What A Wonderful World It Would Be
By Mitch Berg
I had a dream.
In it, all of the smart, ethical, enlightened, mannered, intelligent people of the world confronted all of the dumb, depraved, rude, stupid, bigoted idiots…
…and beat the crap out of them.
December 16th, 2009 at 9:58 am
I’d visit you in the hospital after the liberals beat the crap out of you for calling them anti-semites.
My suggestion, let’s start a trend – cease with the spin and insults (like, oh, calling Obama Obammy whilst complaining about Pawlenty being called Timmy or Bush being called shrub), see whether it gets better for you. I’ll happy join you as I don’t relish the idea of a visit to the emergency room either.
December 16th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Well, as Freud reportedly said – sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
December 16th, 2009 at 10:31 am
Weiner out of retirement again?
December 16th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Lionel Richie was unavailable for comment.
December 16th, 2009 at 10:40 am
Can all of us completely average people watch?
December 16th, 2009 at 10:52 am
I don’t know…my sense is that the smart, ethical, enlightened, mannered, intelligent people are vastly outnumbered by the dumb, depraved, rude, stupid, bigoted idiots. How many times can you distract them by shouting “squirrel!” and then banging them on the head when they look away? Surely they’d catch on at some point, right? Or not…
December 16th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Pen,
Not sure where the “antisemite” bit came from, but you’ll note that I’m the one who’s been eschewing calling PBO names (that he hasn’t heretofore asked people to call him).
Seflores,
Mmmm. Cigars.
Foot,
Not that I’ve seen. I just had a dream.
D,
Get on it.
Kerm,
Sure!
December 16th, 2009 at 11:10 am
I’d visit you in the hospital after the liberals beat the crap out of you for calling them anti-semites.
Pen, didn’t you say something about putting the death nail in the coffin of Israel. Of course your only anti-Zionest not anti-semitic… we all know there’s a difference.
December 16th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Unfortunately there are only four people in the country that meet all of your specifications: three of them are pacifists and one of them is Stephen Hawking.
Good luck, Steve. We wish you the best.
December 16th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
So apathyboy conflates:
“smart, ethical, enlightened, mannered, intelligent”
and:
“pacifists”
No, I think “smart”, “enlightened”, and “intelligent” people can recognize an ideology that has “failure to thrive” written all over it.
December 16th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
pacifists are some of the dumbest, morally confused people on the face of the earth.
December 16th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
“Pen, Not sure where the “antisemite” bit came from, …”
Mitch, it’s called projection.
Ben, good memory.
“put another nail in the coffin of the idea of Isreal” – penigma 01.13.09 – 9:01 am
December 16th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
“I had a dream……………………and beat the crap out of them.”
You’ll need to completely clear your schedule for a very, very, very long time if are going to have any hope of getting just a fraction of them. (sigh)
December 16th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
I’m reminded of what Bonhoeffer wrote from prison, prior to his execution by the Nazis (emphasis mine):
“Folly is a more dangerous enemy to the good than evil. One can protest against evil; it can be unmasked and, if need be, prevented by force. Evil always carries the seeds of its own destruction, as it makes people, at the least, uncomfortable. Against folly we have no defence. Neither protests nor force can touch it; reasoning is no use; facts that contradict personal prejudices can simply be disbelieved — indeed, the fool can counter by criticizing them, and if they are undeniable, they can just be pushed aside as trivial exceptions. So the fool, as distinct from the scoundrel, is completely self-satisfied; in fact, he can easily become dangerous, as it does not take much to make him aggressive. A fool must therefore be treated much more cautiously than a scoundrel; we shall never again try to convince a fool by reason, for it is both useless and dangerous.
“If we are to deal adequately with folly, we must try to understand its nature. This much is certain, that it is a moral rather than an intellectual defect. There are people who are mentally agile but foolish, and people who are mentally slow but very far from foolish — a discovery that we make to our surprise as a result of particular situations. We thus get the impression that folly is likely to be not a congenital defect, but one that is acquired in certain circumstances where people make fools of themselves or allow others to make fools of them. We notice further that this defect is less common in the unsociable and solitary than in individuals or groups that are inclined or condemned to sociability. It seems, then, that folly is a sociological rather than a psychological problem, and that it is a special form of the operation of historical circumstances on people, a psychological by-product of definite external factors. If we look more closely, we see that any violent display of power, whether political or religious, produces an outburst of folly in a large part of humanity; indeed this seems actually to be a psychological and sociological law: the power of some needs the folly of others.
“The upsurge of power makes such an overwhelming impression that people are deprived of their independent judgment, and — more or less unconsciously — give up trying to assess a new state of affairs for themselves. The fact that the fool is often stubborn must not mislead us into thinking that he is independent. One feels in fact, when talking to him, that one is dealing, not with the man himself, but with slogans, catchwords, and the like, which have taken hold of him. He is under the spell, he is blinded, his very nature is being misused and exploited. Having thus become a passive instrument, the fool will be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil. Here lies the danger of a diabolical exploitation that can do irreparable damage to human beings.”
December 16th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
A case study.
“I’d visit you in the hospital after the liberals beat the crap out of you for calling them anti-semites.”
Immediately followed by:
“My suggestion, let’s start a trend – cease with the spin and insults..”
Pffft.
I’m guessing liberals think the points at the top of their little heads can be used for offensive weapons since they are of no other discernible use.
December 16th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Who’d be left to read your blog?
December 16th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
AC wrote: “Who’d be left to read your blog?”
Potentially about 50% of the population; predominantly found in “fly-over” country.
December 16th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Peeve,
We called you a pernicious little jerk… who lets his skirt billow up over his face constantly.
December 16th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
NightWriter, is it just me or do the parts you emphasized remind you of Pernicious Peevee?
December 16th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
“Pacifists … an ideology that has “failure to thrive” written all over it.”
Troy, why do you think there are only three of them left?
December 16th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Heck, I’m a pacifist. Until it becomes plainly obvious that some serious ass-kicking is called for.
December 16th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Since I’m in a quoting mood today, here’s Heinlein on pacifists and anarchists:
“Those who refuse to support and defend a state have no claim to protection by that state. Killing an anarchist or a pacifist should not be defined as ‘murder’ in a legalistic sense. The offense against the state, if any, should be ‘Using deadly weapons inside city limits,’ or ‘Creating a traffic hazard,’ or ‘Endangering bystanders,’ or other such misdemeanor. However, the state may reasonably place a closed season on these exotic asocial animals whenever they are in danger of becoming extinct. An authentic buck pacifist has rarely been seen off Earth, and it is doubtful that any have survived the trouble there . . regrettable, as they had the biggest mouths and the smallest brains of any of the primates. The small-mouthed variety of anarchist has spread through the Galaxy at the very wave front of the Diaspora; there is no need to protect them. But they often shoot back.”
December 16th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Just read Jonah Goldberg’s take on a reality show on MTV called “Jersey Shore”.
( http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDQ2YmQ0ZjhiZmQzODIzNzk0YTczNWMyODBmN2EyZTg= )
Mitch, did you load up on a few episodes prior to nodding off?
December 17th, 2009 at 8:50 am
No, but accidentally catching about five minutes of “Jersey Shore” did set me off on a round of hatred of humanity for which this post was a bit of palliative therapy.
And I do believe it’s working.