Why Right Wing “Individualists” are, Inherently, Idiots

Don’t worry about the state…worry about those that are worried about the state instead

Looking at the right wing fringes of America, three factions stand out: libertarians (whom believe all of the world’s ills could be solved by deregulating everything), conspiracy theorists (whom believe all of the world’s ills could be solved by overthrowing an international banking cartel which may or may not actually exist), and pro-gun militia types (whom, of course, believe all of the world’s ills could be solved by shooting them.)

The common theme among the three groups is apparent: they’re all a bunch of idiots. And I mean that in the most classical sense of the word.

You see, the term “idiot” is derived from this squiggly-looking Greek thing, which roughly translated, means “one in a private station.”  There’s a very similar term in Latin, which more or less refers to “an ignorant person.” Eventually, the Athenians merged the two definitions together, using “idiot” as a pejorative to describe individuals that were more concerned with private affairs than public matters.

“An idiot is one whose self-centeredness undermines his or her citizen identity, causing it to wither or never take root in the first place,” wrote Walter C. Parker. “Private gain is the goal, and the community had better not get in the way.” A couple of millenniums before that, Aristotle wrote “individuals are so many parts all equally depending on the whole which alone can bring self-sufficiency.” In 2007, Benjamin Barber penned an entire book about how self-centered materialism promotes “private individuals” by stripping them of public citizenship.

When examining right-wing libertarians, gun-proponents and conspiracy theorists, the recurring theme is a complete and utter rejection of what the Greeks called “polis” -- that  is, the collective state, with a common good. Instead of viewing themselves as members of a community, they view themselves as segregated bodies, whose personal interests supersede the needs of society as a whole. In short, they reject true citizenship for a selfish state of so-called “individualism,” completely oblivious to the fact that things like privacy and personal autonomy hinge completely on communal success.

“Idiots do not take part in public life,” Parker continued. “They do not have a public life. In this sense, idiots are immature in the most fundamental way.” Individuals of the like, he writes, never progress through puberty -- in essence, an actual transition to public life.

Libertarians, hardcore Second Right crusaders and conspiracy proponents all share a complete and utter hatred (fear?) of society, with anything even remotely resembling socialist policy turning into acts of governmental oppression and/or tyranny.

The hyper-individualists of today’s America would clearly be objects of scorn in the heyday of Athenian rule -- a society-first organism with immersion into the public, to help further the commonweal, as a top priority. To the Greeks, today’s fringe right-wingers were actually something worse than idiots -- they were cowards, to boot.

The problem the three factions haven’t figured out yet is that, under their policies, there can be no such thing as a social system. The Libertarian utopia would more or less transfer utmost political power into the hands of Big Business -- basically, eliminating one “totalitarian” overlord for one with even less oversight. The radical pro-gun folks -- with their perpetual cry of ‘states rights’ -- would dismantle society for a fascistic state where armed individuals appoint themselves lethal protectorates (which is precisely what has happened in the small town of Gilberton, Pennsylvania.) Perhaps most unsettling of all, the ideal conspiracy theorist state -- the one envisioned by many an Alex Jones supporter -- is a regressive, anarchic anti-society, which fluctuates from being ironically despotic to borderline Stone Age in design.

These individuals are prone to describing socialism as a slippery slope to governmental enslavement. Collectivization, they say, is the first step towards feudalism. Bring up policies that promote a general welfare, and they automatically bring up the NSDAP and Mao’s China. Never mind that both Hitler and Stalin -- clear individualists if there ever were ones -- came to power because of a lack of social cohesion in their soon-to-be-conquered domains. A true citizenry in post World War I Germany, or Russia, or China would have likely prevented hyper-idiots of the like from ever rising to prominence.

Nor should it be stated, I suppose, that it was an extremely collectivistic U.S. society that was responsible for whooping the asses of three individualist states during World War II (and before you give me a spiel about Japan being the prototypical collectivist society, read this and shut your trap.) And of course, never, EVER bring up the fact that tax-funded public projects like the Interstate system and the Internet were single-handedly responsible for allowing individuals in the U.S. to achieve wealth that, otherwise, would have been completely unobtainable.

The federal system -- be it a centralized bank or the Executive Office -- are seen as impositions on the individual instead of mechanisms of the citizenry. Social welfare programs aren’t seen as means of promoting a greater good for society -- that is, aiding others to reach a middle-class state -- but a molestation of individuals, who consider such “redistribution of wealth.” For such individuals, the only moral compass is their own self-importance, which is almost always buttressed by a sense of self-righteousness that borders on vigilantism. Simply put, they believe there should be no such thing as “public” -- an ideal that, perhaps ironically, completely makes the concept of “citizenship” an impossibility.

All three factions, at heart, place their own special interest wants above the needs of the masses. To hell with “the greater good,” they say, instead embracing states of self-autonomy that are secured by materialism, violence or psychosis.  The absolute impossible is what they demand…a state that rejects the idea of a state, a citizenry that rejects the idea of citizenship.

These fringe minorities worship the Bill of Rights, while completely disregarding the United States Constitution that it’s a part of -- you know, that thing that has the Supremacy Clause in it. They bemoan violations of their “rights”  by the government while helping passing legislation that prevents federal agencies from even researching pressing public concerns because it might just call ‘em out on their bullshit. They condemn the feds for fascistic tyranny, and then threaten an armed uprising -- something that doesn’t sound fascistic or tyrannical at all. The government and “the banking system” becomes their proxy for society itself -- that changing, more globalized and indisputably more progressive thing that, try as they may, they just can’t change.

Factional extremism could frighten me, but at the end of the day, I don’t let it. After all…society always moves forward, while the idiots are the ones that always get left behind.

Read More

Why Libertarianism Sucks as an Ideology

A look at the socioeconomic shortcomings of America’s “third” political party

There’s a tremendous line in “Johnny Got His Gun” where Dalton Trumbo assesses the moral issue of “freedom” by exploring it as just one of two possible systems: a world in which everybody gets free ice cream for life, and another where it’s perfectly legal for everybody to steal and loot as much as they want.

A lot of people view “freedom” - that totally indefinable, subjective thing that it is - on a continuum, and perhaps Trumbo’s analysis is a look at the concept from the southern and northernmost poles. That said, Trumbo’s analysis - which posits the matter of freedom as a choice between a socialist, collectivistic utopia where all strive for the bettering of the whole and a capitalistic, individualistic utopia where one is unfettered in his or her struggle to better him or herself - is an utterly compelling idea. The kicker here is when Trumbo asks whether or not it’s worth dying for “liberty.” His response?

Just how much liberty are we talking about here, and whose idea of it?

As a concept, “libertarianism” - or at least, the modern, political definition of it in the U.S. - is an ideology that clearly implies that a world where everyone is free to steal and loot is vastly superior - even more moral, really - than a world were everybody gets free ice cream. To be fair (something that really isn’t looked favorably upon by libertarians,) the collective definition of “libertarianism” is very ill-defined - so much so that, even after years of having my ear talked off by Ron Paul supporters and Ayn Rand fan boys, I’m still not 100 percent sure there IS a mutually-agreed upon definition of “libertarianism” among libertarians themselves. That’s the trouble when you have the egotism to describe yourself as the lone interpreter of something as abstract and shapeless as “liberty,” I suppose.

I’ve struggled to grasp the libertarian ideology for several years now. I really have. The thing is, the same, basic, fundamental, entry-level criticisms of the philosophy I had way back when remain unanswered, now complicated by an ocean of pseudo-philosophical, almost-metaphysical lectures on “natural rights” and countless hours of pointless chatter about the ills of the Federal Reserve Board.

I guess you could say that libertarians are what happens when you take the absolute most annoying aspects of conservatism and slam them headlong into the most annoying aspects of liberalism. Like liberals, they constantly whine as if they’re being victimized 24 hours a day, and like conservatives, they perpetually lecture from their ivory podiums about how socioeconomics is virtually deterministic, while somehow denying the existence of “classism” as an American institution. Sticking your ear inside an air conditioner for several hours is ultimately a more enlightening procedure than having a libertarian explain his or her stance to you for just a few minutes.

While a comprehensive analysis of libertarianism as a concrete political philosophy is wholly impossible, I have noted what seem to be a very short list of things that a majority of the libertarians I have encountered consider to be nailed-down planks in their ideology. To the best of my knowledge, the following five things are accepted as universal truths by all libertarians:

- Everything about the state is bad, and everything about the market is good.
- Property rights are more important than the rights of people.
- Collectivization, in any and all incarnations, is bad.
- Regulation of everything/anything is bad.
- Economics should take precedence over social matters.

