I'm Your Worst Nightmare

I realize that I am liberals worst nightmare, much more so than a Palin or Beck. Because to a liberal Sara Palin is just a confirmation of how right they are about everything, about how Republicans are all hicks and how anyone with brains is a Democrat, etc. However I am not a yokel or a Jesus-freak, I don't compare Obama to Hitler or call him a commie instead I make arguments so cogent they usually can't respond with anything but ad hominems. Palin makes it easy to disregard us, I don't.

Ralph Nader: The left-wing Ayn Rand

The fictional mirror opposite of Ayn Rand's 1957 masterwork ,"Atlas Shrugs" has been written by Ralph Nader and the name of the novel is "Only the Super-Rich can Save Us!". The similarities between the two novels are abundant,
1. Both novels are very large and have distinctive covers that include the world and a group/indivual holding up the globe or dominanting/ruling it.
2. Both novels are fictional accounts of what could happen in the US poltically, economically and so fourth.

3. Both are accounts of a utopian revoultion occuring (that reflects each others ideology).

4. In both both books, a group of rich and influential people get together and plot to make great changes within American socsiety occur.

However, the difference is that in Nader's new novel his ultra-affluent cabal are radical leftists guilty about there wealthy and organize to fight, essentially, against themselves and there businesses, they fight the evil mulitinationals that have made Buffet wealthy, they agaitate for huge taxes, massive regulation, and for goverment take over of huge parts of the American economy and other similiar liberal ends. Ofcourse in Rand's novel, the rich get together to make a ungratful nation that not ridicules there work that has helped society so much appreciate the gifts the selfish have given society by going on strike.

Most think that the title of Nader's novel is sarcastic but "Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!" isn't sarcastic at all of course. In the book, Warren Buffet outraged over the ineffectual reaction to Hurricane Katrina by the Bush Adminstration, assembles a group of leftist billionaires & celebrities (who are ofcourse friendly with Nader in real life) including George Soros, Bill Cosby, Paul Newman, Ted Turner & Yoko Ono who decide to save America by putting there billions into fighting against the evil corporations, raising taxes, regulation & the like.
"Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!" is essentially a leftist version of "Atlas Shrugs" in which the John Galts of America go masochistic.

Although this novel is wrong about so much, I think it's an intresting book, the kind of un-pretenious accesible novel that more publishing houses should put out in favor of garbage by the many forgettable testerone deficient hipster American novelists like Micheal Chabon.

I wonder how Yoko Ono and Warren Buffet feel about it especially since Yoko Ono has a love scene around page 700.

Nader is a terrible writer to be honest. And the book reads like some kind of joke. Its a ridiclous fantasy as Rob Long points out in his review of the book in the Wall Street Journal,

"In fact, "Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!" reads less like a novel or "practical utopia" than a dream journal. At the Maui summit, for instance, Phil Donahue rises to address his fellow do-gooders: "Phil pulled a letter from his jacket pocket. 'This is an offer from the head of NBC. He wants to give me a national talk show, and get this—he specifically wants me to deal with injustice, hard solutions to the nation's problems, bold doings among ordinary people, and the plight of millions of Americans who get pushed around or shut out while they do the essential, grimy, everyday work that keeps the rich and famous sitting pretty on top. He says NBC wants a "new Dr. Phil" for the new burgeoning civil society.' "

And that's only page 68! (There are 700 pages total, in case I forgot to mention that.) The spine is barely creased and already there's a sensational parrot, a new TV talk show . . . oh, and a movement to change the national anthem to the more peaceful, labor-friendly "This Land Is Your Land." But even a first-time novelist like Mr. Nader knows that the story would begin to drag if he simply narrated a tale of how the country seamlessly eased into an idyllic state of pure Naderism, in which Ralph Nader's vision is finally realized and everyone sounds like Ralph Nader.

And so he throws a few hurdles in the way of the Meliorists. Following the unionization of Wal-Mart, there's some predictable push-back from corporate fat cats and power brokers. You know the type: the ones who force decent Americans to use energy-hogging lightbulbs and to sing a complicated national anthem. But then there's push-back against the push-back, which is eventually (spoiler alert!) successful, thanks to Yoko Ono's deployment of her ravishing personal beauty to dazzle and distract the guy leading the corporate opposition. His name, by the way, is Lancelot Lobo. It may be a blessing that Mr. Nader populated his book with so many famous people.

