Violence Is Inherent To The Left

Kunk Fu Zoby Kung Fu Zu11/16/17
It is my belief that modern leftism, be it called progressivism, communism, socialism holds within its very essence the seeds of mayhem and murder. I will attempt to explain why this is so, in the following few paragraphs.

Modern leftism is a religion, but a religion unlike any other which has heretofore taken hold of mankind.

The inherent destructiveness of leftism springs from its core religious tenet, i.e. continual human progress. For the leftist, history is God. By history I mean mankind and its strivings upon this earth. In the mind of the progressive, the arc of history, with occasional detours, plods relentlessly forward, and humanity, of necessity, improves.

Traditional religions promise a reward in the afterlife for a righteous life during one’s time on earth. But the left promises the reward will come on earth in the shape of a perfected human race in which all will live together, able to do what each wishes without conflict or material need. Anyone who disagrees with this vision is a heretic and must be destroyed in order to keep from hindering the righteous in their march to the perfect community. Only unanimity of belief, action and thought can bring perfection.

Rational people know that humanity is not perfectible and history is not deterministic. And contrary to the phony “diversity” which the left has tried to impose on people, humanity is in fact very diverse, but diverse in ways which displease the left. This being the case, there will always be disagreements between people as regards their beliefs, desires, wants and needs.  Thus progressives will always have imperfect enemies who must be destroyed, and leftists will eventually be compelled to violence if they wish to remain true to their faith.

If one asks for proof of my thesis, one need only cast a glance back at recent history. It is well known that wherever the progressive/communist dream has been put into action, the result has been a torrent of blood and flood of lost lives. Conservative estimates of the number of lives sacrificed to the progressive nightmare run at 100,000,000. This number is confined to people murdered by their own progressive governments, not war casualties. One should stop and reflect upon that bit of information. Leftist governments took it upon themselves to eliminate one hundred million of their countrymen because those people did not fit with the leftist idea of the perfect, or at least the perfectible, man.

This is why leftism must be fought tooth and nail. Its insane metaphysical goal can never achieved. But in pursuit of its belief, the left must continue to destroy those whom it deems infidels, and to do so with a religious fervor previously never seen in human history. A fervor based on a complete misunderstanding of human psychology, of humanity and, in fact, of reality itself.

This is why it is so dangerous.


Kung Fu Zu is a conservative prognosticator who has traveled widely and lived outside the United States. He is the silent-partner third member of the Blake & Avery team. • (368 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Essays. Bookmark the permalink.

49 Responses to Violence Is Inherent To The Left

  1. David Ray says:

    I’d add another aspect that drives them; raw emotion. After they’ve been brainwashed in our schools (no longer just universities), they respond to any perceived slight with self rightious rage.
    As you know, when emotion superceeds thinking, mobs result.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Yes David, raw emotion in the shape of rage is a wonderful tool for those who are most willing to use the violence which is required for the coming of the leftist Utopia. Sometimes killing the patient, the patient being humankind, is the only way to cure it.

      • David Ray says:

        Any chance you could sweet-talk Nelson into restoring this site to it’s user friendly former self?

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          What did you have in mind?

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Yeah, I’ll get right on it, David. With such specifics I know right what to do. 😀

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          David, I’m going to take a guess and assume the user-unfriendly aspect is that you’re getting the mobile version of the site. The mobile versions makes it easier for smaller devices such as phones. If this is the case, scroll to the bottom of the page and select “Desktop” (which is next to the word, “Mobile”) and this will then serve the regular Desktop version of the site. But given you’ve just thrown up your hands and complained about it, I don’t have much to go on. But that’s my best guess.

          • David Ray says:

            Ah! Thx much, you right wing scumbag!!!! (I have to go attend my hate therapy.)

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              Your feedback is always appreciated, David. I’m always looking to make the site better without bogging to down with too much stuff as many sites do. Any suggestions are valuable because feedback it something I don’t often get. Much of the feedback I have gotten has been useful. I think it was Gibblet, a while back, who said, “Hey, how about showing a published date of the article?” I immediately implemented that.

