A Long And Ponderous Essay on Conservative Thought

The topic of the Conservative mind deserves years of research but I only was able to tolerate about 5 months of the cyclical, self-justifying, selectively prejudicial, firmly closed to any alteration, uncompromising agenda that currently rules the Conservative persuasion. But I did learn some of the basics of Conservative thought and I'd like to share my findings with you. My goal is not to inform you. No, I'm trying to expunge any desire I have to investigate this topic further so I decided I needed to enter the belly of the beast, cover myself with shit, and embrace the evil beast, and hopefully come out the other side. I can report that I'm beat up, but I made it. Now I'm going to write this essay and that will be the end of it. I will punch in the face anyone who asks me to expand on any of these comments. OK?

None of this is racist. Not a montage, it's a screenshot.

Race:
While nigger-loathing red necks who advocate total slaughter of all blacks as a preemptive strike against a "sub-literate feral animal" often align themselves with other Conservative positions like pro-life, gun control and pro-Vietnam war, that particular extreme opinion is merely tolerated by true Conservatives. It is neither objected to, nor approved of. A confirmed racist who has "evidence" that blacks are 'in fact' less capable of reason than other races might write something like, "We must stop feeding the apes and ship them all back to Africa in rubber rafts," and the general response will be an Upvote or, "Haha." or "Lock and Load". I think the reasoning is that the racist's comment is so ludicrous that approval or condemnation is irrelevant. Allowing Free Speech that is hateful is like an intermediate boy scout patch for a Conservative. It's like Halloween 365 days a year and this person has decided to wear a Simon Legree costume. So be it. He does not speak for anyone but himself, and furthermore, he is writing mostly to incite people and should not be taken seriously. Speech does not translate to action. It's amusing how extreme he is. Furthermore, "hate speech" is considered by most Conservatives to be a concept of liberal construction designed to alleviate unjustified white guilt. So, there is no such thing as hate speech to a Conservative. Only actions are theoretically to be judged, but this is where problems arise because if the hate speech involves anything like Blacks claiming Whites are all demons then the same Conservatives will object to the hate speech and claim the Blacks are racists. In fact, they routinely accuse Jesse Jackson Jr. and Al Sharpton of being "The most racist hateful people in America." based purely on their public comments. There is certainly evidence that Jackson and Sharpton have racial affiliation bias, but I'd still say that's a wild attempt to reshuffle the terminology deck. In short, Conservatives don't believe hate speech exists except to point out that Blacks are using hate speech. They point this out merely to demonstrate the hypocrisy of Liberals who only criticize white hate speech. See? They have no problem with white racism, barely believe it exists, but immediately denounce the slightest black racism. Obscure online death threats by blacks against whites will inspire a dozen editorials, but similar death threats directed at the President, within their own comment section, will not be addressed.
I know that's hard to wrap your mind around but it's my findings, nothing more.

Liberals are casually equated to Islamic Terrorists

Hold on. I'm getting ahead of myself. I can't dive directly into this analysis without talking about the root, the very core of most political discourse: punditry. Punditry is the poor man's education. It doesn't matter if you are liberal and beg for jokes and snarky facial gestures from Jon Stewart or if you say "Amen" after Bill O'Reilly farts. It really doesn't matter because this particular method of education is the most lazy attempt to understand the facts that was ever invented. It's repulsive. It's so fucked up. If you get your news and opinions from South Park or Fox or CNN or Comedy Channel then you're an asshole. These are the most biased sources of information anywhere. I use the word "information" loosely because a sentence is not uttered by these media moguls without a hidden agenda. It's pure manipulation. Even my blog is remotely considered news only when I relate personal experience. Only experience is worth anything and punditry is like a short-cut to experience...which means IT ISN'T EXPERIENCE. It's pseudo-experience. If Jon Stewart had any concern for anything he would shut his show down and get in the trenches. I know the rationale: "if I influence someone then I've done more good." It's bullshit. I'm a social analyst because I'm curious if mental liberty is possible or if every opinion is a manipulated political construct. I don't actually care what happens to the world. So take my word: I'm telling you that punditry is a bullshit, fucked up pass-time, let alone a career. No, the 'news' is not news. Do you understand? It is not News: it is propaganda. The dissemination of every event since 9/11 has been orchestrated for a purpose. The purpose depends completely on the network owner's political persuasions. So, in the past 15 years Western media has completely embraced the worst forms of mass manipulations. And if you join one of those manipulation factories, even if it is with the purpose of informing the public of the dangers, YOU ARE STILL PART OF THE PROBLEM. I can't stress this point enough because I believe the problems facing modern man all can be traced back to the old computer motto: garbage in, garbage out. Experience is never garbage. That's my creed. Experience is everything. The more experience, the more your opinion will reflect life. If you attempt to borrow the experience of another person, you will be unfulfilled. No one is a prophet. No one holds your answer. So punditry in general is my enemy because it's a dead-end shortcut to experience. In fact, I want to point out that my time in Texas put me a long rifle length away from many Conservatives and few of them are under the influence of any pundits. They speak softly, don't read the news, watch football, carry guns, raise families. So, I can't really quote any of them because they don't give interviews. So, I'm forced to quote the lowest of the pundit worshipers. That's important because it skews my research. These are Conservatives, but they represent the most outspoken of the pundit zealots. And that's not the majority of Conservatives so I want you to keep that in mind. In my effort to formulate a dichotomy black/white for every topic in the universe, according to Hermann Hesse's model, I think that words are written/spoken to either inform/or mock. The pundit's job is generally to mock.

With that said: Any news source, Liberal or Conservative, is an editorializing, bloviating waste of time. It will not make you wise; it will make you a derivative asshole. Note: most people do not live like Oggy, at the mercy of whatever culture he's in, on the street with little or no money, in shelters, libraries, monasteries, jails, colleges, etc. No. THEN WHY THE FUCK DO PEOPLE ACT LIKE THEY LIVE LIKE OGGY?? You see? I know what I know. And I know how I learned what I know. But if you sat on your fucking ass and watched news and were spoon-fed opinions all day and we get to talking and you seem to think we're equally experienced then I know you are worse than an asshole. You don't even know that you're an asshole. You think we're equal? No. We're not equal. Take the next 20 years and go explore your country. Then come talk to me in 2035 and tell me what you think, you ignorant cunt. Until that point, do not describe the airport restrooms you have taken a shit in or the movies you saw in theaters or the Las Vegas hooker you fucked. Ok? Because I was cleaning those restrooms after you left, I was painting the fucking prop walls in that movie you hated and I was the one who bought that hooker Chinese food and had it thrown at me after you wiped your cock off and left. OK? I have completely different experiences then everyone and my disdain for humanity basically comes from people who think they are my equals when they aren't and they aren't even close. I don't think I'm superior, I know it. Just like Donald Trump knows he has more money than me. It's not a quality statement; it's simple economics.

So, now that we have that cleared up, now that I openly declare my loathing of all skin deep political philosophers, I can proceed with my analysis of this one particular embryotic abortion known as The Conservative. I'm objective, see? Eventually I'll write an essay on Liberals and they won't like what they read.

The easiest way will be to analyze the topics so I will go with the major ones, the ones that no Conservative avoids: Race, Guns, American Freedoms/Sovereignty. 

Race: As I've said, Conservatives are not racists, but you wouldn't know it after you talked to one. Yes, they have opinions on race related topics which leads to all the confusion, but that does not make them racists. Racism is the theory that one race is inherently, biologically inferior, and thus deserving of mistreatment. Speciesism, for comparison, is the belief that animals are 'less important' and can be killed for sport or amusement, if not food, by the superior Man. I don't want to analyze this topic too deeply but it's safe to say Liberals and Conservatives alike are prejudice according to Species. You probably are. So, translate that feeling you have for a Sausage into how you view members of another race and you will have touched true Racism. Racism does exist but it's not a Conservative belief. Conservatives can not be accused of this at all, but the reason this basic acceptance of all humans as equal is overlooked is because of their generous and outspoken loathing of all blacks who step out of line at all. Sell untaxed cigarettes? "KILL THAT FUCKING THUG THIEF." Steal some cigars? "THUG GANGSTER! DIE!" Record a rap video? "IGNORANT NIGGER PULL UP YOUR PANTS".

Fry That Monkey hahahaha!

And when confronted about using the word Nigger the Conservative position is that since blacks use it, anyone can use it. As a reporter and satirist, I use this and similar words because they exist, they also have a connotation that transcends the word and I like that. If you're offended by my use of that word you can freely copy this essay and delete that word. The Ukrainians who are already stealing my content might be pissed, but fuck them.

So, the Conservative position is that any law breaking should be met with full attack. The law is paramount for blacks and whites. They have absolutely no sympathy for whites who break the law and are killed. And they have no sympathy for blacks who break the law and are killed. This is the truth. They do not make a distinction between the two criminals based on race alone. But the problem arrives when, other then demanding death sentences for evading a cigarette tax, they pay almost no attention to white crimes. For the record the Conservative websites* I visited regularly are as follows:
Townhall
newsmax
downtrend
Right Scoop
redstate
dailycaller
the american thinker
the Federalist  - home of a thoughtful essay titled "The Future should belong to those who can slander the Prophet of Islam." Read that essay and Think about who you are joining forces with.

The majority of stories are about black criminals, gun rights, abortion, and Obama's abuse of power. White crimes are conveniently overlooked.

I can't tell you how superior I feel after reading some of the editorials found on these sites. These writers all have advanced degrees some education, they can spell, they got a job at least posting their essays on a revenue producing website, probably were never homeless....but none of them are wise, they are skin-deep pundits who offer nothing but farts that echo off the walls of ignorance. They are smart in the same way that kid who sold the answers to the math test was smart. The authors figured out how to manipulate but they all say the same thing: Everyone should think like me and then the world will work. Worst of all, they all editorialize past events. I realize they are news sites so their purpose is to inform....but I've yet to find a Conservative site that makes news. They are all one step behind the present...they report on a report of someone else reporting on a report. This is very important, so more on that later...

For now I was making a point about unequal reporting and this is a complicated problem that affects all 'news' media shill factories. What stories do you report on? You can not cover all of them so you must choose. And modern media is obsessed with blood so if it bleeds, it leads. And Conservative/Liberal sites all follow suit in the most painfully derivative fashion....they are reporting on the fact some other site has reported on a fact...and then added editorial opinions intended to either antagonize the enemy or instigate their allies. It's so fucked up but that's the world today. Mostly, it's impotent graffiti in the 'name of free speech', which you should already know my opinion on. To hide behind the phrase 'free speech' today is no different than the blanket term "Communist" used in 1954 to destroy the agrarian reforms in Guatemala. "free speech' a lazy, dumb, term and identifies the speaker as a total droning cunt who hasn't graduated from 4th grade social studies. I've heard lots of guests use this term like they're chewing gum. It's popular and safe and everyone smiles. Even a former editor of the Onion said, "The attacks in France have to be about Free Speech." Yes, as long as that's the agenda of your news network. Definitely. Cut to Commercial! Feed me some more lines. Really thoughtless.

My point is that a network must choose what stories to run with and the above mentioned derivative sites sweep up the pubic hairs and spin them into yarn to sell with their customized opinion woven into the fabric. So, since they are not actually journalists who investigate anything, and since they have no news to contribute to the world, they are stuck with the sloppy seconds approach involving whatever Ted Turner was intrigued by that day. I suspect there is a web crawling robot that sorts local news stories for key words like Black crime, 2nd amendment, pro-life and sends the stories back to the editors who then sort them and assign them and the writer reads the story, spins it, links some other stories together and that's his day. It's pathetic and I got a taste of it in my months of reading these sites. This alone should make people very concerned and reinforces my feeling that experience is the only path to wisdom and gobbling derivative shit espoused by lazy bloggers, including Oggy, is a sure path to stupidity. See, experience is exponential. When you substitute pundits for experience you don't just become uninformed, you become stupid.

So, what happens is Black empowerment sites report and spin events that support their agenda. Conservative sites report and spin events that support their agenda. Jon Stewart reports on events that support his agenda. I've learned that anyone can spin anything. And by 'events' I mean they report on the reporting and coverage of another news network. You see how derivative that is? I emphasize this because my research into Conservative sites made me feel I was reading an analysis of news coverage, not of news. Maybe they are the same thing now. Read this spin about how this other news network spins this story about how another news network spins a news event. What the fuck are you talking about? I'm already 4 generations removed from an event that happened two days ago? What the fuck??

So, Conservatives must filter everything through their agenda and I must stress that these are not journalists in the traditional sense. They do not investigate. None of the websites I visited participated in any investigation. They were purely derivative/editorializing. But there's so much information that they can reprint that the whole process becomes a question of how well you can paraphrase multiple primary sources, and how well you can cherry pick certain articles and quotes to prove your point. It almost appears that they did some reporting, but they merely paraphrased and spun the facts. I could reprint many racist comments I found, or death threats against the President, encouragement of genocide, homicide, revolution, coup, lawlessness, etc. Liberals are not considered humans so killing Liberals is not technically outlawed. "It's like flushing the toilet." is how some describe killing a Liberal. I could give the appearance that Conservatives are out of their minds, based on the quotes I choose. I mean, to title an essay, "The Future Should Belong To Those Who Can Slander The Prophet of Islam" is so fucking stupid. I think I wrote a similar debate topic in 1982, when I was 11 years old, and the essay was titled, "Why Girls Should Be Banned"

To be fair, the writer was flipping the script on something Obama said two years ago so he was being contradictory, but do I need to cherry pick anything to make these writers sound like idiots? I don't think so. They are boldly ignorant and need no help. "Oh, if only everyone in the world were white and lived in Boise, Idaho then things would be so simple!!"

Obama Speech 2012, quoting some asshole named Gandhi.

So, all the articles will support the agenda of the news network. ALL of Them. They will not alter their agenda, they will not consider any other view, they will not compromise, they are not open to discussion, they will spin every event and comment to support their agenda. And from an outsider's perspective, their concentration is apparently the eradication of the black race, all liberals, all other religious practices or traditions save Protestant and Christians, all other ethnic groups. At first glance the articles and comments read exactly like The Future Should Belong to Assholes essay above.

I guess mickey_moussaoui has relatives from Constantinople

But one must dig deeper to discover these genocidal comments are peripheral, and incidental. They do not reflect the opinion of a true Conservative. I feel like further analysis is unnecessary. Either you desire a globally diverse mankind or you aspire towards homogeneity. That applies to Muslim zealots, first amendment zealots, Baptists, anarchists, etc. Maybe it's impossible to have a mixed humanity. That's a legitimate argument, that eventually we must homogenize our beliefs...I don't have a short answer to that. Indeed, it appears man's nature is divisive, easily manipulated, short-sighted so we would get along better if everyone wore Broncos jerseys. Good point. But it will only happen in a Hitlerian world so it's something I'll die trying to prevent. That's why a statement like "The world must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam" or "The world should belong to those who can slander the prophet of Islam" are divisive.  These are statements that must lead to global war because they do not permit compromise. The world will always include one of each. There are people who will die in order to slander the prophet of Islam, whether the law permits it or not, and there are people who will die trying to kill those who slander the prophet of Islam, whether the law permits it or not. I'm amazed that a tacky illustration of a Prophet's ball sack could possibly be the cause of global war. Man, we are petty. There is just no way God exists if this is the situation we find ourselves in.

I'm trying to write about Conservative views on Race, but current events are getting in the way. I don't know if I've made my case, presented my evidence, that Conservatives are not racists, they merely play the part of racists on the Internet. I'll try to frame the topic like this: When Michael Brown was executed by the cop the Conservative position was that A) Brown was a thief and deserved to die. B) Brown resisted arrest and deserved to die. C) More black thugs kill black thugs than cops kill black thugs, so blacks should concentrate on that before the infrequent cop execution. Well, what followed was months of focus on why the Conservative opinion was correct, months of criticism of the protests over the killing, months of mocking the plight of poor blacks as "all their fault". This went on for months without any change. The military response to the protests was uniformly approved of because the protests were possibly violent and encouraged thuggery. I'll point out that at the same time a college campus of whites had some drunken riot and there was no sympathy for any of those students. The Kent State casualties in 1970 are equally loathed for being hippie liberals. Their race (all white) holds no importance to Conservatives because it was their betrayal of America in time of war that's unforgivable. A white liberal is total dirt, the worst kind of scum because they have been indoctrinated by black liberals. A black criminal is also total dirt. A white criminal is dirt. A black Conservative is OK. A black liberal, like Obama, is their ultimate nightmare so they routinely wonder why someone has not assassinated him. 

More vitriol

I'm trying to concentrate on Race and this is as much as I want to say about that topic. Race should not be a focus of any discussion with a Conservative. Race really is irrelevant to their agenda, which I'm trying to outline in a clumsy way. Furthermore, Conservatives love to use the race topic as evidence of a liberal's hypocritical beliefs. This is another reason the Race topic is forever in the headlines of Conservative pundit rags: not because the Conservatives care about race, but because they are using race as a way to discredit liberals. I realize this is complicated but that's mostly because I'm trying to decipher years of semi-illiterate babbling and translate it into English. At first glance every Conservative rag will appear to be horribly racist, "BLACK THUG RAPES FAMILY." "BLACK COP-KILLER EXECUTED" "TWO BLACK THUGS KILLED BY ROBBERY VICTIM" followed by dozens of hateful comments condemning the acts until it's a stew of hate toward blacks. But is it? There's a fine line that quickly gets lost in the hate that the writers are completely focused on the criminals. That's it. Yes, the criminals are black and the pundit seems to come up with 4 stories about blacks committing crime a day but 0 about whites, but that's justified by their decision to cherry pick stories. So, they aren't lying about black crimes, they are merely omitting all other types of crime. Jeffery Skilling, Ken Lay, The Loathsome Lou Pai for example, are not mentioned except to blame Obama for hiring Accenture, a consulting firm that was originally involved with Enron. It's not a lie, but you see how that fits their agenda? But that, I insist, is their prerogative. They can cherry pick stories and omit others to fit their agenda. That's why we are adults and wear pants with zippers, so we can inform ourselves. There are only a hundred million pundits out there so if you are stuck with only one it's because you aren't very bright.

My conclusion is that Race is a big issue for Conservatives only as it applies to the other issues, so one could easily mistake a Conservative for a rabid racist, but that would be an error. There are racists, and there are Conservative racists, but the two are mutually exclusive. A Conservative is not racist, but he may purchase a racist card separately. The unfortunate problem is how few outspoken Conservative blacks there are, so there's rarely a chance for the Conservative pundit to hail the wisdom and actions of someone who is black. Charles Barkley seems to get a lot of attention, but he's also not pure enough to really applaud. So until I see evidence to the contrary, I believe they would have no problem applauding a black Conservative who condemns thuggery, Obama, gun control, abortion, big government, and generally agrees with Conservatives on the other more important topics to follow. Skin color is not ignored, but it is not a major Conservative topic. It's a peripheral topic that gets way too much attention because Conservatives are not good communicators. That's why Oggy is here, to straighten this whole messy world out. How have I done so far?

...to be continued in Part II.

*You may click on these links and you'll likely immediately flee. But stay on those sites, continue to read, post comments, for 5 months and you will learn some things.

The whole essay:
Part I
Part II
Part III