PostHeaderIcon The Merciful End

Robert Ringer’s latest article is a masterpiece, “The Merciful End of the Corrupt GOP?“:

The Republican Party appears to be thrashing about like a wild beast in the final stages of its death throes. For those of us who are repulsed by politicians, political parties, and the odious political process, it’s quite entertaining to watch.

(Before proceeding, it’s important to point out that what people think of as the Republican Party is really just a wing of what I have been referring to since 1979 as the Demopublican Party — an oligarchy with two wings, the Democratic wing that sets the agenda and the Republican wing whose main function is to help implement that agenda.)

Of course, such a fraud would not be possible were it not for the fact that our rulers put a great deal of time and effort into providing great theater that diverts the public’s attention from the truth. And the most important aspect of this theater is that the two factions of the Demopublican oligarchy gratuitously pretend to be at odds with one another.

But make no mistake about it — all members in both wings of the party fully understand the importance of the theater aspect of the political game, never losing sight of the fact that their overarching, joint objective is to stay in power. Everything else about the game is secondary. The unspoken understanding among Demopublicans is, “You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours. And if you refuse to play the game, you can be sure that you won’t be around long.”

Good grief… does that sound like me, or what? Please read the whole thing – it is too good to miss.

Just a couple of more teasers to entice you:

And since the first anti-American president appeared on the scene in 2009, members of the Republican wing of the Demopublican Party have not even made a pretense of opposing policies that are specifically intended to collapse the economy.

As a result, everything has been going along just fine for the anti-American crowd for seven years, with the Demopublicans moving ever closer to fascist control of the populace. Then, suddenly, from out of nowhere that damn Donald Trump came along and started threatening to burst the Beltway bubble. Of course, the establishment didn’t take him seriously at first, which is likely to go down in history as their Waterloo mistake.

Like Napoleon, they were breathtakingly arrogant and, as a result, completely miscalculated the strength of their sworn enemy — the American people. Now that Republicans realize they made a terrible mistake in mocking and dismissing the chosen leader of the masses, The Donald, they have become increasingly frantic.

It’s become a real-life version of Road Runner (Trump) and Wile E. Coyote (establishment Republicans). Every time the latter thinks they’ve convinced Republican voters that Trump is a fraud, a phony, and/or an unknowledgeable fool, they wake up in the middle of the night to the haunting sounds of “Beep! Beep!”

LOL… what an allegory! Beep! Beep! That is likely to stick forever in one’s mind. 😀

I’m hoping that Trump’s great contribution to America will be the official end of the pompous Republican wing of the Demopublican Party — the wing that has brought us such frauds as Recreant Romney, Mush McCain, Mooch McConnell, and, more recently, Robo Rubio. Make no mistake about it, the power brokers behind the scenes are still determined to maintain the status quo, but there’s a good chance that their long-running scam is finally coming to an end — and here’s why:

His logic is impeccable… do go read it for yourself, and as usual with his articles, the thoughtful comments are well worth the time to peruse – in this case, especially the first one. â—„Daveâ–º

10 Responses to “The Merciful End”

  • Larry Andrew says:

    Terrific analysis…beep, beep.

  • Robert must be reading my mind … LOVED IT!!

    In fact the end of this mess will not happen fast enough for me. 😉

  • Chris says:

    For your consideration. Short and to the point. Turning back isn’t really an option. Going forward isn’t either.

    I’m grateful to have lived my life when I did. The future will be left to only those able to pick enough crumbs that are left.

    • Good article, Chris, and your reaction to it is understandable. I certainly agree that we have lived in the best of times, and the prognosis for the future is dim indeed.

      Yet, I remember as a teenager circa about 1960, having a poster in my bedroom of a hippopotamus in mud, captioned “If It Feels Good – Do It.” Then, there was the popular bumper sticker, “Question Authority.” Such messages certainly had a salutary effect on my own contumacy. 🙂

      A religionist may choose to denigrate this as “moral relativism”; but I call it individualism and personal sovereignty. There is a more modern expression, which resonates with any normal two-year-old, “You’re not the boss of me.” A newer vintage bumper sticker, features Yosemite Sam with a pistol in each hand warning, “Back Off.”

      There is nothing wrong with having established rules for a game like baseball; but if one cherishes Liberty, nobody should ever be forced to participate in the game, if they choose not to. This is the fallacy in his authoritarian lament about the balkanization of civilization. I prefer the notion of, “My rules for me; your rules for you,” and neither of us has any right to attempt to impose our rules on the other.