              I try to keep it clean and simple and make it as easy as possible for all of you to add your own content for things that perhaps don’t reach the level of an article or blog post. So I have the forums. I even have that StubbornChat thing for those who want to make a quick note of something.

              • Gibblet says:

                Brad, It takes substantial effort on my part to not abuse my unqualified influence over you. But since you opened the door, I’ll step in with a request: please return the flag of the United States of America to the site header. Thank you.

  2. Gibblet says:

    “…wherever the progressive/communist dream has been put into action…”

    Modern leftism is a religion which provides justification and motivation for its congregants to satisfy their amoral human nature. Yet, there is always a Wizard, or circle of Wizards, behind the curtain manipulating the vagrant mob in order to increase their personal wealth and lust for power. The Wizards will use any method (with self-preservation being the only qualifier) to promote their self-serving agendas. For its efficiency at manipulating a population lacking a moral anchor, the religion of the left is a most useful tool.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      This is why I divide them into the Inner Party (whose goal is power and perks) and the Outer Party (who willingly believe the lies of the Inner Party).

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Oh…I see you’ve seen the movie, “The Circle.” That exactly describes what Tom Hanks and his cohorts were doing to their progressive-yute underlings. Upper Party vs. Lower Party. The Masters vs. the Useful Idiots. The manipulators vs. the credulous. Promises of utopia vs. reality.

      However, I’d say right now throughout all of America, moral anchors are in short supply, right or left. We buy the images. We like the promises. Entertainment uber Alles. Let us baste in our own feel-goodism and believe nothing but flattering ideas. Harm only ever comes when we aren’t “open” and accepting.

      Well, in short, when a society’s principles and foundational ideas are subject to the vagaries of therapeutic pop culture, all we can ever do is flail about.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Most conservatives, like nearly all leftists, go through the public school system. They may not be as poisoned by it as the leftists, but it would take a miracle to make it through unscathed.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          As Madge said: “You’re soaking in it.” I don’t mean to be a purist. Culture is king, or nearly so, and man is merely alone on a barren island without culture.

          But what do you do when the culture becomes toxic? This is one of the free services we provide here. We parse things from outside The Daily Drama. Conservatives and Christians thus have a chance to gain an insight on where they’re at, for if you measure via popular culture or (especially) your own little in-group, you might just be that frog in the kettle of slowly-heating water. We fight with Teflon here, baby!

          • Gibblet says:

            Brad, I just now went over and read your review of The Circle. These two articles are indeed related.

            I will now attempt to assess the philosophical dichotomy between worldly belief systems (as highlighted in these articles), and Christianity:

            Those who adhere to worldly belief systems put their feelings (or self) above all else and are, thereby, easily manipulated. They feel they are expressing their individuality by opposing moral restraints. In reality, they are flying in unison like a flock of birds which turns here, then there, in perfect cloud-like formation. The “feeling-du jour” dictates the pattern of flight.

            To be subject to whims is worldly, ungodly.

            By contrast, the individual who has The Lord as the center of his life is personally accountable to the unchanging Truth as given by God. Though the individual may occasionally falter, the Truth is unwavering. Therefore, the individual who follows The Lord is making his way, with other Christians, toward those greener pastures under the protection, provision, and direction of the one and only benevolent Shepherd. By the power of the Holy Spirit, a Christian will gladly choose Truth over feelings.

            That choice, between feelings and Truth, marks a great divide between worldly belief systems and Christianity.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              One of the interesting aspects of leftist psychology is their tendency to think of themselves as free-thinking individuals — even as they think and speak in unison. There was a nice scene from Life of Brian that mocked this attitude. It’s part of the leftist tendency for reaction formation (a companion to their persistent use of projection as a political tactic).

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              They feel they are expressing their individuality by opposing moral restraints. In reality, they are flying in unison like a flock of birds which turns here, then there, in perfect cloud-like formation.

              Gibblet, you have perfectly articulated that movie (“The Circle”) as well as coined an apt analogy for this sort of behavior. (“Bird-brained” extends that analogy as well.)

