Yes. The disconnections are far more
important right now than the connections. Because what is
disconnected is logic; what is connected after you disconnect
logic is only accidentally logical.
So we are trying to influence people
who refuse to connect issues logically. They will see that guns
link to death, and then they will link death to a state of
badness, and they will say that guns are bad. They will not
critically analyze the relationship between death and other things
(say, for instance, infections in hospitals) and so therefore will
never see that gun deaths are *insanely low* relative to almost
all other ways in which death is inflicted in our society.
"You want to stop gun deaths? Increase
access to abortions. Because no gun has ever been used by an
aborted fetus to murder people." Logical, yes. In that
disconnected sort of way.
Now the key to success (as I see it)
is to sugar coat the subliminal message (if you will) in such a
way that those who are ordinarily opposed to what we say *adopt
our message.* How do we do that? Well, you are well on your way.
But asking you to do this is a bit like asking a Kung Fu master to
pick up a machine gun - it seems morally dubious and is
diametrically opposed to the teachings of nobility and honor.
Therein lies the situational ethics component. You have to do what
you have been taught not to do in order to accomplish what cannot
otherwise be accomplished.
So, the most important part of
sustaining an offensive of this type is to never, not once, allow
your true motives to be visible. If you are going to embrace that
gun control is good, you need to walk these morons to the place
where they can finally see why it isn't good. You have to allow
them to come back with an argument.
You will lead them to reject their own
beliefs because in reality those beliefs are not their own; they
are merely responding as they have been programmed to respond. You
have to undo that programming by gaining access to them (via
agreeing with what they say) and then leading them to a place
where they can no longer agree. Then they will fight you and you
will lose (because you are a ringer). The end result is that they
adopt the correct position.
This is the liberal strategy and it is
killing us. Also why Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are so
But I can't tell if he is saying that the dirty work has to be
done by me. What I know so far is that the one person I trust the
most, my wife, hated my last post. She didn't care that I was
changing voices to reflect an incoherent public debate. She was
offended by my juvenile tone. She expects me to be continuously
logical and literate. I don't have to agree with that expectation,
but it does cause me to ask me what role everyone else is supposed
to play in Helk's Grand Dissimulation. Lake? Joseph? You've both
proposed outstanding instances of disconnection I didn't nominate.
Want to to help show the rest of us how ro play by Helk rukes?
And here's the Baker's Dozen of other Disconnects I put on ice
yesterday. Maybe Helk himself can show how at least one of them
might be turned to the kind of numbskull advantage he's
<=> absolutes (history)
History <=> sociological fads
Commercials <=> PSA's
Hollywood violence <=> celebrity appeasement/pacifism
Progressive optimism <=> liberal dystopia
Pessimism <=> conservatives
Freedom <=> libertarians
Mother love <=> abortions
Progress <=> ancestral cultures
Love <=> sex
Children <=> parents
Hope <=> tyranny
Earth <=> humanity
On the other hand, if you can't figure out what disconnections I had
in mind with these cryptic labels, maybe it's time to ask the old
warhorse to explain, once again, what the hell he was thinking
Everybody feel free to join in.
Monday, January 14, 2013
Bad comes from good and vice versa.
Why NOT making connections is so much easier. Got it?
WANT A GUN? You may have noticed that I don't link as much as
I used to. It's not because I don't see the links. It's because the
links are so numerous and interrelated that, properly documented,
they would make writing itself irrelevant if your minds were capable
of visualizing the hierarchy and collateral branches of what
connects to what. They're as infinite as the leaves of trees and as
various, some sturdy, some frail and vulnerable, some lush and
green, some clouded in moth blight, some petrified as stubborn oak
leaves that hang on dead through much of the winter. Sadly, a
horizontal chain of argument is not verified by quantity or
sustained by its multifarious context; it is invariably scotched by
its weakest link. Hannity said something similar? Fuck that. What
the proliferation of lawyers has done to thought and normal human
conversation in America.
Besides, linkages -- that is, connections -- are beside the point
right now. What matters more are the disconnections, the utterly contradictory and
discrepant beliefs we have been persuaded to hold because most of us
think we're better at understanding all the tools of linkage than we
are. Don't be alarmed. This isn't an intelligence test. At least not
a straight up, old-fashioned one. For example, Piers Morgan is a
conventionally intelligent man. He has strong views about gun
control. He believes devoutly that the country he fled to seek more
prosperity in the ignorant colonies is far behind the U.K. in the
laws that most directly affect civilized behavior. We kill more than
8000 a year with guns; the U.K. less than a hundred. Open and shut
logic. Except that when it comes to violent crime, the U.K. is five
times more victimized than the U.S. When all you count is guns, the
only crimes you count are committed with guns. Of every hundred
thousand Brits, 2,200 are the victims of violent crime each year. Of
every hundred K Americans, 440 are.
Connections have to do with where and how you draw the lines. Disconnections are the lines
you don't, even refuse, to draw. Those are the lines I'm mentioning
today. And there ARE a bunch of them. Here are just a few.
Aren't our kids just wonderful? The things they can do that we couldn't. They can listen
to music, text their friends, play video games, and do their
homework all at the same time.
Incredible. On just three hours of sleep a night and eight more of
dozing on the couch. When they're awake, they can find any fact in
the world you want on Google in just .003 seconds. There's a brand
new kind of intelligence being born in the 21st century, and we
are the uncomprehending witnesses of what may even be a sudden
leap forward in human evolution. Takes your breath away, doesn't
Why it's a shame that this brilliant generation is the victim of
an epidemic disease we never even knew about before, called
Attention Deficit Disorder Syndrome. Believe us, we're worried to
death about the skyrocketing rate of dulling drug prescriptions
being written for our kids, and if there were anything -- ANYTHING
-- we could do to head off this mysterious blight of our youth we
would do it! Until we know what that is, though, the least we
could do is adequately fund their education. Are you aware that
the U.S. has fallen out of the top 25 developed nations in terms
of basic math and science education for our kids? Anybody who
didn't know them personally would think they don't know anything.
<--> equal protection
People give the feminist establishment -- that is, the longest
lived and most politically successful feminist organizations -- a
hard time for what they see as villainizing men, rewriting all of
human history as a conspiracy by men to keep women weak and
helpless, and using supposedly benign institutions of government
to conceal and justify male acts of violence against women. They
accuse us of aggravating hostility between the sexes when it is they who wage a continual war
against women by opposing abortion on demand, free birth control,
and parent-free sexual and reproductive choices by women in the
12+ age range. If there's one vice the male of the species has
excelled at besides rape, it's hypocrisy. Men are still free to
screw whoever they want. When women do the same, they're sluts.
And they're already blaming us for the fact that Americans have
the highest rate of STDs in the world. Disgusting.
We really really really really hate rape, but if there's one term
we hate more than "pro-life," it's "the great equalizer." What men
call guns. We believe in the absolute abolition of all guns. Such
instruments of death are unnatural. The idea that a weak-minded,
vengeful hysteric could strike out against fancied enemies with a
pistol that erases all differences of size and strength is
detestable. The only great equalizer we recognize is official
government action: in the case of women, for example, restraining
orders. Which make it ever so more likely that the prosecution
will be able to secure a conviction in the event of a fatal
beating, stabbing, or, of course, shooting. Although if there were
no guns, women would be sa--, well, hey, look over there!!
Don't give us any crap about this. Talk to the hand. Which, as
always, has its middle finger extended.
Religion <--> nuance
Thank God, er, scratch that unfortunate usage, for the fact that
Richard Dawkins and company have finally gone on record decrying
religion as the civilization destroying disease it has always
been. Just got to throw off these shackles of earlier ages when
people didn't know shit about anything and get with the new
program. Science is the name of the game now, and anybody who
doesn't know that is probably from Nebraska or from Louisiana,
where they play with snakes in church and hopefully get bitten.
Hard to imagine how many centuries we've been buffaloed by all
those Christians and Jews with their idiotic commandments and
other engraved in stone prejudices which offend all right thinking
people. There IS no God. Stop it! We're past our adolescent stage
as a species now. Unless you're from Ohio or Wyoming. In either
case, tell your gun club Darwin was right. We''re monkeys with the
condom edge. We can get past this. We really can. And hopefully
we'll leave you behind
when we do.