By novel's end, American society is thoroughly Naderized. Warren Beatty sits in the governor's mansion in Sacramento; the president has signed on to the Meliorist program; and Americans have embraced a new life that is dimly lit by awful fluorescent curlicue bulbs. But curiously, for a futuristic utopia, it all seems so tired. So old. So Jimmy Carter. This is a novel that should have been written in 1976. Honestly, though, it's feeling more like 1976 every day."

"Only the Super Rich" reads as if it could have been written by Rob Long or a consravative for it ultimately just shows what terrible and hopefully, untenable, ideas modern liberalism has for America. All this novel manages to show, amazingly, is how ungrounded Nader and the lefts ideas are. In Nader's world economics doesn't even exists as anything more than a after thought. Companys don't leave America after there taxed to death, the unemployment rate doesn't rise. It shows a lot about how unserious the liberal mind is. They see wealth in America as a pie that is simply cut up. The size of the pie never changes and it can't be decreased by high taxes and onerous regulations, it merely is cut up. America, in there eyes, doesn't compete with other nations for businesses at all. Prosperity is automatic in the world that liberals imagine.

The appauling arrogance of the left's global warming assertions

This is how the left talks about climate change. (Pay paticular attention to the condescion of Bob Shrum)

I rarely feel like straggling the person i disagree with. Only when the liberal pulls out the condescending grin do i get the urge bludgeon there arrogant faces to they look like a egg yoke and hamburger helper. Surely, you know the look? It is the classic liberal poise: ya know, the snob skoffing at your "ridiclous", "laughable", suggestion that there could be any debate about climate change. They oscillate between yelling "There is no debate about the facts of global warming!" and "No serious scientists disagree!" and grinning like jackasses on happy gas.

You can see exactly what i mean in the link above.

They laugh at any suggestion that "the debate is over". Then Prince Charles gets up on the rostrum in Coopnhegan and says "We have 7 years until" we lose all hope of averting diaster. And what i presume the "debate is over" about that too? Once you say "the debate is over about climate change", "all serious scientists agree" i guess if you fool people that far then you can just say whatever you want.
I would call these people hucksters because they are using climate change and false claims about it to steal people's money and gain control of the economy but they- Al Gore, Obama-don't even seem to realize that there being fooled by the African delegate hucksters demanding money out of there "deep concern about climate change" (sure Robert Mugabe).

Here's my question for Al Gore and his cru of power hungry liars:

You say the debate is over. Well i assume you've thus long ago answered the following questions, can you let me in on the answers to them and your proof of why your answers are "undebateable":

1. How much will the sea rise in the next 60 years? How much hotter will it be? How bout' in 200 years? How fast will the climate change? What effect will it have on America, etc? Show me how you know this for a fact.

2. How much of this change is caused by man-made activity and/or Co2 and how much of this change is part of the natural climate cycle (since the climate is always changing and always has been well before humans evolved)? How much climate change is the result of changes in sun spots, the ozone layer and other non-man-made factors? Show me how you know this.

3. Can this climate change be stopped? What will it take? How do you know?

4. Are the cutbacks needed to slow or stop climate viable?

5. Will America and a few EU nations making slight cutbacks in Co2 make any difference when China and India are emitting more than we save?


These are the 5 questions which have to be answered in order to act intelligently on climate change (if it is as Gore's prediction claim). Yet none of them have at all been answered. Yet Gore says "the debate is over" about them.
To say the "debate is over" is such a amazingly arrogant statement because these above questions are almost impossibly difficult to answer and his statements like Obama and all the other alarmists statements say that these questions are easy have long ago been answered and there is no debate about what the answer is. Who can say that there is no debate about how hot it will be in a century? no debate about how much cutbacks will have to be made to have a effect?

The fact Al Gore doesn't want people to know is that human activity accounts for 2% percent of Co2 emitted. Animals emit more carbon into the atomsphere than cars by a factor of over 20.

How and why Obama supporters call those who don't worship at the altar of Obama racists

How Obama supporters talk about those who don't think Obama is god.

You see liberals (atleast a good deal of them) simply cannot accept that anyone can disagree with them and there saviour on legitimate grounds. Ofcourse they will deny this but if you are to judge them by what they say about the right it's quite clear the left can't think of any reason outside racism for not supporting Obama.