              For liberal yutes, there is no anchorage in anything but the flock which flies in unison. The swarm behavior (aka “murmuration”) of starlings is amazing in that they all move together and yet can turn almost 180 degrees in unison. Sounds a lot like this shift from “If it feels good, do it” to “Forty years ago he made me feel uncomfortable when he said the word “zest” which sounds a lot like “breast.”

              Swarming may be an amazing and quite useful behavior in birds. (In fact, no one knows that they’re not simply enjoying themselves.) But in humans who want to exist above the level of beasts, we must be anchored in more than just the opinion of our immediate neighbor.

  3. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Doing violence to the truth always comes first. An insane culture cannot produce sane results, proven again by the most stupidly liberal company in existence, Apple (if you don’t count Mozilla, Google, Facebook, etc.): Apple’s Vp Of Diversity To Step Down After Proving She Understands What Real Diversity Is:

    The problem with Smith’s statement for those on the social justice left is that diversity of the exterior is more important than diversity of thought. The idea that 12 white men in a room could have different experiences that effect their views or creative process is ludicrous to a people whose ideology demands that everyone has to fit into a specific box.

    To SocJus advocates, there’s no way the white son of a rancher from Texas could be as different as night is from day when compared to the son of a white deli owner from New York. White guy Jim on 6th St., despite his different upbringing and life experiences, cannot be different from White guy Tom on 7th. They’re both white, and thus the exact same person.

    If that seems like shallow, backward thinking, it’s because it is. For them, diversity cannot exist in the mind if the skin color is the same.

  4. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Traditional religions promise a reward in the afterlife for a righteous life during one’s time on earth. But the left promises the reward will come on earth in the shape of a perfected human race in which all will live together, able to do what each wishes without conflict or material need.

    I think that’s a very concise way to put it, Mr. Kung.

    Let me make a distinction that I think many Christians will not agree with and might find offensive. We might separate the philophines into these categories:

    1) God’s kingdom on earth through the authority of man. This is Islam in a nutshell. And more than a few Kings of England (and other countries) have stated that their power stems from god. You get the sanctified bureaucrat. I’m fairly sure the Third Commandment about taking the Lord’s name (his prestige) in vain (put to use for our own selfish uses) applies. Many think the Bishop of Rome falls under this category as well. It also describes “social justice” or what used to be called “the social gospel.” Many “modern” Christians bypass the aspects of personal sin altogether and jump right to government as the formative agent, supposedly informed by God, that can transform us all for the better.

    2) Utopia is found not by taking the perfect and applying it to earth but by dissolving the concept that there is anything at all to reference. Buddhism is this materialist religion whereby a type of utopia is gained by believing, in essence, that life is pointless. Therefore if you cease all desire, Nirvana will come. Given the fecklessness of the GOP, this point of view might be worth a try.

    3) Man is god (atheism).

    Christianity has obviously been expressed by certain factions and certain times via #1. Authentic Christians do not believe man is god and do not believe that man is perfectible by his own efforts, although they believe he can, and should, be improved…but not by government bureaucrats.

    Authentic Christians believe in the separation of the material (this world) and the transcendent (whatever gave rise to this world). Some sects have said the world is inherently corrupt, generally an idea considered heresy, although the idea that man’s nature has become corrupted is generally accepted by all factions.

    Here then we reach a possible point of contention: Many Christians likely do see their religion as little more than a ritual that works like a combination code for unlocking heaven. Do the right things. Say the right things. Bingo, you’re in. (“And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.”) To me this is simply materialism in the guise of religion. I think an authentic understanding of Christianity does not raise heaven/earth into such a stark dichotomy nor turn it into a mere transaction for everlasting life.

    Instead, Christianity is not a psychological balm or crutch as its dishonest (or just ignorant) atheist opponents claim. It is a means whereby we understand that we are to connect to the Almighty in ever deeper ways (the connection is there, whether acknowledged or not). With our cooperation, the eternal intersects with the temporal to give man a perspective larger than his ego or his groin. Our job is not non-stop pleasure seeking, power-seeking, or even avoidance of pain. Nor is it religious narcism wrapped in sometimes subtle layers of piety. The paradigm is, as written in John 15:5 “I am the vine; you are the branches.”