Although. We can't help but wonder if Christians and Jews can ever get past their hatred of
muslims without being violently put down. They're threatening the
whole world with genocide, they really are. Muslims never hurt
anyone, except when they were provoked during the crusades of two
different millennia, and crusades are things best put behind
you. If said Christians and Jews understood the first
principle of even their own religions, they would know that the
highest virtue is tolerance. Yes, muslims have a slight tendency
to rape their women to death, and to kill the survivors for
getting raped in the first place, but when you quit believing in a
made-up God you realize that morality is a relative thing. Their
culture is simply different from ours. Who are we to judge? All we
can say for sure is that we're more qualified to judge than people
who believe in a "Bible" that hates everyone but Jews and
pseudo-chaste gays-in-denial "apostles" of a savior whose naked
male body is worshiped in homophobic designer enclaves the world
Okay. I've got a whole bunch more (a baker's dozen at least). But
that's all I have the stamina, and stomach, for today. Feel free to
add topics and/or your own arguments.
Puck Punk will be miffed. You know. The Hockey. And the Lockout has
been resolved. What's to worry about?
Merely this. hockey fans have been played for fools. By a sports
press that's as lefty as the mainstream press. Sinister? Yeah, I
think so. A sign that there's simply no arena where propaganda is
not the full time business of the people who are supposed to tell us
Who are hockey fans, after all? Blue collar folks for the most part.
Or, in other more contemporary words, gun-toting clowns who cling to
violence as a way of life.
Thing is, even SportsTalk stations diss hockey fans. Even in Philly,
home of the Flyers. Who could believe that? Well, maybe the WIP
listeners who are familiar with the pomposities of one Glen MacNow.
And one Rob Chary. They profess to be Flyer fans, but their affinity
is always tinged with condescension.
And yet. And YET. Obviously, we've had months of radio coverage of
the Lockout. So what I'm saying now is not off the top of my head
for a narrow political point. It's consensus reporting.
The talkers on the radio have all, always, been vocal in their
support of the players. They characterize the commissioner and the
owners as arrogant, egomaniacal, self-destructive, and stupid. They
are eloquent on the subject.
One problem. When callers ask, how can this lockout continue, they
respond with the one fact they allow into the discussion: the owners
lose less money by having NO season than another at the current cost
Huh? Really? Let's see. I lose less money by having no NHL hockey
season than by having one. What's wrong with this picture?
What's wrong is our whole conception of the value and purpose of
unions. When coal companies were killing coal miners, there was a
value and a purpose to unions. Today, not so much.
Unions that cross companies have become killers of whole industries.
The Detroit auto industry was killed by the UAW. Government
positions that used to offer job security in return for modest pay
and benefits have become slayers of solvency in the nation and
states thanks to fat retirement contracts negotiated by AFSCME and
The SEIU. The truly extreme, ridiculous version is being perpetrated
by the NFL and NHL. But we've been taught to side with
multi-millionaires over entrepreneurs. And how many of us accept it
without a moment's doubt?
A promising but ultimately rotten goalie gets a $50 million
contract. Owners want to win for their fans. But they can't afford a
$50 million contract for a bad player. They lose money every time a
paying customer comes into the arena. Even though they're already
scalping the faithful for ticket prices, food, beer, merchandise,
The talkers talk us into believing that this is the owners' fault.
It's a labor action when the millionaires revolt. No, it isn't.
It's not the owners who are pricing average loyal fans out of the
game they love. It's the players. The assignment of responsibility
is a total reversal. The owners are trying to preserve the market.
Remember the concept of market? People pay what they are willing to
pay for services rendered. No more. There is no "entitlement" to
compensation based on anything other than what the market will bear.
If NHL hockey teams lose money, they are paying too much for players
and they are the losers in the transaction. Too simple to explain.
Unless you're a lefty journalist.
Their job is not to make jobs for arena employees, extortionate
restaurant franchises, and Zamboni drivers. Their job is to make a
profit on subsidizing a successful team.
WE think, and we're told, that their job is to entertain us because
we desire to be entertained.
Bread and circuses.
Now tell me you haven't been induced to believe that it was always
the NHL owners who were in the wrong. And I'll tell you just what
liars you are.