Atheism

Religion’s biggest and most fundamental problem is that it’s complete fiction.  I don’t mean that just in the sense that it’s not true.  I mean that in the sense that it’s deliberately fabricated.  Ironically, the reason why it’s a problem that religion is fiction doesn’t have to manifest itself in religious ways. To wit: the problem is religion, but the consequences of the problem can manifest themselves in any manner imaginable other than and including religion. The following anecdote will help articulate my point:

I once shared a duplex with a man who was religious.  Christian, of whatever denomination, to be specific.  He was also an early-30s full-time student earning not possibly any more than $400 (and usually some or much less) per week.  To compound this, he had debts in the tens of thousands.  And he also had serious anger management issues, which is beside the point other than that I can’t resist pointing out religious hypocrisy (despite the fact it’s EVERYWHERE).  One day, this man decided he was going to buy a house.  He did have two financially reliable housemates in me and another guy. 

Nevertheless, one day I tried to explain to him the unlikeliness bordering on impossibility of his at the time current personal circumstances gaining him a mortgage.  His response?  He had “faith”.  I like to think I did, but if I didn’t then I wish my next words had been something like: “Economics doesn’t care about faith.”  Needless to say, his application was denied.  To this day I’m still not sure whether I hope the bank laughed at him or not (like I said, he had anger management issues, and while living with him for a full eighteen months I didn’t escape entirely without incident).

Once you believe the in actual fact stark, raving lunacy of there being a “God” out there, who you can talk to and ask for things from, you can and probably will accept literally any imaginable nonsense in any part of your life.  I’ll leave the various ways that can and definitely has fucked up the world to you.

For most of my life I’ve been agnostic about most things.  I’ve always valued learning about a wide variety of topics, albeit not to enough of a degree of depth on any one of them to become an expert on it.  I’m a generalist.  And if I aspire to anything, I guess it would be to move from being a generalist to a polymath (though in my opinion, in the strict definition of the word, I don’t think anyone has lived long enough to genuinely become a polymath and it’s probably a state only truly attainable by advanced artificial intelligence).

This has taken me to interesting topics and encounters with interesting (sometimes for all the wrong reasons, such as in the anecdote above) people.  Such as religion, and the religious, respectively.  The first notable example is a concise history of religion I read probably a decade ago.  To put it simply, it outlined the various religious beliefs humans have had down the ages.  From paganism (worship of many gods, often represented by features of the landscape or small figurines) to monotheism (worship of a single deity, ie Christianity, Judaism and Islam).  This book caused me to ask myself one simple question, which may have actually put me on a path to atheism: if religion can change, how can it ever be true?

In other words, if every single ancestor of every single Christian, Jew or Muslim on this planet at one time backward through history once had absolutely no idea who Jesus, Yaweh, or Allah was, how could Jesus, Yaweh or Allah then, now or ever exist?  Again, I’ll leave that up to you.  The second example is more controversial: the Koran.  It took me a good year to read, because it’s laboriously preachy and repetitive.  Positively, it’s a staggering work of imaginative (if somewhat plagiarised from Judaism and Christianity which came before it) genius.  And proposes many ways in which people not only can but should be a good person.  Negatively, it mentions some pretty reprehensible stuff about treatment of women.  Without intending a defence of it, it was written in the 8th century.

The Koran cemented for me the question of how could religion be true if it changed (arguably the next, and second in ridiculousness only to Scientology, big one to appear was Mormonism, from the United States in the 1700s, from memory).  It also caused me to ask another, not particularly original, I must admit, question relating to terrorism and child marriage and the like: if religion proposes such good, antique attitudes toward women aside, why does it seem to cause such bad?  The answer lies in the fact that, as I said at the start, it is deliberately fabricated.  Religion is literally everything, only just to religious people and not in the way they believe.  Every time something good happens, they interpret it through their religion (God’s work).  Every time something bad happens, the same (God’s plan).  Ever heard of Christians saying a natural disaster was the fault of gays or some other scapegoat? Yep.