    We are supposed to be participants, not passive objects for whom heaven is just another entitlement somewhere “up there.” We are to take up our cross and follow.

    If God is true, this is why man always makes a mess of things via atheistic/materialistic methods. Our egos and false sense of omniscience can never be the basis for perfection. When we demand perfection, we not only miss the fact that we are inherently flawed creatures to begin with (who thus cannot create perfection), but that even if earthly perfection were somehow doable, atheism/materialism provides no objective model for what can be considered perfection. Those who try through atheistic methods are inevitably left to copy the murmurations of a flock of birds, as Gibblet has noted, turning this way and that based on little more than the feeling-du-jour.

  5. Timothy Lane says:

    Note that the Divine Right of Kings was the justification for restrictions on religious freedom in the medieval era. If you were King by the grace of God, you would look askance at those who had a different view of God and perhaps believed you had no divine right at all.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I don’t think there is such thing as a social utopia or a freedom utopia, so I won’t say that the divine right of kings is totally off base. And any government has to gain legitimacy somehow. In an age when a large percentage of the population was illiterate and lived just above the level of their own livestock, it probably wasn’t very hard to sell something as the supposed existential superiority of people who wore very nice clothes using dyes that were expensive — as opposed to those covered in dung living in mud huts.

      Certainly Henry VIII threw a monkee wrench into the idea of the divine right of kings when he split from the source of their divinity: the Church. Like always, it was the divine right of leaders to do whatever the hell they thought they could get away with.

      Thomas Paine, of course, took the concept too far. But he did at least add philosophical backfill for the American Revolution and defying the supposed divine right of kings. The problem becomes, as any conservative understands, that as soon as you delegitimize the establishment and raise to secular divinity the notion of the omniscience of “reason” by the benevolent “people’s men” you have let a worse rat in the door, thus the warning by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence “all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

      Arbitrary rule by those claiming “reason” or “science” or “the people” on their side has proven to be no improvement over even a bad king.

      So we ditch Popes and Kings at our own peril. Certainly the Bible is full of kings who are supposedly especially anointed by god to lead the people. The legitimacy of our own republic is that of “we the people.” And one could write entire books on the subject in regards to how this is not the same kind of taking the people’s name in vain as they did during the French Revolution. In fact, we see many politicians in our own country enrich themselves or implement their own psychological grievance agenda by justifying doing the work of “the people” or helping out the little guy. The little guy, last time I looked, was drowning in bad schools, drugs, gang violence, and bastardy.

      Maybe, at the end of the day, we just have to be savvier at distinguishing between demagogues and those who have more of the character of a George Washington. We’re not doing well at that these days. I mean, even before the latest scandal, it was a joke that Minnesota voters elected Al Franken as a United States Senator. And thus perhaps it’s not hard to understand how rulers could view the masses as unfit to govern themselves. It’s a small leap to saying “God anoints me as your king.” Perhaps we’d even be better off considering the mess these current politicians are creating.

  6. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    But since you opened the door, I’ll step in with a request: please return the flag of the United States of America to the site header. Thank you.

    Gibblet, I’m going to speak frankly to you as a friend. No prevaricating. No half-truths.

    I’ve about had it with the conservative movement. I don’t want to be a part of this fake dog-and-pony show anymore. I want to distance myself from the conservative media. Therefore I’m not looking to specifically brand myself as red-white-and-blue.

    I’m not ashamed of the red, white, and blue. But what I’m ashamed of is the shallow symbolism of the right that has perdured for too long.

    To put an American flag on this site would be, to me, like wearing a flag on my t-shirt. There’s nothing wrong with that, per se. But it disrespects what that flag stands for when covered by BBQ sauce and mustard stains.

    Since doing this site, I have come to the conclusion that many conservatives are wafer-thin in their beliefs. They’ll splash red, white, and blue all over the Facebook pages, for instance, but don’t count on them to actually do anything materially to oppose the Left or forward conservatism.

