Don’t.  Do something you enjoy, instead.

Up until a few years ago, I believed that our opponents might be reasonable.  Then I examined the situation, asked myself one question…and was appalled by the truth.

Here’s the question:  “What would it take to have peace with the Left?”

The answer?  Endless Surrender–which actually wouldn’t work, either.  There is no peace with statists.  There is no compromise.  There is no giving them what they want, because they “want” Utopia.  All they want is the impossible.  Why won’t you give it to them, you bastards?

The best thing we could do for everyone, right now, is to beat the living crap out of every single statist.  With 2×4′s, if necessary.  Does that seem extreme?  Really?

Then tell me:  how do you think this thing ends?

THEY CANNOT BE BARGAINED WITH.

THEY CANNOT BE REASONED WITH.

THEY CANNOT BE PLACATED.

THEY CANNOT STOP THEMSELVES.

There is no “solution”, in the sense of a final solution.  They are the ones who think “Final Solutions” exist.  The best thing is to break them–here, now, as gently as possible–and institute a Constitution 2.0 to fix the bugs that threaten the original document.  Just repair the mistakes of our ancestors and let our descendents deal with our screwups.  The longer we wait, the messier it gets.

So am I seriously proposing that we start physically beating some sense into the Left?

…

…

…er…

…

…

…no?

Is that the right answer?  No.  No, it isn’t.  The right answer is that we put these millions of mental and moral imbeciles in their place immediately.  And since they are impervious to reason or conscience, physically chastising them would be best for all concerned.  But if you don’t believe in spanking–if you want to ground them, or take away T.V. privileges or desserts, or whatever–fine.  It’s less efficient, but you puny humans have social hangups that always reduce efficiency.

You want to keep conversing with the Left?  Bah.  Fine.  You’re the Captain Kirks, I’m your lowly Spock.  But will you take some advice?  Just…just screw with the hive mind.  The entire Left is less intelligent than one normal human brain.  So when they spend two minutes whining “racism!”, you reply with two words: “Robert Byrd”.

DON’T EXPLAIN.  Don’t elaborate.  If (when) they say, “I don’t get it”, you say, “Then educate yourself and get back to me”.  Or, “go back to the kids’ table, then”, or “Then what good are you?” or…well, you get it.

The point is, never treat them like adults.  Don’t let their size fool you, they are malevolent, amoral children.  Yes, some leftists are individually intelligent.  Some may even be quicker and more clever than you.  Don’t worry!  You can destroy even the smartest of them with ease.  Because the smart ones are all evil, and bound by a dark covenant:  they must pretend they believe the crap spewing from their mouths.

Rub their noses in it.

Here is Lin’s post.  It’s a masterful mix of research, commentary, and compilation.  In fact, just swing by her joint for all your BABKD needs.  If I see anything else astounding, the link will go here.

Brett,

You are the poster child for “progressives”.

I’ve blogged anonymously for two years because I cut radical Islam no slack and had young relatives living at the house.  Well, they’re not here anymore.  Unlike Stacy McCain, I don’t have to protect anyone but my brother.  And he’s ten times crazier than me.

So heed the word, Brettster:  my name is Marlon McAvoy.   Look up the rest yourself; I’m not doing all the work.

Now come and get me.

Even if you do, you pathetic puke, you’re no terrorist.  If you kidnapped me and tortured me to death, I’d never be terrified of YOU.  Sure, the pain would scare me.  I might even die screaming.  But through the pain I’d be laughing at the spoiled little punk who can’t think of anything else to do with people.  How pitiful is that?  You are not a terrorist.  You are what masculine terrorists wipe off the bottom of their shoe.  You’re the bleating lamb that jihadists bugger for relaxation before blowing themselves up in acts which, while totally evil, are still bad-ass.

In fact, you’re the best argument for cowardly Western decadence that Islam could ever hope for.

You are not a terrorist.  You are a little pain-dealing beast that never risks itself.  Oooh, such genius!  Why hasn’t everyone else thought of that?  Oh yeah.  They haven’t seared their consciences with a hot iron.

Seriously, Kimberlin, you put the “putz” in “pusillanimous”…and that doesn’t even make sense!  But neither do you, except as one of the foul and formless things that escaped Pandora’s Box.  You have no more meaning than poison ivy, than rust, than the tinnitus that torments my every waking moment and makes sleep almost impossible.

