Fake Intellectuals

Further to a post at Z Man’s, there is exactly one political principle that doesn’t lead directly to totalitarianism: Equality before the law.  This principle cannot be amended, modified, nuanced, gray area-d, penumbra-d, folded, spindled, or mutilated.  Equality before the law, and let the chips fall where they may.

This will of course entail some outcomes that are not socially just.  Equally applied, the anti-crime laws will disproportionately affect blacks, as they commit disproportionate amounts of crime.  Equally applied, the patent laws will disproportionately favor Jews and East Asians, as they have higher average IQs.  And yes, equally applied, the laws pretty much guarantee that some people are going to get screwed, even up to, sigh, children starving in the streets.

lovejoy-think-of-the-children-16nov131

Life ain’t fair, and this notion that it’s somehow the government’s job to make life fair — thus abandoning the principle of Equality Before the Law — leads directly to tyranny:

  • There is no objective definition of “fair;”
  • Therefore, someone must be empowered to judge individual cases;
  • Anyone granted such power will abuse it;

And pretty soon we’re reduced to arguing whether that FEMA camp is a gulag, a workhouse, a concentration camp, or a thought reform center.

That’s really all there is to it.  People are what they are.  We can make up fancy theories about why this can’t happen, or that it’s actually fair, or how that guy really deserved his rubber hose time in a secret police dungeon, but at bottom there is only Reality.

Stop intellectualizing.  Stop over-thinking.  Stop rationalizing.  There is Reality, and there is Theory, and when the two conflict, Theory must yield to Reality.  You’ll find that’s true even in the gulag (thought reform center, whatever).  The way things are going, I’ll be in the next bunk over.

Details, Details

There are no Ace of Spades types among the Four Regular Readers — we’re Not His Class, Dear — but if there were, I’d love to ask them: How, exactly, is Hillary going to beat Trump?

I don’t mean bromides like “because Trump is a jerk and a poopyhead!”  I mean procedurally.  Walk me through the mechanism.  What’s she going to run on?  What are her signature issues?  What’s she going to bring up in the debates?  IS she going to debate?

Ace’s theory seems to be “She’ll lay low and let Trump immolate himself, which he’s sure to do, because the media is in such a tizzy that their anti-Trump 24/7 attack mode is going to make what they did to George W. Bush look like the happy ending to an Oriental massage.”

Do y’all seriously think that’s going to work?

Yes, Trump is an egomaniac and yes, he never misses an opportunity to not shut up and yes, he says all kinds of controversial stuff all the time.  But Trump isn’t stupid, no matter how hard you try to convince yourselves otherwise, and he’s been dealing with this stuff since last summer, and all his self-immolatory style brought him was the Presidential nomination.  I know y’all think of yourselves as the Alt-Media, Ace et al, but you’re not — you only share their basic assumptions, one of which is that you are Shapers of the Narrative.  In fact, in this particular election the Narrative shapes you, and the Narrative is:

Look how much the American public hates the fucking Media.

Seriously.  I’m no Nostradamus, but I can read the news and work a google machine, and it’s pretty obvious what Trump’s response to all this is going to be: “When are you going to be asking Hillary these questions?”  And then the Media will get all outraged — how dare you question our objectivity?!? — and then Trump’s poll numbers will rise 10 more points like they do every time he tells the Media to go fuck themselves.

Eventually Trump is going to get around to making his trademark self-destructive statements about Hillary’s record.  And, in the course of getting all outraged!!!1!eleventy! about it, the Media will have to report what the man actually said.  At which point, he accomplishes two objectives simultaneously: He points out how incompetent and corrupt Hillary is, and he highlights, in the starkest possible way, how incompetent and corrupt the Media are in their pro-Hillary cheerleading.

I mean, he’s only been doing this for a year now.  Am I the only one who sees this?  How can you, Ace, who thinks of himself as a smarter version of a Fox news bobblehead, not see this?  Isn’t it your job to see this?

An Interesting Test Case

The now-all-but-unreadable Ace of Spades posts another thumbsucker about how gauche Trump supporters are.  Which contains this:

This election is lost.

We can argue about who lost it — indeed, most of the passive-aggressive kneecapping from the more liberal-leaning, Rubio-supporting Upper Middle Class is about arguing, in a cowardly fashion, who lost it — and I imagine we will be arguing about that for quite a while.

Might as well stop being passive-aggressive about it and just come right out and say it. There is no party unity to pretend to be a part of any longer.

But more important than whose fault this is is what we’d actually like in a vehicle for ideological aspiration.

“Ideological,” you say?

Let’s try a thought experiment: what if all those cousin’-pokin, Bible-thumpin’, flag-wavin’, beer-chuggin’, NASCAR-watchin’, furriner-bashin’ rubes who currently take time out from their busy unemployment- and meth-smoking schedules to vote Trump should actually turn out to favor Constitutional liberty and limited government?  Because for all Ace pisses and moans about how Trump isn’t really a conservative, the vast majority of his anti-Trump posts — and that whole site pretty much just Donald-bashing at this point — all seem to boil down to NOCD.  Trump’s not our class, dear, and his supporters are such boors.

How, exactly, is that “ideology”?  Or, more to the point, how is that “ideology” any different from that of David “Perfectly Creased Pants” Brooks?

But let’s make it even simpler.  Let’s say the polls show Trump is competitive… which, of course, they do.  Let’s further say that as the campaign drags on, more and more polls show Trump to be within the margin of error, or even leading outright.  What do Ace of Spades types do then?  Do they suck it up to deny Evita the White House — which would be the bare minimum “ideological” choice — or do they cuck it up with the National Review crowd?

Let me be clear: most so-called ideology is really just status signaling.  Pick any revolutionary movement in history — even in the most spectacularly successful cases, maybe a quarter of the entire population is even tangentially involved.  The hard core — the guys who would actually pick up guns for the Cause — are no more than 10%, if that.  Most people wouldn’t even cross the street for their so-called “principles” unless the weather was perfect, nothing good was on tv, and there was a hot chick handing out free burgers and beer on the other side.

And historically, there’s a word for guys who beat their chests in public about their principles.  Two words, actually.

Trump isn’t just going to be competitive with Hillary; he’s going to win in a walk.  The next few months should be very interesting indeed.

Oh No!!! PURGES!!!!!

Herr Trumpf is purging “principled conservatives.”  Also known as…wait for it…. dissidents!  (Remind me: Is dissent the highest form of patriotism again?  Or are we all supposed to get in line behind the John McCains and Mitt Romneys of the world, because that’s what “principled conservatives” do?)  Anyway….

Whether the establishment political class was on board with Trump from the beginning (and most were not), they are going to use loyalty to Trump as an excuse to purge conservatives of conscience from having any political work at all. And the people who still remain opposed to Trump are the same people who are likely to align with the conservative troublemakers in both the House and the Senate. With the willing aid of the Trumpkins, the goal is to crush Cruz’s actual and ideological allies and drive them from the party.

The only named “actual and ideological ally” of Ted Cruz?  Ben freakin’ Sasse.

As the Z Man quips, Ben Sasse is the epitome of the Trotsky Wing of the Republican Party.  His resume reads like something I’d make up to lampoon guys like Ben Sasse:

He spent a year in the dreaded private sector after college and then got on the gravy train of government work. A dozen years on the dole and runs for Senate and is now the shiny new penny “representing” Nebraska, a place he rarely visited for twenty years prior to his election. Instead of working his way up from dog catcher or state rep, he just parachuted into the Senate without much vetting.

Let’s see…yep: “consultant” (=lobbyist) for a year, then a year as “consultant/executive director” at some evangelical (=lobbying) group, then Homeland Security, HHS, and the Senate, with some Obama-style “professor” gigs thrown in.  Government or academia — when he’s not in government, or lobbying the government, he’s “teaching” government.  Dude is 44 years old and has never, ever held a job that didn’t involve kneepad service to the leviathan state.

What principle could he possibly have acquired, in all those years working his fingers to the bone shuffling regulations in the belly of the beast?  He’s a full time tax code comma-juggler…. but he gives the occasional shout-out to Jesus, so he’s a “conservative.”

Just for giggles, I googled Redstate’s last two endorsements for president: Bible-thumping no-hoper Rick Santorum (because he’s against abortion and global weathering) and that truest of true conservatives, the lisping Cuban Cabana Boy himself, Marco “Bootsie” Rubio, because “electability.”   I’m trying to figure out what “principle” this track record hews to… nope, coming up empty.  Unless, of course, it’s the principle of “throw the election to the Democrats, then climb up on our cross and scream ‘forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do’ at every possible opportunity for the next four to eight years.  Oh, and please donate!  Paypal, Patreon… it’s all good.”