    And I think I sort of get that now. Unless you are self-employed, it’s almost certain that your place of employment is nearly 100% governed by the terms of Progressivism. Hell, I was watching Jeopardy the other day and one of the questions was what the ’T” stood for in LGBT. (Alex, what is “Testicleless”?) Online conservatism (or offline, for that matter) becomes merely a means to rant about things people can’t or won’t change.

    Therefore, with the backdrop of what I think the conservative media has become — nothing but an outlet for bitching and not at all an instrument to enact and promote reform — I will not take part in this Kabuki theatre.

    What I will say is this: I’m on the lookout for essays, poems, travelogues, even photos essays (if of high enough quality to justify the work on my end that it takes to post it) that honor and tell the tale of the American flag. By all means, review a great book on the subject. Write a travelogue essay of your visit to the museum where flag history and memorabilia were on display. Or pen a heartfelt, interesting, and inspirational essay about the American flag.

    But no more cheap symbolism for me. You may not see it that way. But I do. By all means, let us honor the flag. But let us do so in ways more than just easy symbolism which has become the main currency of online conservative media…oh, that and selling a lot of books.

    I don’t mean that your intent with the flag is cheap symbolism. But from the context of what I’ve just defined above, that is my thought process. Let the flag poems and essays begin. But let’s not think we’ve done a single thing for this country because of a flag posted on some relatively obscure web site.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      One thing I can mention is one disappointment Elizabeth and I had on one of our many tours back when we could do such things. We attended the 1998 World SF convention in Baltimore, and naturally wanted to visit (among many other places) Fort McHenry. We visited a lot of places and saw most of what we wanted to see, but not that.

      Much of our interest was historical; we visited the Stonewall Jackson home in Lexington, VA, the Antietam Creek battlefield, a museum on Civil War medicine that we learned about at the Antietam Creek visitors’ center, Mt. Vernon, the battle sites in the Fredericksburg area, the Museum of the Confederacy (including such treats as a saber manufactured by the Nashville Plow Company in accordance with the admonition from the Book of Joel), various sites in the Richmond and Petersburg national battlefields, a museum on the Army quartermaster service (they had a set of unit patches, which included the 39th Engineer Battalion — my father’s final command), Monument Row, Monticello, the McCormick farm where the reaper was invented (a friend of ours is related — distantly — to old Cyrus), the Lee chapel at Washington and Lee, and VMI (including a museum to their greatest alumnus, George C. Marshall).

      That was the sequence of our visits, as best I recall. We also visited other non-historical sites as well. But we never did get to Fort McHenry.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        You guys back east have all the cool stuff.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Yes, there are enough American Revolution and War of the Rebellion historical sites to provide lots of time to visit. No doubt there are some for the War of 1812 as well; Elizabeth and I once visited the Tippecanoe battle site, though it was late and the visitors’ center was closed. They’d be close to the Great Lakes, and we generally didn’t get that far north.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          Yes, the East has a lot of great battle sites, which I would like to see. But Texas has the Alamo!

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Well, we do have 54/40 or fight. But there never was much of a fight. If any. But they make superb crumpets in B.C.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              The closest thing to a fight came on one of the islands between Washington and British Columbia in 1859, known as the Pig War. George E. Pickett was a key participant.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                Well, I can assure you that very few people, including myself, remember that bit of history, Timothy. And 54-40 or Fight is much more mnemonically alliterative.

                We do have a good and significant chunk of the Lewis & Clark trail. There is all kinds of history of the British Explorers such as Vancouver, Puget (Vancouver’s lieutenant), Cook, Charles William Barkley, Captain Gray, Canadian David Thompson, and even pirate Francis Drake. Almost every landmark bears the name of one of their officers or friends back home, including Mount Rainier, another name given by George Vancouver. (His friend was Rear Admiral Peter Rainier.)

                The oldest sections where you will find some of the grand old homes are Port Angeles, Astoria, and Port Townsend. (Yep…another place named by Captain Vancouver.)

