This is in response to Zano’s last political brain fart. When I speak of “objective facts” it is in the context of how a narrative is developed. Coincidently, the purpose of my argument is not to necessarily establish the truth or falseness of a particular narrative, but to establish the “where, why, and how” the narrative was created. Some narratives are built upon the accumulation of facts, while other narratives are first created (independent of fact) and then facts are sought to support the already accepted narrative. I believe the main media covered scandal: Trump conspired with the Russians to steal the 2016 election is an attempt to support an accepted narrative. Meanwhile, Officials in the FBI and DOJ used their positions to shield Hillary Clinton from indictment is a scandal based on objective facts. After the election these same officials used their positions to delegitimize the Trump presidency.
George Orwell once said, “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” And Orwell’s nose was much smaller than yours, Zano. Let’s start with the objective facts driving the ‘FBI-wrongdoing’ narrative, as opposed to whatever you’ve been doing. My friend Mick tends to seek facts to support his assumptions, and then he goes on a weekly diatribe that makes Trump’s latest Fox & Friends interview sound like a Dalai Lama tweet.
Every time a political debate ensues, Mick Zano immediately breaks it down to a D vs R dichotomy. There he goes again, “Republicans are nothing but [insert derogatory adjective followed by pithy comment here].” He feels the GOP has become such a mess he wants to move beyond his usual array of insults to outright ignoring them. These bouts of avoidance should only be interrupted for some rotten vegetable lobbing. Bravo, Zano, Bravo. What if I told you both parties are flip sides of the same coin? Or, in this case, a wooden nickel.
Someone needs to put Zano back in his place and that someone is me! He’s starting to get a little too smug in his old age and sometimes he needs reminded he’s not a Jedi yet. This is a rebuttal of sorts to his feature: A Review Of Ken Wilber’s ‘Trump And A Post-Truth World’: Or, How I Stopped Evolving And Learned To Love The Trump. First off, Wilber is correct in his assessment of the problem. Post-modernism has promoted an individualistic pluralism that assumes that all values are self-constructed and relative; therefore the only true value is tolerance. But there is no way to come to a consensus on any given disputed moral issue. Every individual is free to do whatever they want so long as they stay clear of the legal restraints. The problem? A nation without virtue, rots from within. Also, a blog without merit sews only Discord. Snap. For a crash course in virtue-rot I refer to Exhibit A: Mick Zano’s undergraduate studies. Kidding, Zano (sort of).
Zano’s recent reflections on our decade-plus debate showed some rare insights. What next, funny jokes? The causes of our nation’s polarization are many, but there’s more than meets the eye when it comes to our political divisions. I’ve recently come to the conclusion the ultra-powerful people in the world do prosper by keeping our nation divided. They do this by keeping us all focused on superficial controversies meant as a distraction from the deeper, more ominous issues threatening our sovereignty. I’ve come to believe there are international bankers who have infiltrated, compromised, and ultimately control both parties as well as every corner of the political landscape. Yes, I’m going to go a tad Rothschild/Illuminati here. Not too much, though, just a teaspoon PRN. But isn’t this the lesson from the 2004 presidential campaign? If you recall both John Kerry (D) and George W. Bush (R) had both been bum-fuck initiated into the same secret society, Skull and Bones, at Yale University. Doesn’t Skull and Bones imply piracy? Maybe there isn’t so much separating Democrats v Republicans, but the fallout does allow these international pirates to claim their booty and threaten our national sovereignty. Please don’t add a booty joke, Zano …I’m asking nicely.
How can I, a limited government constitutionalist, support Donald Trump? Especially when at times he seems akin to an unlimited government Mussolinist? Fair question. Lets first recall my political philosophy and contrast that with the political philosophy of Progressivism. As Zano would say, don’t worry, with jokes! Let’s start with my view that the Constitution is a simple document with a simple message, namely, all individuals are granted certain rights and those individuals set up limited government to protect those rights. Thus the Bill of Rights (for individuals) begins the Constitution, and the 10th Amendment clarifies how powers not specifically granted to the federal government shall fall to the state government, local government, and individuals. There is a beautiful simplicity in this constitutional philosophy. But progressives don’t dig simplicity, do they? Libs are constantly telling us how complicated the issues are, and therefore we simple folk must relinquish our simple rights to the evolved expert elites in order to solve the very complicated issues of our day.
I’m having trouble determining whether Zano and his Discordian cult truly believe that the whole Benghazi/email investigation is a matter of Republican witch hunting, or if they are willfully ignoring the obvious fact, that Hillary Clinton knowingly lied about the Benghazi attack and has purposefully destroyed subpoenaed information that would play unfavorably to her Presidential ambitions. My goal is for all reasonable people (Zano loosely qualifies) to acknowledge the obvious fact that Hillary Clinton lied, obstructed justice, and put our nation’s security at risk for her personal aspirations. If you still want to elect her president, so be it, but stop calling this a witch hunt and acknowledge reality. You can do this in spoof news form, if you must.
Mick Zano argues that Democrats are not nearly as moronic, harmful, and sociopathic as Republicans. As an example he sites a scenario wherein a high percentage of polled Democrats would allow refugees from a non-existent country to enter the U.S. He feels this is a far less reprehensible position than having a similarly high percentage of polled Republicans favor the bombing of this same fictional country. This example shows the disturbing flaws in the psychological make up of many of both Republicans and Democrats alike. When confronted with perceived threats both sides tend to instinctively react without reflection, but their irrational reactions are different. When Ricky Republican feels threatened he looks to blow up the first thing that moves, while Denny Democrat would rather open up his front door, raise his hands in the air and channel Neville Chamberlain. “Come into my house. Take anything you want, just please don’t hurt me! I’m a pluralist for fuck’s sake!”