Nuke 'em, Newt!!

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Fri, 2012-01-20 06:22

Having endured several months of exposure to the [anti-]philosophy of blandification during my stint with ACT, and having campaigned for years against the insidious anti-KASS polemicizing of the lying Smearer-in-Chief who hovers on Objectivism's fringe attempting to destroy it by disarming it, I find moments like the following more than a breath of fresh air ... they are hurricanes of pure oxygen, and they are intoxicating. I don't doubt that Newt was advised not to do this by an army of ad-wanker oleaginites of the kind who destroyed ACT. I note that petticoat Brit Hume tut-tutted subsequently that it's extremely difficult for "an angry candidate to look attractive" (the audience clearly didn't agree with him). It rebels against the Cult of the Innocuous in which modern-day political aspirants are immersed. And it's magnificent! This is the way to respond to scum. Nuke 'em, Newt!!


Not impressed

Damien Grant's picture

I would be more impressed with Newt if he had not been such a scum-bag in attacking Clinton for lying about getting a blow job.

None the less, impressive the way he did not cower under a rock, cheating on your wife may be immoral but it is of no relevance to whether the man would make a good president.

I Agree With the Main Points

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Lindsay -- I did understand your original point. Newt's intelligent and controlled fire, as displayed above, is marvelous. But I've also recently come across a number of exact quotes in which Newt explicitly rejects libertarianism. So I thought I should mention it.

As for the weaknesses of Nathaniel Branden, Barbara Branden, Ron Paul, David Kelley, etc., I think I see and know them all. Also their strengths -- of which they have many. I try to see reality for exactly what it is. Also all people. I think everyone should do the same. Blind worship of a person -- or even a work of philosophy or art -- is evil. Your eyes should pretty much always remain open. Bertrand Russell evidently once observed: "In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted."

I certainly reject the blandification of Objectivism. And of life. And I think we should "maintain the rage" against the forces of Evil, such as right-wing conservatism, left-wing progressivism, skepticism of reason, epistemological relativism/subjectivism, moral/cultural equivalency, black racism, female sexism, jihad/sharia, religion, religious or altruistic or pragmatic libertarianism, religious Objectivism, etc. These should all be brutally smashed and killed for all time.

But I also think we must remember that the main goal of life is striving to know and control reality -- to dominate the universe. We should want personal greatness, and private pleasure and happiness, above all else. Secondarily, we should aim for a plentitude of high-quality allies, friends, and lovers. And only as a tertiary thing -- as far as I can tell -- should we try to joyously crush enemies into the dirt.

I personally seem to love this third thing far more than most. But it still seems like a lesser goal and lesser pleasure than the above two, even for me.

Kyrel

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Please note my original post was not an endorsement of Newt, although he may well be the least bad of an unedifying bunch (certainly he's not as bad as Islamappeaser Paul). It was to demonstrate the fallacy of blandification in general, including the blandification of Objectivism with which your pin-ups, the Brandens, have attempted to neuter the philosophy, in large part by faulting Ayn Rand for her anger. My point was: Newt nuked—and see the pent-up unarticulated aversion to all the PC bullshit about never causing offence he unleashed (and today has profited from in South Carolina)!

Moral of the story: maintain the rage!!

A Destroyer of Libertarianism

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Newt looks kinda great in the video clip above. Smiling But he's a very corrupt individual on many levels. And he explicitly rejects libertarianism. He's even defiant about it. Newt seems to know -- not just speculate about, but truly know -- that libertarianism is far the most moral, and far the most practical, political theory of gov't. But he openly rejects it anyway.

Fire in the belly wins ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Newt enjoys a stunning reversal of fortune of fortune in South Carolina after unleashing. There is indeed the pent-up desire of which I spoke to see fire in the candidates' bellies. Blandification takes a hit. "Cool" is not hot.

Interestingly, Romney then gives one of his best performances to date in his concession speech.

Hear ya Ross

Sam Pierson's picture

Hear ya Ross. Your point is not lost.

Good to see you Frediano

gregster's picture

I tend to strongly agree, and it reminds me, I must get to read Ominous Parallels.

The only race in town

Frediano's picture

Rand said it in the Mike Wallace interview over 50 years ago.

The GOP has had its at bat several times in the 50 years since, and has done little to effectively provide an alternative to the Democrats overt embrace of ever larger government. The GOP has been false hope for freedom. They not only have not provided an effective alternative vision, but have embraced Democratic ideas with flowers and candy.

Once again, we are distracted by the appearance of a relative choice; the GOP as the least suckiest alternative of two gladhanding power grubbers.

The problem with Romney is, he is clearly at most just going to affably take his turn driving the same out of all control bus. As much as his stock rose in my eyes this week with his announcement that he has perfectly legal and disclosed Cayman accounts, I am a fringe kook, and the political reality is, this is the GOP leading with its chin and running headfirst into the Democrat's wheelhouse. Why not put Count Dracula in a tuxedo, stuff his pockets with $100 bills, and then tar and feather him for the Democrats to finish off at their liesure?

The problem with Gingrich is, he had been a part of that 50 years of inneffective GOP non-alternatives. Do we really beleive that 50+ years of the same GOP speeches were not quite enough? Just another 4 years stint will finally turn this train wreck around? Their report card is in, and it is also FAIL.