                Geology, a dry subject for most, is probably where we are far more interesting than the rest of the country put together. But, alas, no Civil War battlefields. George Washington never slept here. But we did name the place after him.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                A friend of mine once did a short parody about a future war between Canada and the US over a body of ore. It happened in 5440 and became known as the 5440 Ore Fight. The original, of course, was a slogan for James K. Polk in 1844, and in the end he settled for the 49th parallel as the border.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                Hahahaha. Nothing like a good parody.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            Not to mention the San Jacinto site with its tower and the battleship Texas.

            • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

              Not to mention the San Jacinto site with its tower and the battleship Texas

              Both are wonderful and, conveniently, next to each other.

              But for Texans, visiting the Alamo and the Cenotaph there is (almost) a religious experience.

              Perhaps Valley Forge would match it.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                I’ve visited both the Alamo (twice, including once as a child while my father was stationed in Galveston) and Valley Forge.

    • Gibblet says:

      “I’m not ashamed of the red, white, and blue. But what I’m ashamed of is the shallow symbolism of the right that has perdured for too long.”

      She is aptly named, OLD GLORY.

      I agree with you, Brad; shallow, even some dishonest people are among those who display the flag. It’s your choice to display it here, or not. Our’s is still, thank God, a free county.

      To those who love her, Old Glory is a symbol of all that was, and is good about the USA. She waves as a reminder of the sacrifices of great men and woman who founded and fought for our country, as well as those who continue to work and fight for the ideals upon which our country was founded. I don’t know what it’s like to live in another country, but I appreciate where I am.

      Many people display the flag for the same reasons some wear their favorite team logo. Association with a popular group imparts a feeling of belonging, and allows one to identify with the spirit of the ongoing battle. Some display the flag to gain credibility, status, or favor. There are political posers who smile for photo opportunities with Old Glory, then go about abusing the freedom she represents while undermining the foundation upon which she stands.

      So my question is, can one cheapen the symbolism of the flag by displaying it in a flippant, irreverent, or dishonest manner? I don’t think so. As an example, the cross of Christ is not any less meaningful because some people wear it as an accessory, or display it on the bumper of their car, or worse. For those who understand its significance, the cross is a powerful symbol. The same goes for Old Glory.

      It stands for what it stands for.

      In a perfect world, Old Glory would never be displayed in a manner beneath the greatness of “the Flag of the United States of America, and… the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”. And while I would rather see it displayed with respect and proudly flying high – whether it is splattered with mustard, draped over a coffin, planted on the face of the moon or this website – the flag of our United States is a beautiful thing.

      You, Brad, are a patriot. You see the warp and weft of Old Glory as worthy of protection and preservation, not as mere cheesecloth to be used and thrown away.

      Has Old Glory been hijacked? Yes, she has. Just as the rainbow has been hijacked to represent Gay Pride – essentially mocking God to His face. I would like to take back the flag. I would like to take back the rainbow. I would like to take back our history; reestablish reason through logic rather than feelings; save from destruction every sacred thing that is being “fundamentally transformed”.

      Tell me: if one is to stand, where is one to stand?

      By displaying the flag, am I perpetuating some new lie regarding its meaning; compromising, simply by its use, the values it represent?

      If I want to fly Old Glory, but don’t, am I acquiescing?

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Gibblet, let me handle the graphic design of this site. What we need more of is excellent content.

        Old Glory is certainly a symbol. And I’ll never watch another NFL game as long as I live because of the rotten culture that the NFL has become.

        I’m not against displaying the flag. But what we need here at StubbornThings is words, good words. I have nothing against flag waiving. If you step into my office you’ll see no less than 20 to 30 flags of various kinds.

        Fly the flag high and proud. But as for StubbornThings, what we need are good stories and essays. Few people want to go to the trouble of doing so. They want shortcuts. Or they just want to bitch.

        I’ll neither allow this place to be used as a shortcut for doing the hard work of thoughtful writing or as an instrument for mindless bitching. We don’t exist here as way for people to feel better about acquiescing to the Left.

        What I want is red, white, and blue in the form of words. And it doesn’t have to be about the flag, although those words can be.

        But what I found is that, aside from a few here, that attitude is asking way too much. People just want to bitch. Or they want cheap symbolism, perhaps to make it easy for them to forget how much they have caved to the left in their own lives and job.

