Friday, May 30, 2014

Temperance is for Nerds, Losers and Dorks

The notion of temperance is traditionally defined as a southern hospitality of sorts, in which it is considered immoral to drink beers.

This, obviously, has no real existence in the south in the post-deconstructionist age - apart from the Obamanites insistence that everyone act like a dork/looser and whine about those who enjoy life.  Temperance is idiocy.  It is simply a way for those with grievances (and believe me, all nerds and loosers have grievances) to try to show others the correct and "enlightened" way of their own hypocrisy, that is - a grim farce in which every Cool-Aid drinker believes their own way to be the way of correctness.

It is not only a grim-farce, but indicative of a communist conspiracy.

You see, as often as the communist party is thought to be drug-using and defiant (and they ARE drug users), the fact remains that the communist party's platform is one of persecuting those who indulge in a beer.  One of their central tenants is to condemn the use of alcohol (obviously they prefer heroin and lsd - not to mention crack-cocaine).  They used this method of subversion against my personal hero - Mr. Joseph McCarthy.

When McCarthy attempted to, and succeeded at finding soviet spy's working in the U.S. government, he was overwhelmed with allegations that he was an alcoholic.  Personally, I think it's impossible to fight against communism without a stiff drink now and then.  But yes, he found over 40 soviet spies working for the U.S. government, and was immediately attacked due to the fact that he, on occasion, enjoyed a drink or two.

That's because it is part of the American Communist Party's platform to decry the evils of alcoholism and alcohol use!  literally.

So in summation, The ones who tell people that they are alcoholics are generally part - consciously or not - of a communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

And the majority of them are nerds, loosers and dorks who have no life and have read Marx one to many times.

Ask your average nerd how many times he has read the communist manifesto and you will invariably find that they hide the fact that they have ever done so.

It's a shame.

But always remember, never forget....

The fact that Nerds, Losers and Dorks have no life and no accomplishments beyond their own soured sense of vanity.

Hooray for them!

But they shall surely rot in hell for eternity! lol

RT Stillwell, DDU 2014

Saturday, May 17, 2014

Friday, May 16, 2014

Hey Teach- It's Point .0003 Percent

I pride myself here at DDU/EIB affiliate, Politalk2.blogspot, as being - as rushlimbaugh has been accuracy checked by conservative fact checkers (i.e. watchdogs), as having a 93.6 percent accuracy rating on my narrative/commentary.

I'm here to tell you, dear reader, today that there is NO HOPE for america today, unless we sentence the victims of crimes to - *XPLZN*

Big date, right?


umm, the youth of america are better off with a .0003 percent deduction on textbook based curriculum.

DDU lol

Monday, May 12, 2014

Review Of Hobbes' "Leviathan"

During a brief vacation, so to speak, I had the opportunity to read a work by Thomas Hobbes through, his "Leviathan".  Olde english permeates the language of the work, and makes for an aesthetically pleasing piece of traditional philosophy.  Such language as "publique" and "sinne".  Very often, the use of what today would be considered incorrect grammar induces in the reader a fluidity and ease of viewing and compliments his actual philosophy, the content, as well as gives one an historical sense that one would be incapable of finding in a textbook.
It would seem odd, considering I've previously "railed against" Hobbes, that I would give a favorable view of "Leviathan".  However, I would be lying if I said this work is anything but an altogether great work of philosophy that stands commendable and admirable, to say the least.  Not having ever read the famous "Nasty, brutish and short" description of human life and consequence in it's context, I was taken aback by how this phrase is, in all facticity, not written with any disdain for human life in-itself nor malicious whatsoever.  In full context, Hobbes explains that life is only so when there is no Law-as-such.  So, I think it is a shame that this "Nasty, brutish and short" idea is obscured by way of implying that Hobbes finds this to be good, necessary, or ironic.  He explains that humans meet a grim end when their rulers fail to protect them, or when a conquering military force decides not to have mercy upon the peoples in a country they've vanquished.
I suppose it's a testament to how one cannot truly in any way at all claim to understand a philosophy from mere snippets and commentary, and it goes to support my ongoing claim that philosophy as presented in academia is glaringly insufficient, because the majority of it is merely a textbook telling the reader what the ideas of monumental works mean through commentary and rather insufficient analysis rather than the reader coming to their own conclusion through immersion in the entire work itself.  Reading Hobbes cover to cover, I can only admit that I was wrongheaded in simply repeating Robert Solomon's analysis of Hobbes as anti-democratical.
"Leviathan" is mostly political and theological in content.  However, there is a great passage early on where he, as many philosophers are want to do, describes what it means to create great art.  I must admit, and I shouldn't flatter myself too much as one of the things that is apparent in Politalk is that I've nothing approaching an acceptable grasp of the english language, that I identified with his description of how the genesis of art comes about.  Composition, he seems to imply, is something that takes both passion and circumspection, with circumspection - as in intuiting where to make variations - winning out as the dominant mode of authorship.  Perhaps that's what he meant.
Perhaps not.
As was said by someone in the continent, famously, when asked what Hegel meant by one of his passages: "Only Hegel and God know".
I think the same would apply to "Leviathan".
One thing I appreciated in Hobbes is his lack of Dialectic, in an Hegelian or Socratic sense.
It's very much an individualist work, and remains - in my mind - an example of restraint in use of wit and humor.  There were many times that I laughed upon reading "Leviathan"
For example, when Hobbes described "Laughing" as making a kind of "Grimace".
Another thing I thought was interesting about this work was his affinity, apparently in vogue at the time, for insulting the Greek philosophes - esp Aristotle.  He's not exactly cruel about it, but upon describing what pagan Greeks actually believed I found myself again making one of those "grimaces".

