Friday, October 9, 2009

'Worked up into a fine froth'? LGF's rage vs. the cheerful laugher of conservatives

Over at the Unlinkable Land of Liberal Lizards, Charles Johnson sneered at the reaction to Obama's Nobel Prize for Nothing, prompting another spectacularly laughable act of sycophantic fellatio by the aptly named Sharmuta:
Posted in: A Peace Prize for the President
»30 Sharmuta
10/09/2009 8:43:23 am
Of course, Republican pundits are worked up into a fine froth over it.
Certainly rains on their Olympic Failure celebration.That was short lived. Perhaps it's karma.
Notice the liberal chop-logic involved here:
  • Obama fails to win the Olympics;
  • Conservatives laugh;
Ergo . . .
  • Conservatives are hateful.
Input different data into the LGF Chop-Logic Dispenser, and still it produces the same conclusion:
  • The Nobel committee bestows an unmerited laurel on the eminently unaccomplished novice;
  • Conservatives laugh;
Ergo . .
  • Conservatives are hateful.
The liberal argument is not actually an argument, but rather an unsupported assertion and a demand: "Liberalism is good! Stop laughing, you haters!"

Their anti-logic begins with the conclusion and accepts any "evidence" to prove it, ignoring all contrary evidence nor even bothering to test the alternative hypothesis: Liberalism is always, predictably, 100% wrong.

Why is the alternative hypothesis rejected? Because it's so simple that even the undistinguished graduate of a third-tier state university can understand and explain it. The truth being apparent to any honest mind, the elitists seek an explanation so complex that their credentialed expertise is required to articulate it.

Whether you call it "socialism," "liberalism" or "progressivism," the worldview of the Left -- The Vision of the Anointed, as Thomas Sowell so brilliantly described it -- has always appealed to the self-congratulatory impulses of the intelligentsia. The complexity of this worldview, constantly calling into service their verbose specialty ("Well, of course the policy hasn't had its desired result, however . . ."), makes them necessary and therefore flatters their sense of their own importance and superiority.

Friedrich Hayek -- who won the Nobel Prize before it had begun the process of progressive political devaluation -- examined this phenonomenon in "The Intellectuals and Socialism":
It is perhaps the most characteristic feature of the intellectual that he judges new ideas not by their specific merits but by the readiness with which they fit into his general conceptions, into the picture of the world which he regards as modern or advanced. It is through their influence on him and on his choice of opinions on particular issues that the power of ideas for good and evil grows in proportion to their generality, abstractness, and even vagueness. As he knows little about the particular issues, his criterion must be consistency with his other views and suitability for combining into a coherent picture of the world.
Read the whole thing (also available in PDF). Yet Hayek only expended 7,628 words on this subject, hardly exhausting its vast potential. Criticism of this phenomenon could fill endless volumes, for every day some liberal elitist makes some new error in logic that is inevitably praised by all the bien-pensants (membership in the Community Of The Well-Meaning And Enlightened being the essential object of the intellectual's pronouncements).

Furthermore, Hayek wrote that essay in 1949 and died in 1992, so he never had the opportunity to apply his insights to the interesting phenomenon of Little Green Footballs. Charles Johnson jumped on the post-9/11 GWOT bandwagon in 2001, rode it as long as it suited him until, in Octbober 2007, he began defaming anti-jihad activists like Pamela Geller.

Yet Johnson's primary loyalty has always been to that "picture of the world which he regards as modern or advanced." So long as Bush and the GOP were riding high, Johnson dishonestly concealed or suppressed his contempt for the traditionalist tendencies of Geller and other conservatives.

Once it became apparent that Bushism had run its course, however, Johnson discarded his selfish pretense and opened fire on an erstwhile ally. Geller was a target of opportunity. She didn't have Sean Hannity's personal cell-phone number in her speed-dial, and her sharp-elbowed New York attitude meant that she had made a few enemies on the Right. Thus, when Mad King Charles began accusing Geller and others of sympathy for "Euro-fascism," he did so with the cynical calculation that no one important would object, at least not publicly.

One by one, Johnson targeted Geller's defenders (Richard Miniter, Diana West, et cetera) who were successively thrown under the Little Green Bus, their reputations besmirched by his dishonest assertion that they were blind to the totalitaritarian tendencies of European conservatives. Of course, these tendencies were apparent only to Charles Johnson and his sycophants, who began to wave the Dreaded Banning Stick at anyone who doubted that Gates of Vienna was plotting a 21st-century Beer Hall Putsch or that Vlaams Belang was a greater threat to American security than Al Qaeda.

Once the 2008 election had passed -- in fact, the day after Election Day -- Mad King Charles resumed his Anti-Geller Inquisition with new zeal, and I took alarm. From that moment, I became a target on the LGF radar, much like Glenn Beck and the Tea Party movement, until the 9/12 convergence gave Johnson an excuse to denounce Stephen Green (?!) as a crypto-fascist sympathizer.

LGF's drain-circling downward spiral into full-blown Sullivanesque parody has relentlessly proceeded until there is no distinction between Mad King Charles and Media Matters ("Right-wing media root against America ... again: Media conservatives cheer when America loses, fume when it wins").

Some commenters have speculated that Johnson is now on the Soros gravy train, a conspiratorial suspicion that violates Occam's Razor. Johnson surely isn't a sellout, for this would mean that he had been bribed to betray some important principle or to dishonor some obligation of loyalty.

Yet no one has ever offered evidence that Charles Foster Johnson ever had any principle or honor, and or that he was ever loyal to anyone but himself. He has been consistently vicious and selfish, and this only escaped notice so long as it served Johnson's interests to deceive those whose assistance he sought in advancing his own self-aggrandizing agenda.

So now conservatives laugh at Johnson's new idol, Obama, and he responds by sneering at Red State's Erick Erickson and others whose favor he once so earnestly elicited. Certainly, I took no part in the "fine froth," as I was busy coping with Vonda and the cable company, my only response to the subject being a sarcastic jest. So far as I expressed any irritation, it was directed at Allah (who hates me) and Erik Telford (who has repeatedly snubbed me).

Yet Mad King Charles, guided by his self-congratulatory commitment to all things "modern or advanced," projects his own rage onto the former friends whose backs are now so thickly studded with his knives.

How shall we react to Obama's Nobel Prize for Nothing? Nonsensible Shoes suggests:
Ignore it, it's a distraction, just like the IOC vote down of Chicago. . . . [W]ho cares if 5 Norwegians think President Obama is a conduit for peace?
Indeed. And yet we can thank those Norwegian fools for this gift and the laughter it has inspired.


  1. Apparently mad king Chuckles and his sycophants haven't noticed lefties who are also flummoxed and joking at Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. How convenient/intellectually dishonest of them.

  2. I heard the nomination deadline was 11 days after his inauguration. What could he have done in 11 days? Or in the previous 10, 15, 20 years before? One term senator? Community thief I mean organizer? A community organizer in Chicago brings the vote in from shitty neighborhoods for corrupt politicians. This has to be the most reckless example of social promotion and affirmative action. No wonder he won't release his academic records.

  3. I'm still thinking all the dope Charles Johnson likely smoked whilst picking and grinning with his jug band may have permanently disfigured his single remaining neuron, to the extent that the only bits of enjoyment remaining to him are the tending of his sycophant-filled clone blog and his ham-fisted lashing out at anyone who conflicts with his obsessed agenda of (slow moving) lefty thoughts.

    If CJ thinks for a minute to pull off a Balloon Juice or Andrew Sullivan flouncing, and be accepted and embraced by the Left's bloggers, he's wrong. What does he have to offer? He's a piss-poor writer with no proven skills (oh, a GIF file!) and a shrinking fan base. After the pointing and laughing by the Right-bloggers gets boring and ends, he'll just have those unwanted-anywhere-else, well-tended (mushroom) readers (all kept in-the-dark, monitored for possible off-the-plantation remarks and fed loads of Johnsonshit).

    Well, his readers might be welcome in some places...they are, to a fault, well-behaved, agreeable, like-minded, compliant, submissive and most importantly, highly up-dinged by The Master!

    (I wonder, when Charles gives one of 'em an ‘upding’, does that one immediately pant, salivate and lung for a refrigerator? )

  4. The Right Guy wrote: This has to be the most reckless example of social promotion and affirmative action.

    You will notice that (a) I waste no mercy on feminism and yet (b) very seldom mention race-based affirmative action. There are reasons for this.

    Feminism, and the favoritism toward women it demands, heaps unearned advantages on the overprivileged -- that is to say, it bestows additional benefits to upper-class college-educated American women, who are by birthright the most spectacularly advantaged people in all human history.

    It is not the blue-collar waitress or the dropout retail clerk who benefits from the tilted playing field that feminism requires, but rather the well-born daughters of the affluent, who have attended the best schools and who cruise through life without ever having experienced any hardship whatsoever. No matter how WASPy or wealthy or elite-educated they may be, feminism hands these women a platinum-plated Victimhood Card, which they play ruthlessly to wring every possible advantage from life.

    Should it ever be your misfortune to have to deal with one of these haughty, indolent creatures in your workplace, God grant you the serenity not to call her out, for then you will be guilty of sexual harassment -- as if such a worthless thing could ever be worth the bother to "harass."

    Whatever the unfortunate impact of affirmative action for ethnic minorities, they are rarely so insufferable as a rich 23-year-old white girl who expects the entire world to bend over her kiss her overprivileged ass.

  5. @RSM:
    I understand you observations. I do run into some of there idiots where I work. If you can imagine Ph.Ds who I have to tell not to look into the LED on the bottom of a computer mouse, or they respond to socially engineered phishing that compromises what security we have. It's worse of course, in that our agency has a policy on cultural competence, which includes everyone except white christian males. And every employee has to demonstrate upon their review that they have done something that shows they have improved their cultural competency.

  6. The Right Guy, Ph.D's study for years and years to master an ever-decreasing facet of singular knowledge. By the time they've realized their doctorates, they can be said to know everything in the world there is to know about...nothing.

    Their doctorate is good for only a tiny fragment of the body of knowledge. Unless it's for physics, then yes, you might have to mind their possible overexposure to even microwatt lasers.

  7. Great post and spot-on. Regarding the Hayek quote: the Left develops their ideas, in a sense, in a lab, away from the real world. They set the climate conditions to their own liking, creating an artificial environment for their ideas to develop in. In other words, the Left molds their policies and programs and philosophy to fit in conditions ideal to their thinking. They then work to implement these ideas in a real world for which the ideas are not suited to and, therefore, can never acclimatize to. And being that these ideas have never been put through real testing, they inevitably don't work. And considering that these ideas most often are imposed on human beings, people get hurt or killed. This is the nature of the Leftist Beast.

  8. Hey the same way Charles calls you a White Supremacist, well I have turned the tables on him. He has allied with with Daily Kos which is an anti-Israel/Semitic website. Therefore he hates Israel using his logic.

    Fell free to use my leads!

  9. The liberal argument is not actually an argument, but rather an unsupported assertion and a demand: "Liberalism is good! Stop laughing, you haters!"

    Yep. Ya nailed it!

    And LGF's bannings are slowing down, question now is, who's left? Instead of who got banned today?

  10. "[Johnson]'s a piss-poor writer with no proven skills (oh, a GIF file!) and a shrinking fan base. "

    He's a shoo-in for the Nobel Prize in Literature, then.

  11. My question is simply this: "Has anyone ever seen Charles Johnson and Andrew Sullivan's mangina in the same comment thread?"