The difference for atheists is they see good things as a purely human construct, even and regardless of if done by a religious person or people.  And bad things as simply the weather (or climate change, but that’s another story), or again a non-spiritual human construct in the form of some nut with a gun/bomb/car, or some religious nut (terrorist) with a gun/bomb/car.  There are two things and two things only which need to be used to explain good or bad things: science, and psychology – which could also come under “science”.  Attributing anything to a fictional construct is dangerous at worst, and an unnecessary waste of time at best.

So why isn’t everyone atheist?  Again, let me refer to the beginning.  Religion is not just fabricated.  It is deliberately fabricated.  The Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. didn’t just fall from the sky.  They were written (and rewritten and translated countless times) by people, and almost certainly, in the case of every religious text ever written, exclusively by men.  But why did men write them?  To control women and other men.  That’s why religion’s fundamental problem is that it’s complete fiction.  Because, it is complete fiction written by men to control other people. And, it’s complete fiction written by men to control other people not just in regard to their religious (or absence of religious) lives, but their entire lives. Or as much of them as possible.

And they’re still using it to control people to this day. But not for the sake of control. For the sake of manipulating you into believing lies. Like my former housemate above, if you can be convinced there’s a god, you can be convinced  (or convince yourself) you can afford a house, even if a reasonable person can see you can’t. If you can be convinced of that, you can be convinced that prohibitively costly medical care for your needlessly terminal child is all part of “God’s plan”, when it’s really because of bloated pharmaceutical company profits  and shareholder dividends. Or you can be convinced that, when you die after blowing yourself up in a crowded shopping strip, you’ll awake in eternal paradise. I don’t want to be controlled, or at least I’d like to be less controlled in ways I have choices over (as opposed to ways I don’t, such as living in a capitalist system of wage slavery).  So I’m atheist.  And in the spiritual aspect of my life I am perfectly free, ironically because there is no spiritual aspect of my life.  I highly recommend it.

Advertisements

That Time I Was Called Racist

Once upon a time in a former, office-working life, a colleague of mine called me racist.  I was bagging out (Australian for criticising) “Kiwis” (New Zealanders).  Can’t remember exactly what I said, but it inspired her to call me racist.  I can’t recall if she directly said: “You’re racist.”  But the word “racist” was in there somewhere.  My response that was I was not racist.  She said something to the effect that if I had to say I was not racist, there was a good chance I was, in fact, racist.  Defensiveness implying guilt.  My reply, and last word was: “Well here we are.”  In other words: “I don’t care for that reasoning.  I’m not racist.”

Her partner at the time, who just happened to be a New Zealander – and specifically Maori (native) – was visiting her later that day.  I’d asked her earlier that day or week if he might be able to set me up with hospitality work, as my office gig was only temporary.  And he worked behind bars.  Not sure if she said she would or not.  Later that day, the day I was accused of being racist, I was downstairs getting something from the nearby convenience store, when I saw her and him as I walked back to the entrance of the office.  They were both outside the entrance.  She pointed to me, looking at him, and he started walking toward me.

From memory, he was smiling, and as he came up to me he tried to give me one of those handshakes in which you come from up high with your right hand, in a more casual manner I can’t describe any better.  I prefer normal handshakes, and more recently fist-bumps.  Or no touching at all when greeting another man in a casual setting, and quick hugs either way with women.  Other than asking me how I was going, and me returning the greeting, nothing further transpired and we both went on our respective ways.  I later thought perhaps that he was going to help me with hospitality work, but decided not to.  And that his girlfriend had put him up to it.  When I got back upstairs I said nothing to her about it other than that I prefer normal handshakes.  She either said nothing or little but a murmuring sound.

20131101_121445

The hoop I used to shoot at during lunch breaks in this particular office job.

Much later, I realised why she had called me racist.  It’s because she thought I was talking specifically about Maoris, instead of New Zealanders in general – the latter being the actual case.  (It’s somewhat of a good-natured national pastime for Australians to give bulk shit to (criticise) New Zealanders, and vice-versa.)  And I still can’t help but suspect that what she was actually pointing him to do that day outside the office was punch me in the face, or similar.  Though that might just be paranoia.  Either way, it’s been playing on my mind for some time now, occasionally, the fact that she incorrectly labelled me racist (I actually believe and have seen evidence to the effect that there is in fact no such thing as races, or racial division within the human race.  It’s just another construct designed to divide and control us).