      Once again, I will note that most of his examples would evaporate, if we lived in a laissez faire stateless society. The very attempt to forge unity and conformity among such disparate communities all across this continent, is sheer folly. I reckon that most political activism is more in the nature of self-defense, than an attempt to impose one’s values on others; but the effect is the same either way. Political action in the Progressive metropolises, begets political reaction in Conservative flyover country, and vice versa.

      Like it or not, all morality is a matter of personal choice. Even if one chooses to adopt a moral code prescribed by some external ‘authority,’ that too is a choice. Let’s all agree to disagree on our personal ethics and lifestyle choices, and get on with living our individual lives, as we choose to live them, at peace with any and all nonaggressive neighbors. 😉 â—„Daveâ–º

    • Chris says:

      Absent a knee jerk reaction of pinning a moral code on either religion or government I place it on a human level. A moral code is simply an agreement between individuals to conduct ones self in an acceptable manner to be accepted within a community. An example might be I don’t want you to kill me so to accomplish that I think it unacceptable to kill you because you most likely don’t want to be killed either. That allows us both to exist in close proximity with neither being threatened provided your reasoning is the same. It’s when that like reasoning breaks down we get the problem. The author calls it “moral relativism”. I consider it more a lack of reasoning. Sure I don’t want to injure you, but you don’t care because you don’t see my ability to injure you. Particularly if you get me first. It’s what you want to do and you can do whatever you want. Until my brother who has up until that point had no reason to injure you because of the unsaid agreement between the two of you. He now has little reason to abide by it. That is the point where “nonaggressive neighbors” disappear. The point where reasoned agreements of conduct mean nothing any more. Without that any community of individuals with any level of autonomy disintegrates.

    • Chris, once again our differing definitions of terms is perhaps clouding effective communication. What I believe you are calling a ‘moral code’ I would label an implied social contract or perhaps an agreed to societal code of conduct. Morality itself, is merely the distinction between right and wrong. Of course, this begs the question, by what authority do we judge a given behavior as right or wrong.

      A religionist would naturally answer, God; but I believe our own individual consciences are the source of so-called moral behavior. Since I also believe that gods are anthropomorphic creations of men, it follows that all such standards emanated from the minds of men, not gods. Can you imagine that if scripture proclaimed God approved of torture, and disapproved of charity, that people would just accept and follow these precepts as easily as they do the opposite? I doubt it.

      Like most sentient animals, we do not need to be taught that murder of our own species is wrong. All but a sociopath, naturally intuits it; and indeed, we generally must be taught/programmed to overcome our innate aversion to this unnatural act, in order to create effective warriors for the state. Even then, I can personally attest to the gut-wrenching dismay experienced, the first time or two one pulls the trigger with a human being in one’s sights, and it had nothing whatever to do with my religious beliefs at the time.

      Any sane social contract or societal code of conduct, would naturally include the expectation of ‘right’ behavior, and sanctions against ‘wrong’ behavior, which as I said, is the subject of morality. A ‘moral code,’ however, is a personal tool of a very different species. It is not a public agreement at all; but is a personal list of specific behavioral guidelines, intended to keep one from making bad decisions, at times when one’s rational intellect may not be fully engaged, and in complete control of one’s behavior.

      I have no need whatever, for others to agree with my own personal moral code, which I thoughtfully crafted about 35 years ago, to be in consonance with my own personal nature, so that I would never again have need to feel guilty about anything. I am confident that at least 99% of those I chance to encounter, do not ascribe to some of my own rules for myself, nor I to some of theirs.

      As an example, I refuse to tell a lie, even a little white one, unless my life, or the life of someone important to me, is in danger. Anytime I am tempted, this hard and fast rule pops up in my mind, and stops me cold. This does not make me the kindest person one ever meets; but those who know me, quickly learn not to ask me anything, unless they are prepared for a straight honest answer. 🙂

      As for your disintegrating community, that is a reality of the current paradigm of ideological competitors, vying for power over each other, through political control of the levers of the state. I believe that dissolving the state itself, would alleviate most of those aggravating issues, which cause the disharmony. Without the power of the state, to protect the agitators from the wrath of their neighbors, I reckon that society would adopt a live and let live attitude, and be much more civil, out of sheer necessity. â—„Daveâ–º

    • Chris says:

      Of course, this begs the question, by what authority do we judge a given behavior as right or wrong.

      Simply by virtue of what is acceptable to those we associate and/or coexist with.

      Can you imagine that if scripture proclaimed God approved of torture, and disapproved of charity, that people would just accept and follow these precepts as easily as they do the opposite? I doubt it.

      A sharia observant Muslim might disagree in many instances.

      As an example, I refuse to tell a lie, even a little white one, unless my life, or the life of someone important to me, is in danger. Anytime I am tempted, this hard and fast rule pops up in my mind, and stops me cold. This does not make me the kindest person one ever meets; but those who know me, quickly learn not to ask me anything, unless they are prepared for a straight honest answer.

      The perfect example of the reasoned agreement I’m speaking of. And when in practicing you brand of (for lack of a better term) “brutal honesty” does it surprise you that you can also be treated to the same sort of honesty in turn possibly by someone you would expect it least? Or if that person consistently continues to lie to you even when being presented with your honesty wouldn’t that raise your ire? I’m not talking about laws or conventional rules of morality widely accepted. I’m talking about the individual cues of behavior that are automatically received and interpreted. When those cues are completely ignored nobody is happy.

      Let me try a different example. Every year we have a fourth of July party at Dads house. He has a big poll barn where we keep our shop and all our toys. Early during the party all the guys have gotten into the habit of hanging out in the barn. These guys are not “shrinking violets”. We drink beer, talk shit and cuss up a storm. We’re comfortable in our behavior. That’s what we do. Once in a while somebody crosses what little line there is and one way or the other winds up pretty well shut down but in general one would call us lewd, rude, and crude. Later in the party we migrate out of the barn to where the wives, girl friends, and kids have been engaged in less weighty subjects than cars, boobs, and beer. That also happens to be where the food is. What a group of fine upstanding gentlemen we are. Never a harsh word would cross our lips. Except that one guy that spent too much time in the barn cooler. He forgot to leave the barn in the barn. What a despicable wretch and everybody knows it. He has ignored the cues necessary to coexist.

      That is to me what “moral relativism” is. Those that ignore the cues necessary to get along but demanding that another accept and coexist in spite of it. When I finally have to ask the drunken loud mouth to leave they never understand why and protest that they did nothing wrong and I was being a jerk instead of realizing that his behavior was making everyone else miserable. Not realizing that the option exists to spend his time with people that spend all their time in the barn of his choosing.

    • I presumed the author intended the common usage of the term ‘moral relativism’ – accepting that different cultures and tribal groups have differing social mores, which should not be condemned solely because they do not conform with one’s own subjective standards for right and wrong behavior.

      I can see how you are applying it parochially, to suggest that evicting a rude lout from a family oriented party, is an act of rejection of the tolerance suggested by its proponents. That seems a stretch; but modern language is nothing, if not malleable. 🙂

      Your pole barn analogy strikes me as more of an example of ‘situational ethics,’ than ‘moral relativism.’ Obviously, the “lewd, rude, and crude” behavior itself, was entirely acceptable to all participants while situated around the barn’s beer cooler. It was only when the situation changed, to include the presence of women and children, that the “fine upstanding gentlemen” felt uncomfortable and objected to it.

      An interesting thought occurs to me. Active participation in our culture requires playing different, often contradictory roles, depending on the circumstances. Why is playing a part contrary to our true nature, in order to get along and fit in with others, not considered deceit?

      I would venture to guess that some of the participants at your party, are by nature, “fine upstanding gentlemen” in their routine lives. They might go days without uttering a curse word. Yet, for the purposes of male bonding, they can change their persona in a heartbeat, to that of a churlish boor. Others, are likely just the opposite, and when required, the polite gentleman is the deceptive role.

      I need to cogitate a bit on this. Having lived in 8 countries and 16 States, I long ago mastered ‘going native,’ to fit in with whatever culture I find myself in, without being regarded as a tourist. At this point, who is the real me? Perhaps I may not be as “brutally honest” as I fancy myself. 😉 â—„Daveâ–º

  • Chris says:

    Perhaps I may not be as “brutally honest” as I fancy myself.

    Don’t over concern yourself with it. None of us are. 😀 We all go through life constantly making micro adjustments to behavior on the fly without even knowing it. When the cop pulls you over you smile a little more and be as pleasant and compliant as you can not because your glad to see him. It’s just the natural reaction of trying to make the best of a bad situation. It’s the fool that doesn’t have that natural reaction that traffic stop videos are made of.

    As social creatures humans have a need to coexist. That requires these natural adjustments to avoid constant rejection. These “skills” are learned at a very young age. Those that don’t learn them are looked upon as “anti-social”. To the extreme you find sociopaths.

Leave a Reply

Political Spectrum
Political Circle

Think Up/Down not Left/Right

Internal Links