jannotes

“The world is a bad neighborhood” G. Gordon Liddy
Stephanie Leigh, the woman known as I Will Get More Likes Than Scott Walker, thus the only known human being to have a sentence for a name, said:
“Our Governors have turned most of our states into the Ghetto.No insurance,No work, No money, ton of Debt, No birth control and now we can carry guns! We are so Ghetto!”
Ghettos are microcosms of the human social condition. In ghettos as in all other human social entities, domination, terror, primal survival needs, lying, cheating, drugs and religion are rampant, morality is the loser’s creed, unless it is tactically tied to domination, terror, primal survival needs, . . . Morality has only instrumental value. An apparent understanding of human nature common to right wing social philosophers,most notably Ayn Rand, is that all human survival requires the capacity to dominate others. From this, the tools of domination must be privileged rights. Why else would any form of gun control be so hysterically repudiated whenever it is mentioned, especially after egregious shooting tragedies? When a Randian thinker speaks of “Liberty”, he or she has in mind a primal existential trait, always already there, i.e., the intention to dominate others. Without that, there can be no certainty of one’s individual freedom. (Certainty, if you notice, is a right wing entitlement, declared as also a Right to be certain, thus the right to manipulate one’s environment as one sees necessary). A gun is a Right, like life,liberty, or the pursuit of happiness; every penny I lay my hands on is mine and mine alone, by Right. What I don’t like about another person I can refuse to accept, even outlaw, by Right . . . In the supremely moral, purely individualistic, egocentric society such as our Republican con-specifics are determined to bring about in this country (they believe they are preserving it, not changing anything that wasn’t already there), there is no more important tool than a gun, since this is the only way to preserve oneself, protective laws being immoral, and thus disallowed in libertarian society. (Again, try to recall a gun-rightser ever sounding unsure about the effectiveness of guns as guaranteeing protection in any conceivable situation that may come about). Without a gun, one is powerless to achieve necessary preemptive domination or protection from the domination of others. Life is domination; either you or me.
For the right wing, winning, by definition, requires losers. Life is a zero sum game. (When discussing this breed, we must never forget the axiomatic system of human nature they operate with, which is quite different from our own). The gun and one’s quick wits, which of course require a constant state of alertness and anxiety, are the only protection we have of our liberty. A constant state of anxiety, which is all a right-winger knows, is how life should be experienced (since that is all he or she knows), punctuated by a reassuring pat on the holster. A characteristic of Ayn Rand’s Ubermensch is a state of constant alertness, which she calls rational thought. Right wing rationalists would insist, as all rational beings know, that if the Tucson citizens all had had guns with them, Gabby Gifford would be smiling without a crater to the side of her eye, a Grand Canyon on her head, one of Nature’s wonders; and the little Green girl, skipping rope with her cherubic new friends, I’m sure, is laughing at all of us fools who miss the supreme logic of the Ghetto. According to the right-wing understanding, the only reason Tucson happened is that tyrannical, unconstitutional policy did not allow the complete arming of all citizens. In order for rational doctrines to work, there can be no missing link in the chain. Kill or be killed. What kind of fool would argue with his or her own survival?