I’ve thought about getting in touch with her and clarifying.  But frankly I don’t wish to get in touch with her for any reason at all.  She was a regular, and often quite galling (deliberately or not) critic of mine.  So all things being equal, I felt it easier to simply use this blog post to square the ledger, so to speak.  I do agree that sometimes it’s not generally a good sign if your only defence to being accused of being a bigot is to simply say that you are in fact not.  But then, if your accuser has misinterpreted what you’ve said, and you haven’t realised they have, then what other argument could you possibly make.  Ironically, prejudice on her behalf might have kept her from hearing me correctly.  Though, she too might since have come to understand the way things actually went.  Whether you, dear reader, think me racist, is up to you.  I’m not going to repeat that I’m not.  But I will say that I find bigotry of any kind to be stupid at best, and abhorrent at worst.

*Political Correctness

The following is a series of political classifications.  I’ll explain my choice of title at the end.

Everyone is political.  And those actively politically apathetic do themselves a disservice, because politics is a little like the weather: it affects you whether you take notice of it, or not.

Politics is a deeply personal issue.  As well it should be.  The way you vote should be little to not at all influenced by anyone you know, admire, detest, or, even, vote for.  Although, there is every reason for how you vote to be affected by how you expect or wish your vote to affect others.  Democracy, ideally, should be about uniting disparate groups of people as much as possible.  And mitigating the consequences of any division between them.  Unfortunately, western democracy today seems to be doing its utmost to create, deepen and widen divisions.  Which is a shame, although it simply reflects that some people either want division, or are misled into thinking they do by people with an agenda who are more intelligent and/or powerful than them.

Ignorance or naïvete abounds in politics today, as it always has, and always will, to whatever degree.  Below and in my own words are a series of classifications and clarifications of three political positions.  Knowing where you stand is key to making your voice heard:

  1. Regressive

A regressive is someone who wants change, but change back to that of an earlier time.  Usually a time that never really existed, in which the regressive thinks their personal life would have been better.  If you are regressive, you are one or all of the following: racist, sexist, religiously zealous, capitalist (or even feudalist or tribalist), homophobic, a philistine, nationalist, and/or others along a similar vein.  You don’t like that the human race is moving forward, and you don’t just want it to stop.  You want it to go backward.  Unfortunately, this is a rather futile position to hold, but one that many do, regardless.

  1. Conservative

Conservatives basically want things to stay as they are.  This is fine in some ways.  Catastrophic, in others.  Many conservatives may have regressive tendencies.  Just as many regressives may have conservative tendencies.  Conservatism is also quite futile, as – as the old saying goes – you can’t stop progress.  Often, the harder you try to stop progress, the faster progression occurs.  Conservatism is to progress as a child throwing a tantrum in a supermarket is to their mother getting the shopping done.  It’s basically just regressivism for the lazy.

  1. Progressive

A progressive wants change for the better for everyone, or as many people as possible.  They want their society to be better.  They want their environment to be better.  They want technology to be better.  And etcetera and etcetera.  Humanity relentlessly progresses.  That’s simply what it does.  Even if you only hold a progressive outlook, and do almost literally nothing practical to actually further progress, you are still doing more to help the cause of progressivism than a regressive or conservative, and are thus more likely to reap the fruits of progress than the two latter.  This is of course the only rational political position to hold, and in fact any arguments against it (especially those that are religious, racist, sexist, and so forth) are irrational.

Philosophy

*there is no such thing as political correctness.  There is only correct, and incorrect.  If your defence when someone criticises your views is that the critic is being politically correct, then your views are probably incorrect.  And you probably know it – otherwise you’d come up with a better argument than two words which, when put together, are redundant, and sometimes even oxymoronic considering how often the truth is obscured or outright abused by politics and politicians.

The reason, as I failed to explicitly specify in previous drafts, for Political Correctness as my choice of title is twofold. 1) quite aside from whether there are objectively correct political positions to hold, or not (there is, one), it’s important that one is cognisant of the position that aligns with their needs and worldview; and 2) progressivism is the only correct political position to hold. Period. It wouldn’t be progressive of me to tell you you can’t hold other positions, but I can point it out. Although, unfortunately, many regressives and conservatives don’t know truth even when they’re slowly belted to death by it.

