23 November 2008

Who Betrayed Blimp?

If one were to talk of party betrayal, it would involve supposedly conservative corporate elites who talk disingenuously of diversity and opportunity while they lobbied to ignore the law, and get their hands on as many illegal cheap laborers as they could to the callous detriment of the working citizen poor.

Thee cannot fairly complain, Mr. Bones, that Rear-Colonel V. D. H. Blimp refuses to call the shots as he sees em. Perhaps one might, though, subtract a few points for the specimen’s overawareness of its own frank and straightforward blimpicity,

I supposed one could cop out, and claim that there is truth in all three explanations . . . .

Oh, well, nobody is perfect. Not even on the pseudocampus or in the hippocampus of the American Ideological Enterprise is everybody perfect, sir. Believe it or not! (And remember, thee heard it here first!)

The imperfection that more immediately concerns us, is the one attributed -- or perhaps one should say, attempted to be attributed -- to "supposedly conservative corporate elites." Though the SCCE doubtless have their petty and endearin’ faults, yet they are also fairy godparents to all those AEIdeologues and Hoovervillains and Heritagitarians and Catoholics that shed such radiant lustre all across our holy Homeland. I mean, is not the good neocomrade colonel rather bitin’ the Invisible Hand when he blusters like that?

Castle Blimp condescends to camouflage itself at least a little -- admits of "a fuzzy, kumbaya veneer" as VDHB calls the same ploy when America’s party does it -- to the extent of "If one were to talk of party betrayal." As if, that is, there was a merely abstract case to be put against the xenophiliac SCCE, a case that Blimp does not care to associate himself with personally, but mentions only because it were better the Party of Grant and Atwater heard about its problems first from a candid friend rather than a cultivated despiser or wannabe wrecker. Blimp’s own loyalty to the PGA is above reproach -- how should the faithfulness of a geistliche Militärist be other than stainless? Some of the neocomrade colonel’s weaker siblin’s, however, may feel perplexed, if not actually ‘betrayed’, by RiNO tolerance of crimmigrants.

The veneer is not laid on so thick that one cannot see through it. What the GOP geniuses ought to do about the Criminalien Menace™ to gratify their own base-and-vile is plain as day, it seems to me. Obviously there ought to be lots of loud barks and bellows against shiftless wetbacks occasionin’ scorn for Rulalaw in the negligible public sector, whilst over in the Sacred Private Sector, the SCCE should -- needless to spell this out! -- continue to dance the laisser faire fandango as usual. With the addition of some first-rate soundproofin’ interposed between the two unequal compartments, the problem should then be taken care of for a generation or two.

When Juan and Juanita eventually reach the tipping point where they can regularly swing elections, further steps will become necessary -- but that will be then, and this is only now. [1]

Blimp seems -- yet ’tis but a mere seemin’, I think -- positively to envenom his fangs before assailin’ the Invisible Hand: "to the CALLOUS DETRIMENT of the working citizen poor" is worthy of Neocomrade P. J. Buchanan himself. Golly! AEIdeology is in a sad shambles if its paladins have given up pretendin’ that the OnePercenters could hardly fail to benefit the good or workin’ poor if they aimed at that mark deliberately. Blimp barks of good workin’ citizen poor for obvious anti-crimmigrant reasons, but so would neocomrade Buchanan. Nevertheless, one can and should take PJB to really mean what he barks, whereas Rear-Col. Blimp is merely layin’ on another coat of shellac. [2]

The Criminalien Menace™ does not seem adequate in itself to VDHB, it requires to be fleshed out with le wourtzelbacherisme en Amérique along the following lines:

Wall Street zillionaires ... can hire costly consultants to find exemptions not available to most plumbers or electrical contractors. Even when they choose to endow favorite causes they prefer tax exemptions — either now with write-offs, or postmortem without estate taxes — and de facto have the taxpayer subsidize their particular take on proper policy. Unfortunately, the Republicans failed to even develop such an argument that the very poor and the very wealthy in cynical fashion [3] support liberal policies, while those in between who struggle in entrepreneurial fashion to do even better are caricatured as unpatriotic and selfish.

Thee will see at once, Mr. Bones, that Blimp proposes to recycle Lady Nixon's "plain Republican cloth coat."

Suppose we were to ask which fashion the good neocomrade colonel himself proceeds in when he vends his latest tripe and baloney. Is Blimp bein’ ‘cynical’, do thee think, sir, or is he rather bein’ ‘entrepreneurial’?

What’s that? . . . "So why can't he be both simultaneously?"? . . . Indeed, indeed, I can detect no antecedent inconsistency myself, not primâ facie at any rate.