The old 90s-style culture wars are dead, y’all.  You want to know why Republican voters don’t care about abortion anymore?  I’ll spell it out for you in little bitty words: IT’S THE FUCKING IMMIGRANTS.  The very same self-righteous Churchians who are out there marching for life are helping Obama import Aztecs and Muzzies as fast as they can fill the cargo holds.  The Constitution isn’t a suicide pact, and neither is the Gospel. The rest of us can see that for every baby you save from the butcher’s knife — and it’s a laudable goal, God bless you — you’re disemploying five American citizens, three of whom will be wounded in next week’s outbreak of Sudden Onset Jihad Syndrome.

While all that’s going on, the wonkblogs are yelling about “purges,” as if stone-faced men in jackboots have hauled poor Ben Sasse off to a meeting with a rubber hose and some thumbscrews.  In reality, of course, he’ll be back in the Senate sponsoring vital true conservative legislation in no time.  And should he be ousted in his next reelection bid — perhaps because the voters of the great state of Nebraska couldn’t pick him out of a police lineup — he’ll be right back on K Street the next day, true conservatively lobbying Congress for more true conservative pork.

But don’t forget: it’s e before i in “gleichschaltung.”  PURGES!!!!

Political Philosophy in 5 Minutes

Y’all know I love Thomas Hobbes, though more for his method than his conclusions — like Confucius, he thought that all misunderstandings boiled down to bad definitions.  He wanted all arguments to proceed like geometry proofs.  Whether that’s workable or not is above my pay grade (and note that Hobbes wasn’t a very good mathematician), but there’s no question that bad definitions are at the heart of most, if not all, political misunderstandings these days.  To wit:

Machiavelli said that nobles long to oppress the people, while the people only want to avoid being oppressed.  Which is true of any hominid hierarchy.  If you really believe in evolution, you know that humans are advanced software running on kludgy monkey hardware.  What’s true for the baboon troop is true for us, and that’s what we see in human societies — alphas at the top, with his lieutenants, ruling over the great mass of ordinary monkeys, with a few despised omegas lingering at the group’s edges.

Society, then, is a conglomeration of baboon troops, and government is the conglomerate’s internal organization.  The classical social contract theorists had it wrong.  It’s not individuals, each as sovereign as his physical power can make him, doing the contracting.  Rather, the “contract” preexists, in the form of monkey troops – we’re born into a troop, and like all monkeys we’re able to break off and form our own troops if we’re strong enough, but there’s no such thing as a pure individual in the State of Nature (which also doesn’t exist in the way Hobbes et al implied).  Society, then, is a fractal pyramid, and government likewise: all the little monkey troops banded together into one big troop.

BBookSTriangleMonkey troops have one purpose, and one purpose only: the flourishing of the troop.  And that’s where the problems start — as humans are mega-monkeys, we’re able to assign all kinds of different meanings and shades of nuance to “flourishing.”  How far does that extend?  Who gets to decide if the troop is flourishing or not, and what happens when the majority decides the troop isn’t flourishing?

That was Machiavelli’s simple, irrefutable point — the nobility must assure the peasantry that their interests move in tandem.  Nobles want to fight wars and sponsor art and live high on the hog because they’re alpha chimps, and that’s what alpha chimps do.  But nobles can’t do all that stuff without the active participation of the peasants, as they’re the ones who staff the armies, make the art, grow the food, etc.

In return, though, the nobles have to provide some basic returns — a share of the spoils of war if you’re on offense, and physical protection if you’re on defense.  That’s the real social contract, and if it’s broken, the macro-troop that is Government collapses back into micro-troops at the local level.  As humans, we have some limited degree of choice in what micro-troop we want to join when the macro-troop breaks down– this is the “State of Nature” — but joining one isn’t optional.

So here’s the homework that every aspiring noble used to do as a matter of course:

  1. define “flourish;”
  2. define “protection;” and
  3. define how you’ll provide for both.

Pretty simple, no? Problem is, none of our supposed “leaders” have any inkling that they’re supposed to be doing this.  Cf. Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush — get them drunk (from what I’ve heard, that shouldn’t be tough) and make them answer a simple question: “Why do you want to be President?”  And we all know the answer: “Because it’s my turn!!!!”

Which means that this particular iteration of the macro-troop is kaput.  Most of us who reside here in the USA in this, the Current Year, have a decent instinctive idea of what “flourish” and “protection” mean, and though we may not be able to articulate it like 17th century Oxford dons, we know that our so-called “leaders” aren’t providing either.  Back when, this used to be called a “crisis of legitimacy,” and pretty much everyone — yep, Hobbes included — thought that an illegitimate government is no government at all, and nobody is obliged to obey its decrees.

And it’s illegitimate all the way down the line.  The closer you get to an answer to the Three Questions, from an ideologue of any side, the more you realize that they not only haven’t thought this stuff through, they have no idea they were even supposed to. Government is just kind of a thing that sorta happens, dude…. but it’s super-important that it happens my way, or else ur a h8r.

Which is, as the kids these days say, problematic.  I’m sure you don’t need me to tell you what happens to an alpha chimp when he can’t protect the troop.  It’s the same thing that happens to failed leaders in all times and places: lamppost, rope, some assembly required.

It doesn’t have to end that way, but it’s increasingly likely that it’s going to…. because it’s our turn, I guess.

 

A Great Idea – UPDATED

This is the best idea I’ve heard in a long time.  Of course, it could never work in America — the parasite class, both inside and outside government, is simply too large to ever implement it — but in less ridiculous polities than ours it might just work.

Maybe some municipalities could try it.

UPDATE:  This started as a reply to Nate Winchester, but needs to go on the main page.

Nate forwards a link from Bayou Renaissance Man, who makes excellent points about “Basic Income.”  I agree with them all.  Problem is, his objections assume that we still live in a republic.  We don’t, and we haven’t, for at least 150 years.

Once you accept the basic premisis of managerialism — that residents of a nation are problems to be managed, rather than participating citizens — you’ve abandoned democracy.  You can’t be both a citizen and a subject.  They’re opposites.  It’s unpossible.

28228-Thats-Unpossible-Ralph-wiggum-PcuIThe United States made its choice 150 years ago.  Thanks to the Pension Act, Union Army veterans got to vote on how much they’d be compensated for their disabilites, as well as what counted as a “disability” in the first place. As Union vets were the largest recognizable voting bloc in the Gilded Age, the easiest way to buy votes was to expand the pension laws… which government after government did, right up to the turn of the 20th century

We’ve been trying to square the citizen/subject circle ever since, and failing.  Every welfare program faces the same fundamental contradiction — you’re letting people vote on how much the government should pay them.

Note that it doesn’t have to be this way.  Great Britian’s 1834 Poor Law disenfranchised those who took public assistance.  If you want to be a ward of the state, you don’t get a say in how the state is run.  The inmates don’t get to vote on the asylum’s policies.  If, at any time, you wanted / were able to try your luck in the labor market again, you got your vote back.

In a rational polity — or even one less ridiculous than ours, like Finland — this would be part of the national discussion on citizenship.  We don’t let H1-B visa holders vote, even though — we’re routinely informed — their labor is so vital for the American economy.  We assume they’d form blocs and rig things in their favor, as they have only short-term personal interests in American politics.  They have no reason to take the long view, so they won’t.

Government assistance can — and should — work the same way.  We’ll never do it, of course, but since Trump et al are forcing us to at least kinda sorta nibble around the edges of the national question, we should at least bring this up as a live option.  Time was, we understood that rights entail corresponding duties — fail to discharge the one, lose the other.  If “welfare is a right” — as we’re so often told by Our Betters, the Liberal — then it’s the wefare recipient’s duty to bow out of elections.

And be honest: How many of you are truly bothered by the idea of a Welfare Queen as such?  Anyone with any experience of life knows that there are certain people who are just going to be parasites  They won’t work, and they’re going to go to the dogs no matter what incentives you hold out, or penalties you threaten.  Think of Huck Finn’s dad.  Those people are the bedrock on which the managerial state is built.  I for one don’t have a problem with paying taxes to get them a basic food ration.  It’s only when they get to team up and vote on how much to tax me that I get irate.

Finland is a Scandinavian country, so they don’t have such a…. diverse…. parasite class as we do.  So $900 a month or whatever will probably work for them.  And, logically, they’re willing to tolerate the natural Darwinian end of the incorrigible few who will spend all their allowance on booze and hookers.  Americans won’t do that either, but, again, be honest: If we could keep ghetto dysfunction in the ghetto by means of a food ration, some disposable cash, and Hamsterdam, wouldn’t you take that deal?  They don’t get to vote, and they get stomped by the cops if they bring their shit out of the ‘hood… and, of course, they get both the franchise and a get-out-of-a-cop-stomping card if they choose to leave their old ways behind.  Americans have no idea what goes on in the inner cities anyway.  Gang violence and ODs don’t bother us, because thanks to the Goodthinkers in the media, we don’t have to see them.  Again, in a rational polity a place like Detroit would be a burning national shame.  Fred Reed has written a zillion words on this topic; go take a gander.

And yeah, I’m well aware that this is “not who we are,” “not our values,” etc.  But look: I’m a historian.  We havent’ been who we are, or true to our values, since the War of Northern Aggression.  Disenfranchsing welfare recipients is, yes, cruel, awful, and of course racist.  But it’s also the only way to resolve the citizen / subject dilemma.  Agree to be managed, and take the consequences — again, I’d be happy to pay my taxes for this, and I suspect that you would to (be honest!).  Finland is giving it a whirl.  If they succeed… well, given what’s coming down the pike when the next financial bubble bursts, we need to at least think it over.

Trump is a “Progressive”…

….and so are his supporters.

One of the points I keep hammering here (our four regular readers can feel free to sing the chorus) is that both sides of America have been radicalized.  That sounds badly wrong to us — the Right — because unhinged, feelz-before-realz emoting defines the Left.

But think about it for a sec.  How do you argue with a lunatic?  Nothing the Left says or does makes any sense.  Their orthodoxy changes on a dime, such that yesterday’s vile insult is today’s sacred Constitutional right.  The cognitive dissonance of — just to take the most recent example — voting for the woman who covered her husband’s serial philandering (and probable sexual assault), because feminism, could crack Wolverine’s skull.  You can’t make a principled argument against someone whose only “principle” is “whatever feels most important to me at this instant is the most important thing in the universe.”

So we radicalize, too.  My go-to example is the W. Bush administration.  Foreign wars aside, you could post a neutral description of his policies on Bernie Sanders’s website and not raise an eyebrow.  And yet, stalwart conservatives — yours truly most definitely included — were out there defending the guy tooth and claw.  The enemy of my enemy is my friend, right?  A great rule of thumb for mob bosses, but it has nothing to do with principles.  We just wanted to stick it to the blue-haired nose-ringers, and since the words “far right” freak them out, well, then, we’re the far right.  Right?

Feelz before realz, comrades…. feelz before realz.

And now along comes Donald Trump.  Oh, how he gives the Kos Kidz the vapors!  Lefties hate him almost as much as the GOP Establishment does, and the thought of Rance Priebus and the rest of the Old School Ties sharing the same campus safe space as the granola grrls gives us schadenboners.  That’s his appeal, right there.

Seriously.  That’s it.

As I am an amateur, let me pass the mic to a professional wordsmith, cartoonist Scott Adams:

The evidence is that Trump completely ignores reality and rational thinking in favor of emotional appeal. Sure, much of what Trump says makes sense to his supporters, but I assure you that is coincidence. Trump says whatever gets him the result he wants. He understands humans as 90% irrational and acts accordingly….

You can validate my low opinion of human rationality by asking yourself why Trump supporters don’t care that nothing he says is true. Trump literally makes up facts on the fly. Do you think his supporters have not noticed this awkward situation?

They noticed. They don’t care. And at this point they understand he’s just saying what he needs to say to get elected. Democrats will call that evil. Republicans will call it effective.

Now, admittedly most of that piece is satire.  But it’s true for all that.  Trump’s supporters really don’t care that he makes up “facts” on the fly, contradicts himself, misspells Tweets and calls Hillary Clinton a good person.  They don’t care that he’s a gun grabber, that he hasn’t read his own position papers, that he spends time in nationally-televised debates talking about how big his hands are.

Feelz before realz.  All the right people hate him, and that’s enough.  It just feeels….soooo… GOOD…. to tell the tatted-up androgynous barista who acts like it’s the labor of Sisyphus to pour a coffee for the likes of you to blow it out her no-doubt-beringed ass.

And if that ain’t Progressive, y’all, then nothing is.

Another Great Reason to Vote Trump

He has all the right enemies.

THERE they go again. The neocons who led the George W. Bush administration into Iraq are now touting a fresh crusade to save American democracy — and the Republican Party — from an authoritarian foe: Donald J. Trump.

Their campaign began with an impassioned essay in The American Interest last month by Eliot A. Cohen, a former Bush State Department official, who depicted Mr. Trump as symptomatic of the broader “moral rot” of America. Then, in an open letter, more than 100 Republican foreign policy mavens, including neocons such as Mr. Cohen and Robert Kagan, as well as more traditional Republican foreign policy figures like the former World Bank president Robert B. Zoellick, announced they were “united in our opposition to a Donald Trump presidency.”

In this, the year of Our Lord 2016, calling yourself a “neocon” is like declaring yourself a Ghibelline or a Girondin — a relic of an ideology so utterly exploded that few outside the ivory tower have even heard of it.

I wouldn’t trust those assholes if they said the sky is blue and grass is green, and I know I’m not alone.  The World Bank president?  Robert Kagan?  Would this be the same Robert Kagan that was John “Bomb Everyone” McCain’s foreign policy guru in 2008?  You know, back when we, as a nation, were so sick of bombing people that we elected the world’s wimpiest pacifist, who got the Nobel Peace Prize before he even took office?  The same Robert Kagan who said, and I quote

In 2006, Kagan wrote that Russia and China are the greatest “challenge liberalism faces today”: “Nor do Russia and China welcome the liberal West’s efforts to promote liberal politics around the globe, least of all in regions of strategic importance to them. … Unfortunately, al-Qaeda may not be the only challenge liberalism faces today, or even the greatest.”

I guess it’s Donald J. Trump now.  My, how things can change in just ten years.

At this point, I’d vote for the festering corpse of Josef fucking Stalin over anyone the Neocons endorse.  If they’re against Trump, I’m for him.

Who decides who is a conservative?

This question was asked on Facebook by a friend in “the movement”.

I gave it a little thought.  And this is how I answered:

Ultimately, if you’re a conservative, it implies there is something you want to conserve. I consider myself a conservationist. But that oddly isn’t generally considered (these days) “conservative”.

Conservative depends on the context in which the word is used as well. There are Constitutional Conservatives, there are fiscal conservatives, and there are social conservatives. Often people fall into two or three of these categories. If you fall into two of them you’re probably going to be considered a conservative by most progressives, and you probably consider yourself a conservative. Most other conservatives will consider you a conservative as well — until you disagree with them on something that puts them in one of the categories.

And it’s not like a “belief system” that one subscribes to. People have sets of beliefs, and those beliefs fall into certain categories — some of them may fall quite outside of the category the person ends up being classified as.

Incidentally, the same kind of thing goes for liberal/progressives. And there’s no H8 like intra-family H8.

Who gets to decide who is a conservative? Well … each of us do. It’s a subjective term. But it’s not meaningless.  Still, you just can’t make assumptions about any individual who gets considered a conservative without risking being very, very wrong a lot of the time.

 

Wil Wheaton is Not Leon Trotsky

Wil Wheaton, of Star Trek: The Next Generation fame, has been called out by other Progressives for being insufficiently Progressive.  Via Vox Day:

Like many of you, I’ve been aware of Wil Wheaton’s outspoken position as a Bro-Feminist for quite some time. Occasionally, he’ll retweet or even say something that might seem profound. But I’m also not alone in suspecting that, beneath his “yay, feminism!” facade, lies deep-rooted misogyny. Recently, he proved my suspicions correct when he attempted to brand Clinton supporters a rather disgusting sexist slur that I will not repeat.

And there was great rejoicing on the Right side of the internet, because we’re apparently as bad as Leftists about remembering what happened five minutes ago.

Yes, this is the inevitable consequence of “social justice.”  Eventually all the little micro-identities come into conflict with one another.

No, this will not change one single mind.  Remember 2008?  Hillary supporters called Obama supporters misogynists; Obama supporters called Hillary supporters racists.  Heck, there was even some talk on the right about the resurgence of something like “Reagan Democrats.”  Remember the Pumas?  Ace of Spades was big on them for a while, thinking that this — finally!!– might wake some folks up to the gross self-contradictions in modern liberalism.

Those folks are all rock-ribbed conservatives these days, right?

Sheesh.  C’mon, y’all.  These are the same people who claim to believe, with all apparent sincerety, that Bruce Jenner is a woman because he puts on a dress and does the Buffalo Bill tuck-under.  They’ll go back to loving Wil Wheaton 0.0000325 seconds after this election is over.  He’s a “feminist,” after all.  And isn’t that show just so funny?