Hansonism Mk II

We are in danger of being swamped by Asians, is the gist of what I remember from Hansonism’s maiden voyage into the Australian consciousness.  This was the ‘90s, when my focus was more on adolescent existentialism.  But now we’re nearing the end of the first quarter of the 21st century, and history, as it does, is repeating itself.  Now it’s a Muslim swamp we need worry about, apparently, which is not the least of the, nor the sole, irony, considering Islam sprung from the desert.  What is a swamp, really?  I see it as a stagnant body of water in which exist somewhat base creatures such as bacteria and fungi and frogs and birdlife.  So was she saying Asians were bringing the swamp with them, way back when, or that our home was a swamp and they were going to en masse join us in the fetid pool?  And surely she’s not saying Muslims are bringing the swamp, unless from certain parts of Indonesia or perhaps Malaysia outside of urban centres.  So in this case ours must be the swamp?  Or our home becomes a swamp upon letting them through the door?  Or Asian and more recently Muslim culture is swamplike?  Is she even capable of effective analogies?

Let’s leave the waste of consideration right there – is something I’d not normally say about anything.  Because there is absolutely zero point in giving serious consideration to anything this crazy bitch and her political movement has to say about Australia or the outside world.  Hanson is to a true reflection on this country what shaving is to using a broken, mouldy, rusted mirror: ineffective, distorted, and bloody.  Now, forgive me for using the B word, but I’ve long been of the mind that if a man is a bastard or a woman is a bitch – especially those with baffling relevance and influence – they should be labelled as such.  I guess a unisex term for the two could be: arseholes.  But I’ll leave that up to you.  There’s a reason why Hansonism, at least and almost exclusively (Cory Bernardi aside), deserves only some attention and zero consideration.  It’s quite clear what her movement really is.  Even clearer, now, than it used to be – as her policies and their appeals have not just expanded but also strengthened.  Sometimes, this has occurred very recently, and on the run, such as in regard to vaccination.  And obviously others are longstanding, and quite crystalised policies of hers.

Hanson is exploiting bigots and dullards’ ignorance and prejudices through her own intelligence and bigotry, which are just strong and restrained, respectively, enough to at all effectively do so.  This is Hansonism II, and hopefully it goes the way of the first.  I prefer not to believe that after this pimple of hatred whiteheads, pops, and heals, this country can’t learn from its two former mistakes and keep its damn face clean.  I refuse to believe that Hansonism turns normally intelligent, tolerant people into stupid bigots, and that she simply empowers those who incurably are already.  And I am absolutely convinced that the particular brand of hatred and ignorance she represents and propagates will be increasingly, if not ever totally, rejected by Australians in the future.  It could get worse before it gets better.  But if it were ever to become so strong it were considered mainstream, the tragic irony for me would be too much to bear.  And if I at the time had children, I would fear for their future; and if I did not yet have children, I would never have children, to spare them the crushing dystopia their potential country had become.

The human race is at or approaching many of its to date most consequential crossroads – Hansonism and Trumpism and Putinism and Kimism and the like, being not the least of them.  We must reject hatred and bigotry and exploitation and oppression and inequality wherever we can.  Because if we don’t, or not enough of us do, or not enough of us do often enough, we may all be fucked.

476594-pauline-hanson

Art of the Floating Crap

The poor bastard.  I get it now.  He’s in over his head.  He realised not all that long ago he was nothing but a brand.  Otherwise useless to anyone but himself.  So he ran with it.  He put his name on everything he could.  And in the superficial morass the late-capitalistic USA has become, it served him well.  Money fell out of people’s pockets and, seemingly, the sky.  Of course whenever he tried to do something entirely unfeasible, his brand failed.  Brand power can only twist reality, not outright destroy it.  But he held true to the brand because he knew he was on to a long-term winner that would serve him well until his death.  Not that it would do his reputation, among from his closest friends and family to the most distant cave-dweller remotely aware of him, much good.  But it was never about reputation.  It was about money.  And power.  And both.  And he was and is and always will be insatiable.