Yeah.  That’s you, Brett.  You’re not a terrorist.  You’re tinnitus.  You’re an endless mindless screech, signifying nothing.

You make Bill Ayers look butch.  And these days that bomb-throwing “pig”-hating pissant goes mewling to the cops if someone steps on his lawn.  You make that guy look like Charles Durning!

Are you fightin’ mad, Brett?  Well, we know your go-to move.  So go whine to some real men.  Real men, in robes.  Go ahead.  Tell them I hurt your feelings, that I bruised your self-esteem, that I (sniff) gave you an “owie”.  Go ahead…ha ha…”man up”.

God.  You’re so pathetic I’m not even enjoying this.  It’s like beating up a piñata of a blind kitten, only instead of candy I’ll get showered with lawsuits.

But I guess real men like you fight with nuisance lawfare.

You’re the worst, Brett.  The absolute worst.  And not “worst” like ”most fearsome” or something.  More like “the worst excuse for a man that could possibly exist in any universe.”  “The worst” as in, “the opposite of the best, in every sense of the word.”

And yet…

…and yet…

…I am a Christian.  I must give you a chance, Brett.  Maybe you haven’t murdered your conscience yet.  Is your wickedness an attempt to drown out the dying moans of your personal Jiminy Cricket?

Been there.  Done that.  Failed.  Thank God.

So I can tell you, with no little authority:  if you actually kill Jiminy there’s nothing left between you and eternal damnation.  I can’t say if he’s dead yet, but I guarantee you that little bug is nearly burnt to a crisp by now.

Is your conscience truly gone, Brett?  Does any part of you ever know that you’re doing evil.  Becoming evil?  If your conscience isn’t dead…you could still be great.  Reversing Brett Kimberlin’s polarity would make an incredible man indeed.  Not one man in a thousand has been worse than me, not one in a million has sunk lower…but you’ve got me beat on all counts.  A 180-degree turn makes you a giant of a man.

If your conscience isn’t dead.

If you have murdered it…I’m truly sorry that Brett Kimberlin is gone.  But the moral zombie than rampages in his skin can’t be allowed to molest others and spread its disease.

So if you’re still human, Brett…come pray with me.  If you are not…well…then let’s get this over with.  Mano a monstero, Grendel a Beowulf.

In fact, I insist you come kill me before you ever threaten a family again.  Note the “again”, Brett.  Here’s what it means:

You’re in the habit of threatening children!

So, your conscience probably is long dead.  But swing on by, Kimberlin.  If you can’t pray with me, you’re welcome to try and kill me.

Either way…

Come.  And.  GET.  Me.

(My brain actually thinks about thinking about thinking, but that’s because it hates me and wants me to suffer.)

Anyway, there are two kinds of labels.  No doubt they’ve been named in the past, but let’s go with “reasonable” and “unreasonable”.  The first type is used to sharpen our thinking and increase our understanding.  The second type hinders rational thought, though no puny humans ever seem to realize it. 

Reasonable labels include “pi”, “c”, “Planck’s Length”, and “the University of Alabama”.

Unreasonable ones include “liberal”, “conservative”, “progressive”, and “Crimson Tide!”

The difference is, of course, that everyone can agree on the definition of a reasonable label.  Not that they will; some folks are so ornery they’ll deny what they know is true just to tick you off.

“pi”, “c”, and “Planck’s Length” aren’t just reasonable, they’re mathematical.  Universal agreement on idealized precision like “3.14159…”, “186,000 mps”, and “1.616199(97)×10⁻³⁵m” is the point of the labels. 

But “University of Alabama” is reasonable, in that it conveys specific information upon which all can agree.  “Some people believe that Forrest Gump really played football at the University of Alabama!”  The label can be challenged (“Didn’t Gump play for Florida State?”) but both sides will agree that a correct answer exists regardless of how anyone feels about it.

Now look at “progressive” and “conservative”.  What is the correct meaning for each label?  There isn’t one.  Any definition of either word, by either group, will be completely unacceptable to the other. 

That is not reasonable.  Nor is “Rolllllll TIDE!!”.  These labels are for conveying attitude, not data-tude.

(Sorry.)

