Observations on totalitarian morons

It should not really be a surprise that the totalitarians of today of the “left” call themselves “Progressives”, deny being socialists and often insist on democracy or “social good” or “maximization of well-being for the majority” as their primary concern. I would like to point out that the self-congratulatory term “Progressive” is enough to make anyone’s skin crawl. “But wait, there is more!”, as they say in late night commercials. These “progressives” really are socialists. Once in a while, they will come out in favor of social democracy or democracy or majority rule, even an absolute dictator (if he is “progressive” enough). What they will never come out for is getting off their high-horse and letting ‘others’ live as they like.

I have recently experienced such a conversation with a donkey (socialist democrat, hence forth identified by and referred to by the party sign). No offense intended to the relatively intelligent Equus africanus asinus. The old saying is “You can take a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink it”. In a trend of donkeyism – “You can take a donkey to water, but good luck keeping him from trying to shit in it”. The defining characteristic of a donkey is that despite adequate amount of availed opportunity to understand the follies of his favorite system, which he will keep harboring a quiet veiled secretive insistence/loyalty or fetish for it. Once in a while, you will come across any such donkeys in your lifetime. You will not know at first glance that he is a donkey, because they have the external appearance of a human being. I am sharing this so you are better informed on the nature of arguing with such donkeys and not wasting your time on them.

Sign 1: Scientism.
The average run-of-the-mill donkey is very eager to be value free, to be scientific, not only while explaining theories (like real scientists do), but also when setting goals for a certain system. While proclaiming to be scientific, the real creed of donkeyism is “all contrary evidence aside, what I feel/think is right”. It is ‘Feeling’ not logic that dominates everything a donkey does. But in a grand experiment of self-delusion, the donkey parades around as if it is logic that matters most to him. If you try to change his feeling based on evidence and logic, you become a prop in his game, because his feelings are not going to change even faced with reality and overwhelming evidence to the contrary. While eager to appear deliberative, donkeys simply do not think, or do not consider whatever it is you are telling them. It is just as productive as flapping your arms in an effort to fly or having a deep conversation with a stone.

Sign 2: Liberality
By liberality, I do not mean (classical) liberalism. I mean the general notion that there is nothing wrong or nothing right. The ‘liberality’ folks will argue that there is no moral difference between robbery and bargaining. Sometimes they will be “generous” and argue that it is only a matter of degree. In the view of donkeys and donkeyism, there is no such thing as right or wrong and the two are interchangeable as and when needed. All this time, one is supposed to argue with them, treating them in “good faith” and it is “oh! So horrible!” if you point out that they are either liars and evil or simply retards and morons. One very clear sign of liberality, is donkeys will falsely claim to have understood any evidence or material you have presented to them. It is only when they start revealing their preposterous distorted view of what you presented earlier, that you will ever find out that they never actually learned anything from it. One early (but hard to see) secondary sign of a donkey is that a donkey will never experience an epiphany on being presented novel ideas and be excited enough by it to share it with other people. Another sign of donkeyism is their rejection of extremism (partly based on the fluid conception of right or wrong), and taking pride in the mythical “bias-free thinking”(not to be confused with free thinking)/moderation.

Sign 3: Argumentative Opportunism
Donkeys will argue obviously contradictory positions as and when it suits them. Notice the patterns of these and point it out. If the donkey is unphased by it, you have positive confirmation of donkeyism. Sometimes, having cheap clean energy and cheap goods have good effects on human beings, because it allows poor people to purchase it, and use it to improve their productivity and live better lives. Other times the same cheap clean energy and cheap goods are bad, because the “rich get richer” and “capital displaces the poor”. In some arguments, the free rider is a problem. In others, it is the right of every human being, simply by existing. In some arguments, perfect cannot exist. In others, perfect can exist if we just let donkeys decide everything for everyone else. Sometimes (token) competition is good, at others it is really, really bad. Sometimes, “not efficiency enough” for “my liking” is a slam dunk, at others “efficiency” can be sacrificed in favor of “my liking”. Sometimes, evidence (or absence thereof) is slam dunk. In others, evidence (or absence thereof) does not prove anything. Sometimes, even in the evidence presented, the degree of purity (or the lack thereof) explains everything, in others, the same cannot explain anything. Beware, that donkeys will claim that their acceptance (or rejection) of anything is not a claimed slam-dunk (see Sign 2). Once in a while they will insist that lone individuals are robbing entire societies/system by withholding their products. In others, they will claim the society/system is forcing the individual to do a job. In some cases, they will insist on doing what majority wants, even at the expense of the minority. In others they insist on doing what minority “needs”, even at the expense of the majority. To these idiots, these things are not self-contradictory at all. “Why? I, as an expert, will decide when things turn from being absolutely essential to absolute unacceptable” seems to be the donkey position. Also the veracity of “evidence” they present is assumed. In the other direction, veracity of “evidence” you present is never certain, and don’t you try to defend it with your pesky facts and figures. Donkeys don’t care about minutia like that. They are grand system designers, purveyors of logic and calculation without numbers.

Sign 4: Hatred of “The Rich”.

This is accompanied with fluid definitions of what “Rich” is (see previous signs for explanation). “The Rich” regardless of what they do, as long as they are “not working” (also to be defined schizophrenically by the donkey), they are worthy targets for expropriation. There is also a mythical class of the “deserving poor” in the donkey’s imagination. I say mythical, because when donkeys say deserving poor, they mean something radically different from what a common person would imagine. “Deserving poor” is that group of hardworking people who are skilled at something, but tautologically defined as unemployable anywhere (by that he means absolutely anywhere). Mysteriously these people do not want to sit idly by and our donkey “knows this”, but are incapable of learning ANY new skills. Come to think of it, the donkey curiously knows a lot of things. When it comes to “Deserving poor” he knows exactly every single employment/entreprenuerial opportunity there is or is not. He knows exactly what every single “deserving poor” intends to do or not do. He knows every single capability of the “deserving poor”. Curiously, in his most generous mood, the donkey also has no idea of what “The Rich” might be thinking, needing, doing or wanting. It is as if he has an almost divine insight into “Deserving Poor”, but is at best fallibly human when it comes to “The Rich” but that is only in his generous moods. In his not-so-generous mood, he knows what the “The Rich” want, think and do too, and it is always bad, inhuman, unkind and sinister towards the “Deserving poor” while being good, non-competitive, very cooperative, kind and mutualistic with his fellows – “The Rich”. In a way, donkeys here repeat the delusions of Marx where “The Rich” are sub-human, while only the “Deserving poor” are truly human. In this way, donkeys regurgitate Marx while simultaneously also disowning him.

Eventually you will be frustrated trying to educate and encourage a donkey to learn about reality. Here, I recommend getting frustrated a little bit earlier, because it will cause you to rethink who you are arguing with. It will save you the embarrassment of being the prop in the mental masturbation experiment of a donkey, not to mention your valuable time. It will also save you from being more inclined to lumping generally uninformed people with donkeys. If you come across a person who is uninformed, give it time. Most of the times, they just don’t know any better. If he is not a donkey, he will change his mind. If you find that he is a donkey, simply move on.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: