Friday, October 02, 2009
Mega-Malkin
A lot of people in Known Blogspace have remarked on Charles Johnson's recent progressing conversion to sanity.
So I proposed Wingnut Apocalypse for an entry to the BJLexicon….
defn, n. --it is the intersection of the increasing curve of Charles’ sanity with the decreasing curve of Michelle Malkin’s. The effect will be to rip a hole in the fabric of Wingnut Reality causing the entire conservative movement to be sucked back into the Eighth Dimension with the rest of the red ‘lectroids.
Alternatively Charles and Malkin may eventually have a flame war.
The lizardoid army has been making some trial sorties into HotAir.
It will be like the south park ep– Mega-Streisand vs Mothra-Robert Smith…..Mega-Malkin vs Mothra Charles Johnson.
The lizardoid army has been making some trial sorties into HotAir.
It will be like the south park ep– Mega-Streisand vs Mothra-Robert Smith…..Mega-Malkin vs Mothra Charles Johnson.
I like this even better.
// posted by Matoko Kusanagi @ 9:26 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
I'm sorry if my first comments on the thread were OT. I wanted to tell you about Ardi if you hadn't noticed her.
I think I'm a much-less party-political person than you, Shams.
I have seen so many political parties emerge over the years, in different countries I've observed.
I have come to believe that politics is only of transitory interest. That the real forces that move human history lie elsewhere.
That's why my main focus is on science, economics, demographics, etc. It's just that to me, these are the important phenomena.
It's not that I don't care about human history, it's just that I have a different sense of what shapes it.
Broadly, I can relate to your analysis of the demographic forces shaping US politics. Except that I wouldn't agree that it points to the death of conservatism, (an impossibility to me), so much as the inevitability that the nature of conservatism will have to significantly change and redefine itself in the years ahead. It will not be the first or last time.
I am much less interested than you are in individual persons. You are much more caught up in personalities than I am.
It's true that there are a few individuals that radically shape history, like Adolf Hitler, but I think that is something that is very rare.
It's one of the reasons why I studied him quite closely, some years ago, because he was so unique. A man who truly changed history.
Politicians, particularly where they emerge from party machines, are really products of the machine. If it wasn't one individual it would be another. They are almost clones.
So to me, most of the disputes that consume air-time in political thought, seem to me to be artificial and manufactured.
No matter who the president was, they'd be having the same kinds of squabbles.
I think I'm a much-less party-political person than you, Shams.
I have seen so many political parties emerge over the years, in different countries I've observed.
I have come to believe that politics is only of transitory interest. That the real forces that move human history lie elsewhere.
That's why my main focus is on science, economics, demographics, etc. It's just that to me, these are the important phenomena.
It's not that I don't care about human history, it's just that I have a different sense of what shapes it.
Broadly, I can relate to your analysis of the demographic forces shaping US politics. Except that I wouldn't agree that it points to the death of conservatism, (an impossibility to me), so much as the inevitability that the nature of conservatism will have to significantly change and redefine itself in the years ahead. It will not be the first or last time.
I am much less interested than you are in individual persons. You are much more caught up in personalities than I am.
It's true that there are a few individuals that radically shape history, like Adolf Hitler, but I think that is something that is very rare.
It's one of the reasons why I studied him quite closely, some years ago, because he was so unique. A man who truly changed history.
Politicians, particularly where they emerge from party machines, are really products of the machine. If it wasn't one individual it would be another. They are almost clones.
So to me, most of the disputes that consume air-time in political thought, seem to me to be artificial and manufactured.
No matter who the president was, they'd be having the same kinds of squabbles.
I am glad to see that CJ defends evolution.
I really stopped paying much attention to LGF some time ago, though.
I lost interest, when I became more and more skeptical about the "Islamic threat", that his website seemed to be so preoccupied with.
I started to think that the whole MENA focus was just a big distraction from the real challenge that was facing the West, namely, the rise of vast new scientific civilizations in East Asia.
So Islam is of negligeable interest to me.
I would be more impressed if Iran was making market-beating LCD-TVs, than enriching uranium. It would have much more long-term significance.
If they were flooding the world with cutting-edge microchips, I'd be really worried. Or a new kind of solar panel; Electric cars....whatever.
There are so many important things to spend your national effort on.
Time is running out for the oil states.
I really stopped paying much attention to LGF some time ago, though.
I lost interest, when I became more and more skeptical about the "Islamic threat", that his website seemed to be so preoccupied with.
I started to think that the whole MENA focus was just a big distraction from the real challenge that was facing the West, namely, the rise of vast new scientific civilizations in East Asia.
So Islam is of negligeable interest to me.
I would be more impressed if Iran was making market-beating LCD-TVs, than enriching uranium. It would have much more long-term significance.
If they were flooding the world with cutting-edge microchips, I'd be really worried. Or a new kind of solar panel; Electric cars....whatever.
There are so many important things to spend your national effort on.
Time is running out for the oil states.
It looks like CJ is acting the way liberals think conservatives in general act ... rallying around the President for no clear reason.
Keid,
CJ is nuts, and a guy who naturally defends anyone in authority (POTUS, that is). During the Bush years he attacked any slight against Bush; he attacked the anti-war protesters (unfairly); and, yeah, he was obsessed with the Muslim threat (even more so than I!)
Now Obama is in power and those Tea Party Protesters are racist and Unamerican; Palin's a white supremacist because she had her book ghost-written by a guy who wrote a book for a guy CJ and Maddow consider a WS (no proof of course, but what is proof when you are a gen**crazymoonbat**ius like CJ!); and he believes that wishing Obama to fail in getting the Olympics is synonymous to wanting America to fail in everything.
Righties started noticing years ago ('06) that Charles was a certifiable nut-job(I can show documented, for the internet, proof); but he was our certifiable nut-job and he did bust Dan Rather.
Post a Comment
CJ is nuts, and a guy who naturally defends anyone in authority (POTUS, that is). During the Bush years he attacked any slight against Bush; he attacked the anti-war protesters (unfairly); and, yeah, he was obsessed with the Muslim threat (even more so than I!)
Now Obama is in power and those Tea Party Protesters are racist and Unamerican; Palin's a white supremacist because she had her book ghost-written by a guy who wrote a book for a guy CJ and Maddow consider a WS (no proof of course, but what is proof when you are a gen**crazymoonbat**ius like CJ!); and he believes that wishing Obama to fail in getting the Olympics is synonymous to wanting America to fail in everything.
Righties started noticing years ago ('06) that Charles was a certifiable nut-job(I can show documented, for the internet, proof); but he was our certifiable nut-job and he did bust Dan Rather.
<< Home