Granted, it’s a very short-handed analysis of the moral doctrine, by what the hell, “libertarianism” is a pretty short-handed moral doctrine anyway. Taken as a whole, I guess you could say that the overlying assumption of modern “libertarianism” is that economics, lacking any and all state intervention, results in the “best” possible social system. Now, one thing you will NEVER hear a libertarian say is that their ideology is a “fair” or “equitable” one; when examining the beneficiaries of a hypothetical “libertarian society,” there’s a couple at the very top of the list, and a whole hell of a lot of people that would be much, much worse off than they are at the current. Try asking a libertarian how their ideology would better serve the elderly and the poor, and you’ll learn pretty much everything you need to know about the “morality” of libertarianism as a concept.

If there’s anything out there that approaches a “golden rule” for libertarians, it’s this equation right here: “Government = Bad, Market = Good.” Tautologically, any and all forms of state intervention are inherently horrible, and any and all aftereffects of the market are inherently groovy. If the government passes legislation that ensures all Americans can receive healthcare, it’s bad, but if an economic meltdown causes a third of the nation to dip into poverty, it’s good, you see, because the market is a “natural force” that cannot, and should not, be meddled with by the hands of state interventionists. There’s really no such thing as an atheistic libertarian, because every one I’ve encountered acts as if the free market is some sort of supernatural deity above and beyond the meddling of human hands.

Core beliefs are important in determining the ingrained purpose of any ideology, and for libertarians, there is no loftier aspiration for man that self-gratification. Collectivism can never, in any capacity, be a positive, and a wholehearted dedication to self-interests is always justifiable. The problem with libertarianism here is that, while it could conceivably make for a great personal philosophy (especially if you want to be an insufferable jerk), there’s no way in hell you could ever create a mass, political movement anchored around “self-interests” as opposed to collective needs. The whole point of government is to be a force of social intervention, and when the creamy, nougat-laced core of your political doctrine is that social intervention shouldn’t exist, just how in the blue hell are you going to create a social system that doesn’t besmirch your own philosophical underpinnings?

That’s sort of the logical time bomb within “libertarianism” as a cultural philosophy: it may work in very reduced sectors - like, say, a personal economic philosophy - but as a comprehensive, mass utility, like a political ideology? It simply can’t cover all the essential bases. A major, major component of libertarianism as an attempt at political philosophy automatically discounts those that are economically dependent on the state - which, as our good buddy Mitt informed us earlier this year, constitutes a sizable portion of the U.S. population. American libertarians, inherently, speak only for a certain subset of the total nation’s population - but last time I checked, egalitarianism was never an utmost concerns for these people, anyway.

Libertarians say they are all for the “rights of the individual.” Weed and prostitution should be completely legal, people should be able to carry semi-automatic weapons into fast food restaurants and the rights of business-operators should take complete and utter precedence over civil rights legislation. The fallacy here is the assumption that the “decriminalization” of certain social behaviors will result in the decline of clearly-negative social behaviors. Call me skeptical, but I don’t think the decriminalization of methamphetamine will necessarily result in lower instances of copper theft, nor do I believe that the legalization of hooking will magically result in a downturn in urban homicides. The libertarian ideal is that people can effectively “police themselves.” Well, one trip to Vine City in Atlanta ought to be all the experiencing you need to realize that’s something that ain’t ever going to happen in these United States.

The rusted screw in the heart of libertarianism is that it’s an inherently prejudiced ideology. It favors those that have wealth, or at least, those that THINK they are in the position to become millionaires, at some point. Ironically, just about every libertarian I have ever talked to has been, at best, middle class - in other words, people that have more in common, from a socioeconomic standpoint, with Al Bundy than they do F.A. Hayek. Believing in libertarianism requires an individual to either COMPLETELY discredit the idea of social stratification in American culture, or even worse, acknowledge it as an immutable, or even positive, symptom of the free market. Not only is there no place for the underclass in libertarian philosophy, it’s a sector of the human race that libertarians simply refuse to acknowledge as significant.

Every now and then, a libertarian will tell you a horror story about how the big, bad state completely ruined some common man’s life through strict regulatory measures. Almost always, they react as if the fining of a dude out in the middle of nowhere for EPA violations is twenty Holocausts combined with fifty 9/11s, but when the discussion turns to the much, much more widespread and entrenched effects of economic inequality, suddenly, you can hear a rat pee on cotton. Any and all measures intended to address, or even acknowledge, the existence of economic inequity is branded as “wealth redistribution,” which is almost always described by libertarians as an act of federally-backed theft. Alas, those same libertarians become suspiciously mute when you bring up the countless incidents of corporate theft that have transpired over the last 30 years, in which billions of dollars were literally plucked out of the portfolios of employees. The next time a libertarian tells you that the Sixteenth Amendment is no different than pick-pocketing, try asking them what they think about “Enron” and “Lehman Brothers.” Bonus points if said libertarian accepts federal student aid, of course.