Now, he’s the President of the United States of America.  This was not intended.  He figured he’d run in the primaries.  It would improve his brand.  He won the primaries.  It was unexpected.  Hell, he thought, I guess I might as well go up against Hillary.  It would improve his brand.  He won.  Totally unexpected.  Somewhere in his tiny, simian brain he had earlier thought “Surely they won’t actually be stupid enough to vote in a man who has no political experience and heads a business empire that would be a spectacular failure if it weren’t propped up by little but his gargantuan ego and baffling celebrity and the couple of actually competent people who’d managed to slip into his staff”.  But they did.  And here we all are watching one man basically tell the rest of the fucking world “You’re fired!”  (Or more crudely: “Fuck off!”)  Except they’re not accepting his dismissal.  And the frustration this causes him is hilariously agonising, or agonisingly hilarious, to watch.

So I guess I can sympathise if not empathise with him.  I have my own weaknesses and character flaws, as do we all.  The difference is I and many others who are not paranoid, delusional, megalomaniac narcissists, are discrete with our weaknesses and character flaws.  We admit them where necessary.  Deal with them.  Manage them.  Play instead to our strengths.  Whereas he plays to his weaknesses so relentlessly – and only in America could relentless indulgence of weakness prove so fruitful – that if the man has strengths, I have no goddamned idea what they are.  He might not know either, because in the upside down and inside out reality of the existence he’s crafted for and around himself, he actually seems to see his flaws and weaknesses as strengths.  I mean, it’s fucking sad – to use a word he enjoys abusing in his unappreciated, ironically Orwellian Tweeting.

So where to from here?  It’s hard to see for Trump.  (Plus to be honest, I don’t really care.)  If he’s not assassinated or impeached – the former being unlikely because all the assassinatey types are his supporters, and the latter because if he was under threat of being impeached he’d probably find a way to change the law so impeachment is impossible – I guess he’ll just get back to cashing in his dignity for more money and power.  Only he might not have any dignity left that he doesn’t manufacture in his own damaged mind after what will surely continue to be an entertainingly sad – there’s that word again – up to but hopefully not including four years (eight!?) in power.  And to repeat, to be honest, I don’t really care.  For the world?  Well hopefully we’ll all take a collective sigh of relief as Marine One takes him from the White House for the last time (or as he’s dragged through the streets and pelted with rotten tomatoes, then tarred and feathered and placed in a stockade for more tomato target practise for a while).

And ensure that an IGNORANT, EGOMANIACAL, NARCISSISTIC, HATEFUL, LYING, BIGOTED PSYCHOPATH IS NEVER AGAIN GIVEN THE POWER, THROUGH SUPPOSED DEMOCRACY, TO LITERALLY DESTROY THE HUMAN RACE!  Ahem.  I guess I’m reassured by the fact that his rise to power has emboldened his like-minded (magnanimous of me to refer to them as “minded” at all, no?).  Why?  Because if the world or at least the US, for starters, decides to vote into power men or women who actually wish to lead the human race to a better place – instead of divide us into easily controllable and perhaps crushable groups based on superficial barely recognisable differences – I know that their like-minded becoming emboldened will revolutionise the universe.  If Trump doesn’t get us all nuked in the meantime. . . .

29703791796

Being Right-Wing for Dummies

It’s easy.  It’s so, so easy.  I guarantee you that being right-wing is easier than spilling water from a chicken-wire cup.  You see, it takes effort to create things, like a socialist (not (an especially Soviet) Communist, which has never really been a thing), or destroy things (mostly philosophically, and from the argument that destruction is a form of creation), like an anarchist.  But to be right-wing, all you need to do is keep things just the way they are.  Or try your hardest to, which not even ironically isn’t really very hard.  (Because calculated laziness masquerading as conscientiousness is both contagious and addictive, hence its popularity in the form of conservative votes on polling day in most liberal democracies, most of the time.)  Unfortunately, the way things are is the way things always have been, to varying degrees: sexist, racist, violent, bigoted, desolate, exploitative and massively disparate in terms of every form of wealth and happiness.  So it’s reasonable to suggest that if you prefer things the way they are, you must be obscenely rich, evil, dumb, or all three.  Which would also make you (quite literally) comfortably (because it’s like sitting in an armchair and making everyone else sit on the cold hard ground) right-wing.

Changed, yes; improved, no (from my former Instagram account)

Changed, yes; improved, no (from my former Instagram account)

“But surely,” you interject, “it can’t be that simple to be that at once greedy, bigoted and self-righteous?” you foolishly query.  Well, I respond, it is.  Though there are some guidelines to follow, or dispositions, if you will, to adopt for you to out-dummy all those already blissfully happy right-wing dummies:

  1. Hatred

You’ve got to hate everyone and everything.  Immigrants, natives, the poor, the (more) rich, different sexualities, different religions, different politics – basically anyone and anything who or that is in any way different to you.  And then hate them/it to the degree in which they/it are/is different to you.  Difference, as a right-winger, scares you.  Your natural instinct might now still be that understanding difference reduces or eliminates fear of it.  But over time, you will twist that instinct on its head to rightly, pun intended, boast a muscularly white hot reactionary fear of any and all difference.  Things that are different to you, my proud beginning conservative, are the reason why your life isn’t better (or so you must believe).  So if you hate them, and vote for a representative who shares your hatred, such hated might either go away or become more like you.  The hated don’t have rights, because you’re right, because you’re gosh darned right-wing.  Good on you.

  1. Wilful Ignorance

Like hatred, but useful otherwise and only in that it should be avoided at all costs, the enemy of the conservative is enlightenment.  Enlightenment makes gays appear human.  Enlightenment makes a (justified, but you will learn to wholly reject that or at least defend and strike out against it) mockery of religion.  Enlightenment dares to reveal that guns, while not the sole cause of mass shootings, are almost certainly the major contributing factor.  Enlightenment scares you.  And what do we do with fear?  Particularly fear of worldly knowledge?  Avoid it, through wilful ignorance.  The GLBTIQ Mardi Gras Festival just came on TV?  Change it to Sky/Fox News, where it will at least be covered more accurately if at all.  You just read that society’s better off with equal participation and remuneration of women in the workforce?  Go buy a Zoo Magazine.  Global Warming wetting your collar?  Crank up the air-conditioner, buy some fossil-fuel company shares, and/or buy a faster/louder car.  You don’t need pesky facts and reality compromising your principles. So bury your head in the sand or up your arse or up another right-winger’s arse. You will be safe there, you will be welcome, and, and because, you will be so deliciously deliberately ignorant.

  1. Wealth

Now, you don’t actually have to be wealthy.  But you do have to not only want to be wealthy, but expect against even the worst odds or logic that you will be.  These are the two wealth-related conditions you must satisfy before you can become right-wing.  And there are no – I repeat no – allowances for contradictions on this point (though hypocrisy is fine, and there’s more on that).  For example, let’s say you’re a successful, at least upper middle-class artist, but you support immigration and multiculturalism.  You’re not a conservative.  You own a chain of popular restaurants, but you’re a fan of hospitality industry penalty rates.  You are not a conservative.  You’re the CEO/director of a Fortune 500 (or national equivalent outside the US) company, but your employees like you and feel equally valued regardless of gender, race, religion, sexuality or disability.  My friend, if you’re a conservative, you’re doing much too damn good a job of pretending not to be.  You have to be – or one day expect to be – unashamedly, un-empathetically and never satisfactorily wealthy. While also denying it so much as you have the power to from all but the most un-deserving and already so materialistically disposed.

Trust #Americans to mix #money with #religion

  1. Hypocrisy

Told you it would come up again.  Being right-wing, though inherently simple, requires certain conscious and maybe complex but conveniently and strictly managed contradictions.  You don’t have to be a good person to be conservative, but you do have to infallibly appear to be so.  This is a vague but still prominent rule.  Religion?  It helps, but is not absolutely necessary.  The important thing is that if you are a religious conservative you, again infallibly, appear to be so.  You can’t, for example, be against infidelity and promiscuity on an especially religious basis yet be found to have committed adultery on numerous occasions.  The economy?  This one’s definitively simple.  You must convincingly profess to intend vast and ever-rising wealth upon all, but so much as is in your power actually direct the most wealth upon those already most wealthy.  It is the most simple of the rules: say one (or many if you like) universally pleasing thing(s) in public, and do other, elitist pleasing things in (concretely) private.  Your right-wing stocks should dramatically rise or fall on how well you adhere to this rule.