Though additional research is required, perhaps it is safe to pronounce the entrepreneurial/cynical dichotomy odd or picturesque or something of that sort? And thee do gotta admit, Mr. Bones, that it is extremely unlikely that any other neocomrade has anticipated V. D. H. Blimp in devisin’ it.

Exactly how well devised the Blimpian ECD, "entrepreneurial/cynical dichotomy," may be is not for thee and me to lay down. Lord Mammon and Lady Market have a monopoly on makin’ those rulin’s, as every wombscholar knows in this blessèd and mysterious Age of Creative Destruction that we are so lucky to be still undestroyed in.

Nevertheless I suppose we humble may venture to scribble a gloss or two in the margins of The Big Book of Doom from time to time without being neocreativated to a crisp instantly and on the spot. I have mentioned le manteau de Pat Nixon already. Add to it l'avarice de Gordon Gecko, noting carefully that Col. Blimp has redacted the latter cliché slightly. Originally one understood "Greed is good," whereas, pursuant to the Blimpian ECD, the thrust should really be more like "Greed is sincere."

I take sincerity to be the common- or garden-variety antithesis of cynicism. VDHB may conceivably prefer some more up-market hermeneutic product at this juncture, but if so, he ought to say so unmistakably, even at the risk of bein’ accused of Elitismus and thus gettin’ autohoisted petardwise. It would be more edifying, I think, if Blimpian ‘cynicism’ did mean somethin’ a bit tonier than "self-servicin’ insincerity," for on that basis Entrepreneurianity pretty well has to consist mainly of a sincerity that services itself -- and thus we are conducted straight to Geckoville, without passing GO or collecting our two-hundred trillion dollar rebate.

Thee will recall my mentioning before that AEI appears to have rotted Rear-Col. Blimp’s brain, Mr. Bones, along with the brains of a number of other formerly distinguished neocomrades. I fear today he gives us more sign of it. In the absence of qualification and elucidation, the entrepreneurial/cynical dichotomy amounts to a total renunciation of geistliche Militärismus. Lord Mammon and Lady Market carry all before them, Entrepreneurianity can have nothin’ at all to do with Mars and Bellona when defined by the default that Blimp consigns them to. [4]

[1] As to when "then" will arrive, exactly, Mr. Mark Penn has fixed on the year of religionism 1473/2050. I presume that Otherpartisans will think their evil hour can be deferred rather longer than a Rodham Democrat thought his could be, hence perhaps 1504/2080. Or even 1525/2100. And God knows best!

Meanwhile the Otherparty should take all steps (that it can get away with) in the path of suppressin’ "so-called Hispanic" turn-out at the polls. An outsider scarcely has to teach ’em that lesson, however. They knew that already when Gen. Hamilton was a pup.

[2] The ‘kumbaya’ superveneer is not to applied to America’s Otherparty literally. Though quite as sentimental and hormone-based as Eleanor Roosevelt on a good day with the wind behind her, the neocomrades run to darker sentiments and hormones, to cowardice and greed and self-sorrowin’ and self-esteemin’ and the like. Students of rhetoric might examine how V.D.H. Blimp and other neocomrades deploys such terms as ‘callous’. One gets the impression that they think it really rather clear-headed and steel-claptrap-minded -- anti-fuzz and anti-kumbaya, so to speak -- of themselves to be ‘callous’ but then run into difficulties because the epithet has been collaboratin’ with the enemy for a long time.

[3] The neocomrade colonel may be makin’ a tactical misjudgment at this point. Would Big Management Party agitprop not be more effective if the enemies of the Otherparty were not all classified as cynical? The fiend Soros is undoubtedly well abused that way, but down towards the low end of the Great Chain of Chas. Murray, does it really make much sense to accuse a teenage African-American hooked-on-welfare queen of ‘cynicism’?

Furthermore, if we jackasses are all cynics, then we none of us can take fuzz and kumbaya any more seriously than card-carryin’ AEIdeologues take ’em. I suppose it would indeed be pretty jackasinine of us to keep on playing that charade when nobody has taken it seriously since about Wednesday 26 Jumádae l-’Awwal 1348, the former 30.X.1929, but if one recurs to the real world rather than to Planet Blimp, it is clear enough that the vast majority of jacks and jennies are kumbaya-fuzzable and not to be confused with M. le Diable de Soros by any serious investigator.

[4] Actually Blimp barks about foreign and aggresion policy at some length, but never to inculcate any loftier lesson than "We are all Surgists now." In the original, "On foreign policy and national security, the battle of ideas is already won."

No comments:

Post a Comment