One could claim that “Crimson Tide” is a reasonable term.  Most Americans would nod if you asked, “Is the ‘Crimson Tide’ the Alabama football team?”  But some mavens might correct you:  the “real” Crimson Tide is the fanatical horde that pulls on the team color and on Saturdays washes into the stadium in the tens of thousands. 

The Crimson Tide.  Get it?  Get it?  Sure you do, we cousin-marryin’ Bible-thumpers aren’t known for our subtlety.  And so I shout “Rolllll TIDE!” in lieu of crying:  “Mine is the side of God and Bear Bryant  and Righteous Fury and all who oppose us shall be trampled and destroyed!”

Does that sound reasonable to you?    

“Conservative” and “progressive” are just as inaccurate.  You could argue they have undeniable meanings:  “one who conserves” and “one who progresses”.  Two problems:  first, those are distinctions without differences.  And second…you still wouldn’t be able to get partisans to agree to your definitions.

So are unreasonable labels bad?  No, of course…

Roll Tide Roll Tide KILL THE FIGHTIN’ IRISH AND DEFILE THEIR FETID CORPSES!

…not.  Assuming you root for ‘Bama, like all decent folk.  And that you don’t use unreasonable labels as if they are reasonable or logical.

Which…of course…everyone does.  Ann Coulter, who in addition to being hilariously bitchy is occasionally brilliant, uses “conservative” as if it means something besides partisanship.  It does not.  “Shirts and skins” conveys more factual data than any political label ever will.  Ann is excellent at reason, but when she argues “conservatism” she’s just being another blond cheerleader.

Okay, I’m labeled out.  But…didjaevernotice…the more “liberal” or “progressive” people get, the more they tend to dislike sports?  For every basketball-loving Spike Lee there’s a dozen progs who sneer at football and baseball and NASCAR.

See, sports fans are barbaric.  They indulge their atavistic natures by reveling in competition and victory and the mocking and casting down of their “enemies”.  Of course it’s all mock combat between willing participants on level playing fields where cheating is universally detested. 

Well…where getting caught at cheating is, anyway.

Naturally progressives believe themselves above the behavior of sports fanatics.  This is because they are mentally retarded.  They have as much or more aggression and competitiveness and mockery and destructiveness as anyone else.  They just put those things into politics and “civics”.  They are about actual hatred and conflict and destruction of their enemies. 

They don’t care that we don’t want to play.  They abhor level playing fields and fair rules.  And they can’t even imagine that they cheat; “cheating” is when they lose, for whatever reason.

Well guess what, you (UNREASONABLE AND OBSCENE LABEL) progressives!  Someday puny human minds will grasp what I see so clearly.  America’s liberty lovers will finally know you for what you are.

When they realize that just because war hasn’t been declared doesn’t mean it’s not going on…they will annihilate you.  And when your hive mind is shattered and you are revealed as the most pathetic human individuals ever to have lived…a big part of me will be chanting, “Rah rah ree, kick ‘em in the knee;  rah rah rass, kick ‘em in…the other knee!”

But the rest of me is Christian, so it will be chastizing the part that’s cheering.

Apparently there’s detectable variation in size between the (larger) conservative and (smaller) leftist amygdala.  To progressive “scientists” like (from the Breitbart article) Holland and Mooney, this proves that conservatives are less-evolved than leftists. 

Remember:  progressives try to force everyone to live like progressives.  And how do Holland and Mooney justify a homogenous Utopia? By pointing out that liberals and conservatives are heterogeneous!  Bwah ha ha!  “We’re different types of people, so you will behave exactly as we tell you! 

It’s like the blind leading the headless. 

Hey, Holland and Mooney!  Lefties and progressives!  Do you know why you…triumphantly!…cite facts that completely undermine your own argument? 

You’re mentally retarded. 

(Leftists younger than 25 years old can be labeled “mentally immature”.  The rare mentally competent leftists are actually evil slavers who need destruction, preferably by fire.)

Mooney’s atrophied Prefrontal Cortex causes him to misread the amygdala data.  Well, that and his ridiculous self-worship.  He had no choice but to believe that his amygdala is juuuuust right, thus the bigger conservative one is an atavistic throwback. 

Sorry, wrong.  It’s obvious (to the fabulous W.O.R.M.brain) that if leftists were last in line when God handed out amygdalae…that’s not a good thing.

Geez.  A few more scientific breakthroughs and I might start feeling sorry for leftists.  The Prefrontal Cortex and the amygdala are both vital to risk-assessment and consequence-evaluation.  Progressives have been synergistically short-changed.  Bless their little hearts.

(I’d feel even sorrier for them if their impairments didn’t create sociopathic hate-filled dictators.) 

But I must point out that you can never threaten a mule with a 2×4 until you’ve actually beaten him with it a few times.  He will never make the connection for himself until you do it for him, so to speak. 

Likewise, you can’t reason with a faulty brain that doesn’t understand the idea of consequences.  You must administer consequences, and shocking ones at that.  It’s a long shot, but a rhetorical 2×4 might wake the P-Cortex and amygdala and give these poor leftist bastards some much-needed brain exercise.

A literal 2×4, applied properly, would definitely give these poor leftist bastards some much-needed brain exercise.

Don’t worry…it would be for their own good.

Prof. Mead is sure that policy would be bad.  And perhaps it would.  But he isn’t examining both sides of the coin.  It’s not that he’s avoiding:

And it’s reasonable for people to ask why we should spend so much of our money to provide a security shield for countries who refuse to carry their fair share of the common burden.

It’s also reasonable to ask how much of Europe’s infantalized outlook and economy-destroying social programs is due to Uncle Sam underwriting security for three generations.  The correct answer is, “A lot.”

All-in-all, I’m with John Q. Public and against the Professor.  I’d happily stay if Europe paid a fair share.  But otherwise, I’d say Prof. Meads’ concerns are outweighed by the benefits of Western Europe having to grow the hell up. 

And if it’s too late, then NATO is a trap and America should escape sooner, not later.  Or it might have to gnaw off its own foot.

Well…almost.

But maybe being worn out means tonight I’ll get some rest, for once.  Probably no more blogging today, but will try to reply to any comments tonight.

In the meantime, let me give you what my crazy lady co-worker gave me:  a big-ass balloon. 

Dumbledore!

If profits are still important to DC and it’s a major character coming out, then of course it will be Wonder Woman.  Sales losses will be minimal, and they might see a sales boost, at least short-term.

Also…speaking as a storytelling geek, there are serious issues to consider.  A hero who suddenly comes out as gay had better not have a serious hetero-romantic relationship going on.  “Lois, I know we’ve been flirting/dating/married for decades now, but I, Kal El…am actually hot for the dudes.”  And the Diana Prince/Steve Traynor Trevor thing has been trivial for generations now. 

(Diana Prince is Wonder Woman’s non-Amazonian name, for you non-geeks.)

I’d laugh if they made Batman gay, but they wouldn’t dare.  First, because he’s the Gee Dee Batman.  But “I piss on childhood memories” artistes don’t care about that.  No, it’s because Bruce Wayne has adopted, like, three 13 year-old boys over the years.  Heh heh.  Yeah, that’d really advance the gay cause.

As for the other major DC heroes…

…

…there aren’t any. 

Hey!  Assuming Superman isn’t gay, doesn’t that mean Bizarro has always been?!  God, there’s a scary thought. 

The most common working premise of social-psychology research is far-fetched all by itself: The behavior of a statistically insignificant, self-selected number of college students or high schoolers filling out questionnaires and role-playing in a psych lab can reveal scientifically valid truths about human behavior. 

There’s a simple reason why lefty professors can’t tell hokum from science:  they and other leftists are mentally retarded.  This isn’t to insult them.  They are, literally, mentally retarded.

I didn’t have questionnaires and role-playing results, though.  I had to make do with simple biology and simple logic.

“Retarded” means slowed or stopped prior to full maturity.  All creatures need time to mature, human beings most of all.  And what organ is the very last to fully mature?  If it’s not already obvious…you’re probably a social scientist.  Obviously this bad boy slouches in last.

Now check this out.  And roll your cursor over the “Prefrontal Cortex”.  That is the very last part of the very last organ to mature.  And what is it responsible for?  Judgment!  Here are behaviors associated with a not-yet-mature Prefrontal Cortex:

• difficulty holding back or controlling emotions,
• a preference for physical activity,
• a preference for high excitement and low effort activities (video games, sex, drugs, rock ‘n’ roll),
• poor planning and judgement (rarely thinking of negative consequences),
• more risky, impulsive behaviors, including experimenting with drugs and alcohol.

If you asked me to boil that 5-point list down to three words, a year ago I’d have laughed in your face.  But today?  Occupy Wall Street.  Every aspect of OWS is explained by UPC, Unoccupied Prefrontal Cortex. 

People under the age of 25 are much more likely to be politically “progressive” than mature adults.  Why?  For the same reason they make all their other stupid mistakes.  They either don’t see consequences or don’t care about them. 

Mandatory socialism has profoundly negative consequences.  In fact, the extent of its blight would be unbelievable if it wasn’t so documented.  Government socialism wrecks every economy it touches and murdered more people in one century than is recorded in all the rest of history.  Its record is utterly perfect; it has never failed to fail.

And every single leftist on Earth wants more of it.

Ergo…all progressives older than 25 are mentally retarded.  Their Prefrontal Cortexes never matured, or are doing so very, very, very slowly.

(The only other possiblity is that they are evil, evil, evil, evil people.  No doubt some are.  But most are just mentally retarded.)

After writing this up, I got a bit angry that in America the voting age is 18 but the drinking age is 21.  Kids are too immature to drink but they’re mature enough to vote in my affairs?  Sorry, that’s insane.  If rights are apportioned over an age spectrum, voting must obviously be the last one.  If you’re not old enough for every adult activity you’re not old enough to meddle in adult business.

Given our current knowledge and life spans, voting rights should begin at the age of 25.  Maybe 26.  But I’d certainly make an exception for military volunteers.  Probably those are exceptionally mature people, but if they’re idiots few will live long enough to do much electoral damage.

Yes, if we change the voting age the 18-24 year-olds will shriek and whine and gesticulate wildly and stomp about angrily.  That’s sort of the point. 

Mature-for-their-age kids will be peeved also, but will realize that in exchange for their lost, wise vote, two or three idiotic ones will also vanish. 

So, as a rational American I now request that we change the voting age to 25 years old.   My reason:  Brain Science! 

If we have to buy off youngsters to get this done, it will be worth it.  I advise a combined approach: lower the drinking age to 18 and stay off the streets as much as possible.

See, if the Devil is on trial somebody has to represent him.  If he can’t afford an attorney one will be appointed to him by law.  But nobody has to do P.R. work for him.  So doesn’t that make his publicist a worse person than his lawyer?

What brings this question on?  One of the reasons for this blog was that I’d quit writing.  I realized that if I kept it up eventually  there’d be enough material for a book.  I’d toyed with “Newmerica”, the “Constitution 2.0″-based country that hopefully will arise from America’s ashes.  But it’s never gotten me fired up enough for the enormous effort a book requires.

Nor am I exactly excited about realizing I’m the “Devil’s Publicist”.  But my parents visited yesterday.  My Mom had been thinking about my argument that letting women vote was a bad idea.  She’s decided she agrees.

(For the record:  I’m only against letting women vote in federal elections.  They can take over all the others for all I care, as long as everyone remains free to travel and live where they desire.  With a properly restrained national government they could control far more government wealth and power than men do.  Although, if you love liberty, it’d be even better if they never voted at all. )

That position, combined with my defense of white privilege, made me think about some other WORMy arguments.  Let’s review, sans links for now:

“White” people deserve their privileged positions.

Women voters are helping to destroy the U.S.A.

The Democratic Party is almost pure evil.

The so-called “United Nations” is almost pure evil.

Islam is almost pure evil.

The “black community” needs to grow the hell up.

Progressives are mentally retarded.  (Wait, I haven’t formally proven that one yet.  Maybe next post?  It’s a very simple and scientific argument.)

The federal government has turned parasitic and needs putting down.

The “Talky Classes”–Government workers, teachers and academia, “journalists”, media, entertainment, have also turned evil and need putting down.

Nuclear power is the least-bad option for electricity.

The Catholic Church has child abuse problems because it departs from the Bible.  And I like most Catholics!

None of these positions are intentionally provocative and outrageous.  They are just where reason has led me.  So obviously I want to know what you guys think is my most offensive writing.  (Giving me a mulligan on the Joe Biden Rapist Rant.)

Also.  The Devil’s Publicist is a good title, maybe a great one, but that doesn’t mean it’s perfect.  I welcome any and all of you to label…whatever the heck it is we do here.