  1. Repression, Repetition and Regression

That’s right: the right-wing three Rs.  To become and stay conservative you will enlist these words in your every introspective and extroverted thought or action.  Order of their use is not as important as the flexibility of their use in response to need.  You just found a member of the same sex vaguely attractive?  Simply repress it.  You wish to convince your electorate and/or teenage son that marijuana possession should remain illegal (despite the actual fact that its personal use is far less harmful to anyone’s long term future than is a criminal record)?  Repeat such spurious reason, indefinitely.  You find the opportunity as a member of the public, at least, to declare that workers have too many rights?  Or as a politician, at most, to actually strip workers of rights?  Do it.  To regress and to force regression on others is if not at, then very close to the cold, barely beating heart of the conservative.  The right-wing three Rs are your sword, shield, and steed, whenever needed. Unflinchingly weild them in your war for stagnation, apathy and homogeneity – always.

  1. Excess

All of anything, as long as it’s the right (again, pun intended) thing, is never enough for a conservative.  Even if it’s the wrong thing, in excess, by being right-wing you can actually legitimise it.  Alcohol is a prime example.  Traditionally anathema to conservatives, both in practice and as preached, a drink or even many can be acceptable if it’s your sole departure or at worst one of very few departures from moral prudishness.  Wealth, also, depending on fashion might be seen as an objectively undesirable excess.  There is one not necessarily terribly costly word you can use to maintain appearances, if so: philanthropy.  Hypocrisy is also a useful practice to again engage in, in the management of excess.  To return to alcohol: you can be at once an alcoholic and proponent of prohibition.  But, in such case, you must keep your alcoholism private.  And if your hypocrisy was to be discovered, the simple yet painful solution: give up, unreservedly, one of the contrary practices.  In the case of right excesses – go nuts.  You’ll be the envy (another important conservative trait) of your contemporaries, and a useful focus of hysterical derision from those poor goody two-shoes on the left.  Pity them.  They are deserving of nothing else from you.

  1. Evil

The purest and simplest to follow of the conservative dispositions.  The source of all your energy, and the manifestation of all your beliefs and actions.  “The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interrèd with their bones.” – Mark Antony, from Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare.  Evil gives you strength, and strengthens conservatism itself long after you’re gone.  The evil that Adolf Hitler and the (about as far right-wing as you can get) Nazi Third Reich inherited lives on, now, in such phenomena (and so, so deliciously ironically (yet in all seriousness, which this post is only barely and satirically engaging in, tragically)) as apartheid Israel.  You are the bearer of the flame of evil, and your purpose is to spread it among the ever tinder dry grasses of humanity.  That said, you needn’t fear good.  As Shakespeare observed, it will die with you – and serves during life merely to sustain you, your family and your fellow right-wingers.  You may use and impart good on others only in order that it might serve as a suitably obscene foundation for the proliferation of evil.  Evil is your purpose, the very essence of your being.  And, God (who the best among you will come to usefully know does not exist) willing, it will not be defeated nor diminished by those opposing it with the loftiest good.

IMG_20140617_214716

Hate, ignorance, wealth, hypocrisy, the three right-wing Rs, excess, and evil.  These are the seven main weapons at your disposal in the war of the right-wing against what is perfectly ironically (objectively) right.  Because wrong is the best word you can take away on your continued journey of conservatism.  You are wrong.  Seek it.  Accept it.  Enjoy it.  Perfect its use.  Let it direct your every thought and action.  Know that what is wrong for the world is right for you.  That what is right for you is wrong for the world.  Ingrained and projected selfishness is what you should practice and strive for with your every breath.  I’m sure you’re at least beginning to see that it really is so very simple.  Like slipping into a hot bath, being right-wing requires fleeting moments of initial pain and weakness, then acclimatised pleasure and strength lasting as long as you are willing to turn and keep turning the faucet of wrong.  But remember your core aim: to prevent change.  Like all things bad, it really is so, so easy. And like all things wrong, it should feel, and motivate you to be so, so very, very right.