatic teabagger Cruz when he forced you vote for what it was you were doing, which was leaning forward and dropping the drawers of America’s next 4 generations so that Obama and Co. could more easily have their way in rogering them and their futures. Why couldn’t that rat bastard just let you feckless cocksuckers pretend to be fighting this endless profligate spending?

    Fuck. You. You get nothing from me but my enmity. Unless you choose to walk your useless assess off into the sunset, then you might get a golf clap.

  2. Without the base, nobody is electable. Opposing the base, the only thing inevitable is failure.

  3. Which is why the Republicans are as eager as the Democrats to import a new base.

  4. Watching the sheep here in my hometown vote once again for the moderate while I angst about why no one is paying attention and voting for the clear conservative, this piece was most refreshing. Thanks Jeff.

  5. Going to the middle, the average, the mean, that is the way to go. That is why average girls win beauty pageants.

  6. I’d like to point out something again:

    #TeaParty=emotional, temper tantrum wing of the GOP. Time to stand up to them

    Notice what’s being asserted here: Being Emotional (read: angry) discredits you. Doesn’t matter why you’re angry, your anger alone is evidence that you’re unstable and out of control and that the adults need to be in charge.

    This is from an ostensible Republican? Where else do we see this “reasoning”?

    Why, it’s Item 2: Disqualify that Opinion, subcategory “You sound angry” from Larry Correia’s Internet Arguing Checklist. Though humorous in its presentation, we all know that he’s not exaggerating for effect: we’ve all had a bellyful of it.

    And of course most of the concern trolls who swarm @yesnicksearcy‘s timeline like mosquitoes to a bug-zapper (yes, I’m mentioning him again) lead with an unctuous “you sound angry” as the lead-in to their passive-aggressive performative, wherein Nick plays the spit-flecked maniac to their impassive rationality.

    And THAT resonates in a most disconcerting fashion with the Chavista propaganda that’s being spewed during Venezuela’s arrecho (awakening). Chávez and now Maduro employ “Tupamaros,” who patrol the streets to help keep the glorious Bolivarian revolution alive.

    The Tupamaros, according to state-controlled media, are for peace, tranquility, and love. They’re just “unarmed collectives” who want nothing but peace. PAZ, dammit! PAZ!

    Naturally, #AdoptaUnTupamaro was created to demonstrate how desirable these cute little cuddle-bugs were as they rode through the streets in motorcycle gangs, shooting random people and being cuddly and peaceful.

    Don’t be without one!

    Then the Chavistas taunt the rebels with exactly the same rhetoric as that pissant I quoted up top: “You’re all cray-cray, but I’m at peace.Disconnect yourself from hatred, reads the hashtag.

    If I could read Ukranian, I’m sure I’d find the same horseshit on their Twitter feeds.

    “You sound angry” isn’t just a passive-aggressive way to dismiss an opponent: it’s calculated psyops to justify a crackdown on people who refuse to stomach mendacity, lies, and manipulation.

    And all the Leftists use it.

    All of them.

  7. relying as you do on our deciding to choose between the lesser of two evils. Which still requires that we choose evil. Only with you the ascendent demons.

    Reminds of this exquisite tweet last night from a parody-ish account:

    Q: “And what concord hath Christ with Belial?” A: “This one seems like it should be ‘none’, but that seems very judgey.. idk..”

  8. The Tupamaros made an appearance on “Person of Interest” last night as real cuddle bunnies. /sarc>

  9. Pingback: The Camp Of The Saints

  10. “You sound angry.”

    “So your ears do work — just not the goo in between.”

  11. “You sound Angry”
    “You sound like a low end bullshit artist out to waste my time with some schtick.

  12. “If you’re not angry, you’re not paying attention.”
    Sounds like a good bumper sticker.

  13. so “angry birds” is bad

  14. – While its probably true that the Kibuki theater/agenda of our advisaries, the Progs and the GOP, can’t be restated too often, really the question is what the fuck to do about it, now that the game and manipulations have been thouroughly identified and defined.

    – You have the whole gagle of LoFos to deal with, added to the young melleniums hoping for free shit, and other entitlement dependent groups that aren’t going to give up trying to score off the Lefties somehow. Shameless full throtle pandering, and promise making to shuck the suckers. That is what you have to overcome, at least until the whole shiteree falls apart and then it will “adjust”.

  15. really the question is what the fuck to do about it, now that the game and manipulations have been thouroughly identified and defined

    I had always seen “you seem angry” as purely obnoxious, passive-aggressive nonsense until I saw it from the Chavistas.

    Now I realize that it’s not merely annoying, it’s a tool of oppression.

    Searcy responds by apologizing. Repeatedly.

    I’m not sure which short retort can both illuminate and kill the argument, the way a bug-zapper does.

    “If you’re not angry, you’re not paying attention,” as RI Red observed?

    “My anger is Justified™”?

    “And you seem unctuous”?

    Suggestions accepted.

  16. “You can’t possibly believe tha?t”

  17. “Anger is patriotic and we have a right to be angry”?

    “How do mean? Like, Howard Dean yeaargh! angry? Or Hillary Clinton dissent is patriotic</i angry"?

  18. why are you so angry faggots about arizona?

  19. why are you so angry spikelee about brooklyn?

  20. why are you so angry ericholder about the “tea party”

  21. why are you so angry mr. ” let’s take your money to build me a stadium” rooney about the word: nigger?

  22. “Really? Is there an app for that?”

  23. “You sound angry.”

    Counselor Troi’s empathic abilites prove useful again!

    I’m guessing the people who say that we’re angry think we should instead be running around singing “Happy! Happy! Joy! Joy!” to the progressive’s actions?

  24. can white people call white people nigger? difi’s a nigger ie something for nothing politician. what is the definition of “nigger” exactly?

  25. calling mr goldstein:

    Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive.
    a black person.
    a member of any dark-skinned people.
    Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive. a person of any race or origin regarded as contemptible, inferior, ignorant, etc.
    a victim of prejudice similar to that suffered by blacks; a person who is economically, politically, or socially disenfranchised.

    who set the markers for ” Extremely Disparaging and Offensive. ” only applies to whites and not blacks?

  26. “You seem angry.”

    “Not at all. Everything is Awesooome!”

  27. “You sound angry.”

    “But do I look angry?”

    “…I’m sorry, what…?”

    “I mean, am I eight feet tall with green skin?”

    “Um, no.”

    “Then I must not be angry.”

  28. “You sound angry.”

    “And you sound scared.”

  29. “You sound angry.”

    “Really? What does angry sound like? And do you hear angry a lot? Does it tell you to… do things?”

  30. “You sound angry.”

    “I wouldn’t know, I don’t go around making people angry, so I’m not that familiar with how it sounds.”

  31. “You sound angry.”

    “Only around sanctimony.”

  32. “And you’re a putz, but I will eventually calm down.”

  33. “Would you rather I sound dishonest, smug, unctuous and coldly machiavellian? Do you want to hear about how I think you’re a drooling chump stooge if I promise to use my sexy voice?

  34. “You sound angry.”

    “Thank you, Amaxing Kreskin.”

  35. RI Red wrote:

    “If you’re not angry, you’re not paying attention.”
    Sounds like a good bumper sticker.

    That’s been Stacy McCain’s mantra for quite some time now.

    It seems to me that, considering there will always be Utopians / Totalitarians among us, it is our duty as Patriotic Americans to always maintain a certain level of Angry.

  36. Well, yes, when you set out to steal my shit and enslave my kids, I do tend toward a testiness that might not make you comfortable. On the plus side, though, I haven’t beaten you senseless with a little red book yet. So you’ve got that going for you.