Any one of these GOP candidates would be far preferable to Obama, but even Ron Paul is not carrying a large enough axe to DC. At this point, it is like worrying about who is going to be driving the bus when it flies over the cliff-- who will also, at this point of the festivities, serve mainly to accept the blame when the bus does just that. (I suspect this is why many of the more attractive GOP candidates passed on this election-- nobody wants to lose that musical chair game and be the goat sitting in the Oval Office when the train wreck occurs. But the carrot is still there, and some risk playing the game for one more round of music. This has been train wreck politics for years, and both sad parties of power have largely been jockying for position in the coming wreck to play the blame game. If you want to see a power hungry emaciated beast out of all control, wait until you see what this America demands in the aftermath of this coming wreck. It will make Huey Long blush. I'd love to be wrong.

JFK's early 60's federal budget was $100B at the peak of the Cold War, and over half of that was for defense. That can be CPI/inflation adjusted (x7.5) and population adjusted (barely x 2.Innocent to about $1500B today, not $3600B/yr. We are not 'a little' out of whack, we are grossly out of whack-- by a factor of 250%--, and our economies will remain on their backs for as long as they are bled dry by a totally out of all control tribal CronyFest on the Potomac. As long as they are, America and its already embrace of soft-fascism and scientific statism flirts with becoming 20's Germany.

In exactly the same way that there were no liberal parties of freedom in 20's Germany (Social Democrats/NAZIs/Communists), there are no liberal parties of freedom in this America. We have one fewer parties than 20's Germany, but the same number of parties of liberty. The GOP pays lip service to the ideas of freedom.

Hell, Sam....

Ross Elliot's picture

...I don't know where I've gone wrong in my explanation.

Gingrich telling the CNN simps that they've got the debate wrong doesn't in any way distract from the issues at hand. At least not for me. It seems that the momentum has now shifted to conservative Newt versus less conservative Mitt; the feisty Newt versus the milktoast Mitt.

Neither is exactly inspiring. Neither is a keeper.

Ok, ok

Ross Elliot's picture

Jeez, the point is not lost that a righteous indignation and an emotional response is not welcome.

The greatest motivation in this world is borne of the combination of thought and feeling, indeed, there can be no feeling without thought. The things that bring tears to my eyes are those things which I think upon most deeply. When I hear the Star Spangled Banner, my hand goes to my heart and I think upon all which is subsumed within that tune. It's wholly intellectual and founded within it.

But the idea that Gingrich's trenchant rebuttal could in anyway invoke within me a feeling that he is the one to lead America out of it's mire, is farcical.

Go Ginger!

Marcus's picture

I came to the opinion a while ago that Newt is the only candidate left that could get Republican voters excited enough to vote him in as President.

Paul and Santorum are too flakey and Romney too bland. Romney as President probably would keep everything pretty much the same as Obama, I would predict.

Newt on the other hand would have one huge positive if he were up against Obama.

He is the man who "balanced" the budget and brought in a budget surplus for three years in a row.

When it really comes down to it in the Presidential race, that is what will matter most.

Affairs, mud slinging etc...will pale in comparison.

When it comes down to the election 2012, it's the "economy" stupid.

Love the bit

Sam Pierson's picture

Love the bit 'you repeated it... don't try to blame someone else.' Whammo!

Ross, this is the required prelude to a sense of life moment - telling the wayward to behave. Newt has shamed the media for trying to shame him by making significant something of very low import. The times require adults, not teenagers. Fresh air indeed. Let 'em have it Newt.

Erm

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Actually, there's nothing wrong with a soundbite, as far as it goes. A soundbite is an excellent discipline, forcing blowhards to reduce their case to its essence. Many Objectivists could benefit from this.

But Newt's righteous tirade is much more than just a soundbite. It is all the things I saluted it for.

What I'm arguing—nay, unabashedly raging—against, is captured in paras 2, 3, and 4 of my last post. Here they are again:

It is of import that the conventional "wisdom" prohibits the expression of legitimate outrage against tawdry, smirking filth.

It is of import that this vile anti-philosophy of emotional disarmament is rife within our own movement.

It is of import that this vile anti-philosophy destroyed the most influential pro-liberty (liberty—a matter of some import) political party in our country before our very eyes (or at least the eyes of those who had them open).

Oh, stop it

Ross Elliot's picture

I agreed that Gingrich was correct in dismissing the stupidity of the question. And yes, it is symptomatic of the current state of culture. But none of that goes to any substantive cause affecting the destruction of the American ideal.

If anything, it's a mirror of Obama circa 2008: the soundbite versus the substantial. And isn't that what you're arguing against?

The Cult of the Innocuous

Lindsay Perigo's picture

It is of import that a major network begins a major debate with such smirking, tawdry filth that is indeed of no import. It bespeaks the state of our decaying civilisation.

It is of import that the conventional "wisdom" prohibits the expression of legitimate outrage against tawdry, smirking filth.

It is of import that this vile anti-philosophy of emotional disarmament is rife within our own movement.

It is of import that this vile anti-philosophy destroyed the most influential pro-liberty (liberty—a matter of some import) political party in our country before our very eyes (or at least the eyes of those who had them open).

If you have to ask me where the sense of life moment is here, Ross, by definition I can't tell you. The SOLO Credo's been up for some 10 years. Might be time to look in on it.

Rage, rage, against the dying of the light. Nuke 'em, Newt!

Lindsay...

Ross Elliot's picture

...where is the sense of life moment here?

Yes, the question was dumb and of no import whatsoever. And yes, Gingrich answered correctly. But it's a sideshow. If that scores him votes then those votes are worthless within the context of the continuing destruction of America.

Is this the real contest? A stiff Romney versus an enraged Gingrich, and that rage by way of nothing of any import?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.