The climax of Part 1 of Leviathan had me absolutely riveted, where Hobbes culminates his graceful circumspection in an attack on the Church of Rome.  Being partial to this kind of narrative, I have to admit I jumped up in my seat in shock and awe when he finishes the first part of his work with a sharp and decisive blow to the Church of Rome.  Though one thing I should note is that it was patently obvious that he was writing as such to please the new Anglican monarchy, a criticism I suppose could aptly apply to myself on occasion.  Another thing that I thought was a little lacking was his opening:  "For what is the Heart, but a Spring;  and the Nerves, but so many Strings;  and the Joynts, but so many Wheeles, giving motion to the whole Body, such as was intended by the Artificer."  I'm not attempting to say this is not appropriate use of prose, but in this reviewers humble opine it's not as strong of an opener as perhaps it might have been.  Still, it will remain.

In short, 
By Thomas Hobbes

"Fun olde english, fun to read through, and as entertaining as it is important to the disciplines of Law, Politics and Theology."

- Brendan O'Connell, DDU 2014

Friday, May 9, 2014

The Regime Intent On Shoving Obamacare Down The Publik's Throats

The Regime of the U.S.S.A. seems to have no compunction or hesitation when it comes to forcing Americans into an Orwellian fascist state.  Rush Limbaugh yesterday said, of the current climate in the former U.S.A., he's never seen Democracy fall so fast.
And there's one mysterious thing to blame this on.
Obamacare, otherwise known as the "Affordable Healthcare Act".
Obviously it is laden, in a legislative sense, with all sorts of nefarious anti-democratical abuses of authority.
But what do we REALLY know about Obamacare?

Almost nothing, to be perfectly frank!

I'd love to shy away from the sort of "conspiratorial" talk that some revel in; but to be honest, it's difficult.

Obamacare is not just a mess, but - in fact - an official fascist move by a Regime so set on the forcing the populous into a kind of obedience that it's willing to do just about anything to ruin god fearing American's lives.

It would be ironic, if it weren't so deathly serious.

The irony, if it weren't so scary, would be that Obamacare's stated intention is to "Care" for people, and, obviously, it is fairly readily doing the exact opposite.  It's ruining lives.  It's ruining our country.

It's wrong for America.

One thing I don't think this Regime truly understands is that mandated health reform (i.e. abuse of a necessity) may well work fine in the continent.  Perhaps not, but decidedly it IS something that Europeans generally have in their republics, monarchy's, or popular governments.

And the Regime, with their leftinista NPR diet and educated stupidity, love to think of themselves as... well...  a "little european".  They obviously have the sophistication of progressive eurocracy, and are just, well... a little "cultured", a little "more intelligent" than those rubes in flyover country.

They are obviously wrong, however.

Socialized healthcare is just, to put it bluntly, unamerican.

Obamacare might work well in other country's, perhaps -

But the Regime and their disciples forget that this is NOT europe.

This is, or was, America.

Obamacare is wrong for America, wrong for Americans, and just plain "wrong" altogether.

Perhaps if the leftinista cabal weren't shoving it down our throats, so to speak, I would be a bit more compassionate towards what would just be ill timed and wrongheaded paper work cooked up in D.C.

But they are very insistent on shoving it down our throats.

Raise your hand if you've had several, two or more, democrat stooges tepidly recommend that you sign up for Obamacare?

That's, if you experienced it, merely the veneer on a fascist Left wing - intent on fighting in such a vile and base way that the boxing metaphor is, unfortunately, no longer applicable to politics.

The Left wing fights like a UFC champion.
The Conservative Publik likes to, shall we say, keep the gloves on.

So I conclude by saying this small bit of Limbaughian fact:

Health Insurance provided by an employer was set to be eviscerated at the beginning of this year.
Millions were to lose their coverage provided by an employer and dumped into Obamacare...
But the Regime is so disingenuous that they delayed this until, predictably, after the 2014 elections.

It will certainly happen, however, after the elections; so that's a decent sign that liberal benevolence is inadequate for a functioning popular government.

DDU 2014