It tells you alot about the intelligence of the left wing. Let's see: 1.Obama has given us a 9 trillion dollar deficit 2. Passed a Stimulus bill full of junk that is only 25% a stimulus 3. given 30 billion away to 3rd dictators to do 'something' about climate change 3. hasn't spent a dime on the border while he spends trillions to increase AIDS awarness 4. let swine flu come into the country without any resitance 5. is pushing for amnesty at a time when 16 million people are unemployed 7. so much other shit. and they can't think of any reason for not loving the man?

This is why everytime you and I hear liberals talk about the opposition to Obama they always manage to, in the end, ascribing opposition to Obama whether outright or slyily to, you guessed it, that favriote liberal obbession: racism. They either say the following in some form or another:

1. These people just can't handle having a black man as president.

2. They're just bitter hicks who need to cling to there guns, there religon and there racism because they feel economically insecure.

3. They're just to dumb to realize there "class intrests" like african americans. They don't want to realize that Obama knows what best for them and that he is helping them.

4. These people are living in the past and they don't realize that things are changing (for the better ofcourse). They can't except progress cause there irrationally scared of change. They don't want to live in a society where black people have equality, where gay people receive basic human rights.

5. These Tea Partyers are just old racist white folks who still think blacks shouldn't be allowed to walk on the sidewalk and think blacks are only fit to wipe there shoes. They can't handle having a black man as president cause it threatens them.

6. The people who listen to Rush Limbaugh are just angry old white guys who are angry at the world and frustrated with there lives and jobs so they vent there anger and rage at Obama.

7. Not everyone is enlightned, the whole country has not entirely evolved yet. Some people like young people in the last election embrace change and progress full on but some people are scared of change and progress and evoultion. These Tea Parters are the same people who were protesting integration in the south in the 1960's. These are the people who look back upon segregation and slavery in this country with nostalgia. Not everyone liked Abraham Lincoln , not everyone liked Martin Luther King at the time. We can't except everyone too be for justice and progress.

It reveals everything i know to be true about how Democrats view Republicans to still be true when they claim opposition to Obama to be simple racism. That's how they see Republicans, as racists, because thats how Democrats must see Republicans. Because most Democrats are Democrats not because they've looked at the issues but because of what they don't want to be which is one of those unelightned racists on the right. They become Democrats because they want to be good people not like those mean, bad, racist people on the right. So if Republicans aren't the boogeymen and women then their liberalism is completly debased because the image of Republicans as evil, greedy, racist, yokel, crazies is why they came to the left in the first place. See to say Republicans don't oppose on racist grounds, would change there conception of American poltics entirely. They (i know as a former Democrats) see US poltics as a, essentially, a battle, more or less, between, good and evil, yokel v. scholar, KKK v. MLK, Chevy v. Volvo, Country v. Classic Rock, racist v. community organizer, ignorance v. knowledge, McDonalds v. Whole Foods, TV v. Books, etc. In other words, everything they hate v. everything they like. Cheney is evil and Obama is pure. But if you stop thinking that the Tea Partyers are protesting just cause they hate black people, then poltics becomes about issues and looses it's cosmic simplicity, and Democrats loose there certainty and might actually have to hear but sides out on indivivual issues and then you become a Republican.

Liberal Morality: protecting murderers & arresting protectors of the innocent

Its a funny thing liberal morality. They (some of them) say it is fine for a doctor to break the skull of a new born child with scissors in order to kill it after it has come out of the womb, but when someone kills 3 thousand innocent souls (as Khalid Sheik Muhommad did), and they know where Bin Laden is, these same people say that it is "morally wrong" to put that murderer through temporary distress in order to extract life saving info from them. Bin Ladin deserves to die, not to be treated like a hotel guest. It is completly moral to make a mass murderer feel pain if thats what it takes to save him and his friends from taking more innocent lives.

A historic moment lost upon us all?

I'm not the first to suggest this but just a few months ago did the first lesbian join the Supreme Court without the media saying a word about it?

Sotomayor sure looks the part but ofcourse delving into her rather murky sexual life would have only hurt Judge Sotomayor's chances thus the media seems to have not researched the matter at all.

She divorced and never remarried and their doesn't seem to be any evidence of Sotomayor batting for both teams at present and i cannot attest to the contrary but i'd guess she's, at the very least, not all that intrested in men but then again and i wouldn't be so suprised if a former girlfriend did surfaced in the media. But then again, wouldn't any former lover just be doing harm to the Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender communities agenda by outing herself? And not to be nasty, who would really want to be known as a former conquest of Judge Sonya Sotomayor (pictured above)?

Not that her sexual orientation matters to me. Her ruling in Ricci v. DeStefano, her membership to LA RAZA is what scares me.

Oddly enough researching Sotomayor's sexual orienation`, i came across this funny throwaway line from a lesbian site called lezgetreal.com on this very subject:

"Judge Sotomayor may be a lesbian, but even that should not disqualify her from sitting on the bench. All indications are that Sotomayor is only an activist judge if you squint really hard and take the line that an activist judge is someone who follows the laws as they are written. Indeed, one study published back when Bush II was in office found that most of the activist judges, that is a judge who ignores the law and inserts their own opinions into a case, were Conservatives and not Liberals."

Which makes me wonder: do liberals really believe themselves when they spout such obvious nonsence?

Status too long

i keep on being accused of being a "racist" and besides disturbing me it confirms everything i think as a former liberal about how liberals think and why they are liberals. They are liberals, most of the time, because of what they don't want to be (which is a Sean Hannity). Cause they see conseratives (though they deny it) as essentially evil and racist and at best, just dumb, "unenlightned" (white male) hicks who haven't yet seen the light and realized there "class intrests" or awaken to the fact that there true enemies aren't Rev. Jermiah Wright & anti-white affirmtive action but "evil" corporations who are there real oppresors (and there employers, I may add).

Two Liberal Archetypes

I'd like to discuss two archetypes, two distincly new charcters now so common to life in the modern world (atleast familiar to modern American life). They belong to the yuppie sector of the left wing. There are two kinds of Democrats: there are people who vote Democratic but don't embrace the full liberal world view (of being a part time diversity enthusaist, a racist whistleblower, gay rights defender, all around activist, etc.) and then are true liberals who don't just vote liberal but live liberal 24/7. They can be described, as the Democrats who acatually are into poltics. There the more annoying the more informed Democrat. They are almost always white, yuppies, who drive Volkswagons and want to move to Berlin and could be mistaken for GAP manaquins at any given moment. you know the type, they all have useless sociology/english/women's studies degrees and work in fields like marketing, the media, and academia.

I'd like to discuss 2 odd aspects of this modern liberal archetype i have always found fascinating.