        With great minds and works not regularly (enough) appearing here, that has left us with the splendid mission of bringing to notice the excellence works of others, including especially in literature and film where symbolism is often everything.

        And if one is willing to do the work and learn, you can put a flag about wherever and anywhere you want it.

        “Old.

        You could even add one to your avatar. Anyone who needs technical help with such things needs only to ask.

        • Gibblet says:

          “Gibblet, let me handle the graphic design of this site.”

          Brad, would you do it for, say…twenty bucks?

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Money makes the world go round. You send me twenty bucks via PayPal and I’ll stick a flag somewhere. I never said I couldn’t be bought. 😀

            • Gibblet says:

              I would have gone to $50.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                I’ll throw in Betsy Ross for a Grant.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                Gibblet, when you came to my office just now, was I at all exaggerating about how many flags I had laying around in various forms?

                Thanks for the US Grant. Your sponsored flag is shown below. And I appreciate the time you took forming your appeal to me regarding the flag. I do think symbols are important. My shtick is that in the current climate of image-over-substance that I do what I can to try to get some substance going. But symbols are important as well. And your substance of fifty smackers speaks for itself.

                As does that bar of salted almond chocolate. If Pat visits I will hide it because I want it all for myself. I love the stuff. Have a Happy Thanksgiving. And anyone who wants to sponsor a graphic of The Statue of Liberty, prices start at just $25.00. What a deal. 🙂

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Really, now, don’t you think U. S. Grant deserves a fuller picture of the flag?

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                I think Gibblet’s picture of the flag looks artistic. Don’t change it to some one dimensional looking rectangle Brad.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                You’d certainly think 50 bucks would buy you more. But…err…in keeping with the subject material at hand, it was a symbolic gesture, although US Grant is a very nice symbol indeed.

                So basically I can see the money now in branding and selling off parts of the site. Maybe Mr. Kung could buy Mondays. Every article posted would be like that “closed captioning” schtick that follows many TV program: “This article brought to you by Mr. Kung, the maker of fine verbs, syllables, and sentences. When you need a libtard rhetorically hung, always think of Mr. Kung.”

  7. Gibblet says:

    I’m happy my substantial influence (and $50) could procure a small flag at the bottom of the page. I’m glad Mr. Kung likes it. I hope Timothy discovers its hidden surprise.

    Brad, you certainly do have a great variety of flags and other fascinating things hanging around your office. Thanks for a very nice visit and the warm fire on this stormy day.

    Happy Thanksgiving!

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Well, I do appreciate it, Gibblet, and I hope I in no way provided a virtual twisting of the arm to procure that fifty dollars. Goodness knows I don’t want to end up like Charlie Rose. (A little long, but I could put that on a bumper sticker.)

      Something you said in private yesterday reminded me of something that Pat often tells me, that writing for him takes an excess of time. But I just want to let you both know the time is well worth it. Both of you are expressive writers who, generally speaking (and I’m always working on this as well), get to the point and dispense with the fluff. But then, that’s what takes time. I remember a famous line written by either Churchill, Kipling, or some other famous personage who wrote a rather lengthy letter back to a friend with the postscript: “I’m sorry for the long letter, but I didn’t have the time to make it shorter.”

      Getting to the point takes time.

      One of my basic operating tenets or assumptions is: With the deluge of sweet-nothing notes passed back-and-forth through Facebook, Twitter, text messages, etc, our culture has no problem with volume in terms of communication. What is generally lacking is clarity, meaning, and significance. If all the things ever posted in Facebook were erased tomorrow, would they be missed? I think it’s unlikely. I’m hoping we can do something here where you would not say the same thing. I hope some of the things we do here are useful to people. So if things don’t always come easy, that’s a very good sign, if you ask me.

      Indeed, have a Happy Thanksgiving.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        “I’m sorry for the long letter, but I didn’t have the time to make it shorter.”

        That was Churchill and I believe it was an inter-government memo of some sort.

        Churchill was so keen on brevity that he instructed all those in government who communicated with him to, if they had the time, keep it to one page.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *