Soft Scorn

Definition :

Misanthropic / adj. A general hatred or contempt for fellow human beings,
of other people in general. Opposite of philanthropist.

example :
Jimmy Carter : philanthropist
Heather : misanthropist

Example of 'misanthrope' in conversation :
Heather : " This movie just shows how stupid people are. I hate people ."
Jay : " My, aren't we the misanthrope ?"
Heather : " What did you call me, you idiot !? Tell me you stupid son of a bitch !
What kind of stupid f**ked up word is that, dumbass? I hate you ! "

(An excerpt from The Werbinox Chronicles)

OR...

Are we ready? Oh,good! Welcome to the forum that lacks wit, mirth, intelligence and ingenuity Comments are welcome, as I cannot hope to hold attention spans on my own merit Blog away! Dear friends, read, learn, and re-affirm your soul and mind!


May 5, 2005
      ( 6:26 AM ) sisoflexx
From a debate on a Libertarian / Republican site

..>>But forget about Cong. DeLay for the moment. The larger point is politics and
that sometimes one has allies that one is forced to take in despite misgivings.

This touches upon my own dilemma concerning political involvement at this time. The above sentence is practically a definition of politics itself. Could you imagine anything "political" without it? If I may indulge in a brutal example, Stalin was a master at allying himself with people he despised in order to destroy another group; having accomplished this, he would ally himself with other enemies in order to destroy the group he had just recently been an ally to. Eventually so many were eliminated that the ones who remained where too frightened to do anything but...what they were told. I know this is an extreme example, but it is essentially what political maneuvering is all about, wherever you may go. An American politician may not get liquidated, but he will have his initiatives defeated, face perceived legislative impotence, and have his political career ruined.

This whole subject raises a central irony libertarians face; the libertarian vision involves a very non-political world, a world in which people are free to make their way without the influence of political types of people who live for group manipulation. Ideally, political types (even political geniuses) will have next to no role at all in a libertarian world, because activities calling for these types of skills will be very limited in scope. Libertarians are great at starting and running commercial and artistic enterprises, and we demand the necessary autonomy in which to operate. Politics (as expressed in govt. power) is precisely what we are seeking to reduce and eliminate. Ironically, to achieve this, some libertarians must be able and willing to enter this arena and make the attempt of eroding and abolishing government from within, and to be effective they must have those political skills that are largely abhorrent to most libertarian minded people. Perhaps one of the problems with the public's perception of libertarians is that they are not particularly skilled at politics. Libertarian's are frequently perceived as being unable to play "hardball" with the Big Fish. I am sure this subject has been debated here long before I came along, but we must confront the contradiction between an expanding segment of the American public that claims to hold libertarian values (including the habit of dropping the L word in interviews) and the complete lack of support for the LP. If all these people claim to be libertarian, why is that not translating into support for the LP? Why is the LP not taken seriously? Does the voting public like libertarians as individuals, but not as a party? These questions must have answers.

The whole subject of showing party loyalty is really about making compromises, and supporting initiatives and people that you would rather not. Whether one is really "loyal" or not makes no difference, not even to the party itself; as long as you give the support when they expect you to, none of them care how you really think or feel about it. It is a tactic, and is recognized on all sides as being such. Because it is a tactic, party loyalty need not be elevated into any kind of virtue, nor even placed high on the list of political values to hold; compromising is simply a matter of knowing when, and when not to do it. Having said that it is anything but a simple thing to determine. Political bios are riddled with these decisions as turning points in a career. After the GOP in the late 19th century nominated James Blaine for President, Teddy Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge faced a decision on whether to bolt the party or not. This would have alienated them from the very real power that was in their future grasp, yet appealed to their small but active reformist base. They decided to stick with the party, even tho they hated their nominee, because they thought this display of loyalty was essential to their future ambitions. Their reformist base called them traitors, and they agonized for quite awhile on whether or not they had made a mistake. This kind of thing is archetypal in political careers. TR and Lodge both went on to be rewarded for their loyalty later; whether or not one agrees with what they did with their power (American Imperialist Expansion) is of course another matter.

Party loyalty should not always be about kissing ass and falling into line, either. Those who are most loyal to their cause should be the ones who are most able and willing to chastise their party when they see that it is betraying its own principles. The greatest American patriots (and patriots of other nations as well) have often been the most critical and vocal about what is wrong with their nation, party, and culture. We show our loyalty by attacking when it is called for.

As far as Delay goes, I understand how some may think that it is necessary to support him (or be perceived as supporting him) for the sake of securing long term goals. Even some hard core rank and file GOP legislators are trying to straddle the fence on this issue. I am not in Congress, so I cannot say whether this is right or wrong from that perspective. Not being in the machine gives me the luxury of openly despising Delay and wanting him to fall. He has played the religious card too many times for my taste, he has shown himself a hypocrite in the worst way with the Schiavo thing - pandering to the religious right, whilst he himself allowed his own father to die by removing the feeding tube, and his remarks about making the Justices pay for their decision was irresponsible, idiotic, and dangerous coming from a man in his position. I want him out, and think the arrogance of the GOP needs to be brought down a few pegs, because in truth, they are only hurting themselves. As I say, I have the luxury of that opinion, tho.

Where to turn in politics these days? The Dems are our natural enemy, and we will always have them in one form or another. What would politics be without enemies? The GOP is ideally the major party to be affiliated with, a logic which lead me to get involved with the RLC. I know Eric will disagree with me on this point, but the behavior of the Republican party has been anything BUT what I had hoped for. I am fairly disgusted by the GOP these days. Especially here in Georgia, the typical republican constituent is the most disagreeable, nauseating type of person I cannot stand to be with. This trend will eventually change, tho, and hopefully will produce a counter trend that we can capitalize on in the future. As far as the local, state, and national level at this time, the GOP does not fit my definition of libertarian or even libertarian leaning by a single iota. Government is bigger now than it has ever been, and I see no signs that it is gearing up to decrease. I am sure these points are debatable, however.

Now what of the LP? They seem as hopeless an alternative today as they ever did. They fight amongst themselves too much, and they cannot get taken seriously by the media nor the voting public to save their lives. What is a libertarian to do? The answer remains the same, as far as I can see; libertarians as Individuals must get elected in what ever way they can, whether as a republican or a dem or a constitutionalist or an independent or an actual LPer....the important point is to get them in whatever it takes, and then make sure they adhere to their principles and do what they say they are going to do, and not get too caught up in "party loyalty", nor completely lack the political skills necessary to remain in power long enough to actually make something happen.

Werbinox
This archive...




CURRENT MOON