1. Of the two this is the most important and ultimately ironic liberal yuppie sub-type. This is the white male yuppie-bookish, timid, well-mannered, intellectually intrested, likes poltics and debate and reading and revels in high culture and high art. Yet he is completly devoid of any trace, as a good liberal, of the most basic and obvious self-intrest. Namely in the regard of immigration and demographic change. They are not indifferent, no, rather they are passionately, often hysterically, in defence of contuning mass 3rd world immigration. They don't, as all good liberals, think about immigration and certainly not demographic change (only when forced) for such subjects are for warped, xenuphones to car about. But if you bring up the subject of say how many predict 2050 to be the year whites become a minority in America they will recoil and/or grow hysterical at the fact that you even care about such change as if they are offended or disgusted that such things would even grab your attention. Let alone, come and out and say that we need a moratirium on immigration so that we can remain a majority European nation and then they start labeling you a sick "racist".
But you start to wonder, don't they even think about demographic change at all? Don't they see that they are crusading so belligerently on the part of policys that besides hurting the nation (which is not compelling to them anyways) is so clearly detrimental to them? Why is America become less white and more Mexican and black bad for the white "overeducated", "intellectual", yuppie liberals i speak of? Well because latino and black culture, which is largely hip hop culture, despite sharing the liberal yuppies love for Obama and welfarism, is the cultural antithesis of meek and mild, ultra-femnist, sensitive, anti-consumerist, liberal yuppie culture. White Starbucks yuppie-liberalism culture is all about sipping ethipian bean free-trade lattes and speaking about the new upcoming Wes Anderson film quitely and politely while chicano and black hip hop culture is about free style rapping "homophobic", "mysogonistic", "consumerist" rythms and making fun of each other very louidly while drinking 40's and rolling blunts and speaking broken english. The white yuppie thinks of himself as "with it" when it comes to everything third-world and non-white and non-traditional. He thinks he can connect if given the chance with the victimized and oppressed "proleteriate" cause he is there defender. The white liberal yuppie glorifies hip hop culture. The white yuppie teaches black teenage mothers slam poetry at goverment funded "poetry centers", they are the community organizer, the young idealist teacher in the ghetto classroom. But despite their efforts, and the white yuppie has tried very very hard to "connect" and "uplift" the black and latino ghetto youth culture, the two groups are simply far two different. But the white yuppie liberal doesn't critize anything non-white.While the black gantas and chicano teenage thugs laugh at the yuppie liberals and the hipsters as nerdy, the white yuppie restrains, monk -like, from any critqiue of latino and black hip hop culture, to do so would be to go conservative and to admit that racism isn't holding them down but there own culture.
But you still would think, doesn't the white yuppie ever realize that the society they want to live, a NPR-Terry Gross-Starbucks-Sava Darfur-Ani DiFranco-beat poetry-society is totally at odds with the society they are bringing about by arguing on behalf of mss immigration and open borders, which is an increasingly black and latino slum society, a Bitchz n' hoes-bling-bling-hyper-masculine-ultra-consumerist-low-culture-bad-TV-no-books-"whats NPR?"-society. But ofcourse to even ackowledge this conflict would be to be saying something bad about non-white culture and something implicitly good about white culture which is a no-no. And as one can tell reading liberal colmunist, what is a central source of liberal self esteem is there feeling that they are the white people marching with MLK, that they are in essence, "the good white people", they seem to have guilt problems, and they need to seperate themselves from other whites, to make clear to the world that they are the "enlightened white people", the "white people who know that white people are evil and holding you guys down". They're intertional soldiarity fetish gives them a fantasy self image as being united with the migrant worker, the black criminal (victim of white oppresion), the native american, the buddist, and not being just another "white guy or gal". There liberalism and there idiotic diversity fetish is not about poltics as much as it is about status. There left wing "i'm-more-proggesive-than-you!" poltics is a way of marking there status above other whites in a new age of globalization inwhich status heirachy is all a-jumble. Thats why i'm convisced that they don't even think about immigration, they just know that "good white people", people on the side of "progress" would be on the side of the illegal immigrant, thus they are, no thinking nesscary, they're stance on amnesty like so many other issues is set by default. When they adopted there all-encompassing white yuppie liberal identity as "good, proggesive, enlighned, compassionate white people" they adopted with it a social idenity and a whole bunch of default positions required of "good white people": which means, for instance, in order to keep your status as a good white person, you simply can't be concerned about immigration, because illegal immigration is just oppressed peoples getting revenge for years of repression, instead of caring about say a vile hip hop culture which embodies the "misogyny" and "consumerism" that they claim to disdain, they endorse hip hop and focus there faked scorn on Christianity and patriotism and calling people who care about Rev. Wright racist.
But can't they see what i and all sane people can see so clearly for just a milisecond, which is that the policy they support, with there donations to the Southern Poverty Law Center and CAIR and Media Matters will have them living in a 3rd world slum by the time there middle age and despite what they say, they would hate that more than anything. Just look at the white yuppies personal lives and the core hypocrisy of there bogus idenitity reveals itself: that being that they live and will always live as long as they can live in all-white/asian/jewish neigborhoods. They make damn sure to send there kids to schools with minimal numbers of latino and black kids. They secretly raise there disaprove and/or worry about there children having mostly black and/or latino friends (granted its not at a early age). Ofcourse they never would say a word admitting aprhension in this regard. (By the way, another less prounced hypocrictal aspect of these white yuppie types is the fact that they so often owe there livilehood and there lavish living conditions to the major corporations they work for in some capacity, the same corporations, they almost as an act of atonement, defame and slander through there poltical views.)
Part of me, can't wait for the copious amount of "i told you so" moment that await me and my white liberal yuppie friends and loved ones as we grow older and i am proven right and they grudgingly fall silent in admission of there foolishness. I warn the liberals who surround me in love and family and friendship that the policys they support in the area of immigration will have us both living under the thumb of a president Al Sharpton or House Speaker Louis Farrakhan soon enough and they skoff the suggestion of like science fiction (the way i, rightly, scoff of there predictions of San Frasico below the sea in 60 years).

2. The epcine "social justice" liberal yuppie male who gets teary-eyed passionate about gay rights and/or femnism. I find something so fundmentally gay or at the very least essentially effeminate about watch a male (presumably hetro) liberal gettin all verkilmept and girlishly passionate-irrational about "male shovenism" and "sexism" and "repressive gender roles" or "gay marriage as a human right!".