Libertarians are OBSESSED with property. They won’t back the spending of federal money to open up homeless shelters, but by golly, they will fight to the death to ensure that homeless people maintain their right to the socks on their feet and the caps on their head. Unless of course, those items are stolen, naturally. They worship businesses - especially multinationals - as if they were saints of the market. What’s good for them, they always say, is good for the nation, because they are the country’s primary job generators, right? Surprisingly, libertarians don’t have much to say when those same multinationals take American shops - and with it, American jobs - and relocate to southeast Asia to save a few dimes and nickels on taxes. Instead, it becomes a diverted spiel about how taxation and regulation - and NOT the greed of human-rights abusing conglomerates, which are already virtually immune to governmental oversight - is to blame for why so many Americans are jobless.

The absolute most damning criticism I can think of regarding “libertarianism” is that it isn’t designed to address socioeconomic problems, let alone make an attempt to remedy them. Libertarians view socioeconomic forces as these inalterable patterns of nature, things that morally shouldn’t be messed around with by state interventionists. At the end of the day, this is basically and endorsement of class stratification, through and through. If you’re born in good socioeconomic standing, then you deserve to succeed and become as rich as your parents, and if you’re born in shitty socioeconomic standing, then you deserve to be as poor and uneducated as your parents. Public schools shouldn’t get money from the haves to turn the underclass into thoughtful individuals, and subsidized welfare programs that ensure basic necessities for the poor - you know, really unimportant shit, like “food” and “medicine” - are wholly immoral because it diverts revenue from the less needy AND disrupts the “natural order” of the free market. Of course, libertarians say that they aren’t entirely heartless, and that they’re all in favor of helping out the downtrodden, just as long as it’s through private funding. And if you sincerely think that a world in which Medicaid and EBT is replaced by “non-coercive, voluntary” private investments is going to result in a more efficient and humane social welfare state in America, I sincerely hope you wake up tomorrow in the Appalachian Mountains, with dirt-stained feet and two teeth in your skull. I’m sure those charitable donations will begin rolling up the hillside any minute, won’t they?

At the end of the day, I think “libertarianism” is, at best, a quasi-effective individual reasoning tool for selfish jerks, and at worst, a completely wrongheaded, elitist, borderline segregationist (hell, borderline eugenicist, to some degree) muddle of a philosophy that’s only mildly less dangerous as a nationalized ideology than a Roman Candle pointed at a box of oily rags in front of a space heater.

Of course, I expect plenty of well-thought out, academically-sound, evidence-based responses as to why my assertions are wrong. I wouldn’t expect anything less, naturally, from a consortium of people that would prefer legalized robbery to a lifetime supply of ice cream…

Read More

PROPAGANDA REVIEW: The Spring 2012 Issue of “The Undercurrent”

Do a bunch of Ayn-Rand adoring dweebs and dorks have anything worthwhile to say about the Occupy Movement and the Ron Paul Revolution? As if you didn’t already know the answer…

You know, one of the great things about college that nobody ever really talks about is that it’s probably the most opportune time of your life to get a hold of some down right crazy-ass newspapers put out by fringe ideologists. Over the last four years, I’ve tried samples of the best journalism the communists, anarchists, radical vegans and Jehovah Witnesses of North America have to offer, so consider me extremely enthused upon finding the latest copy of “The Undercurrent” at my campus.

What, you’ve never heard of “The Undercurrent,” the internationally printed alternative campus newspaper based on the writings of Ayn Rand? Well, you, my friend, don’t know what you’re missing.

Before we can delve into the contents of the newspaper (a term I use with an almost Madonna-esque level of looseness, by the way) I suppose a brief primer on my relations with the almighty Ayn are needed. Admittedly, I’ve never read an Ayn Rand book from start to finish, for the exact same reason I’ve never shoved a cactus up my rectum (one of these days, though, I promise I’ll watch “Atlas Shrugged,” if only for the straight up Schadenfreude value.) From what I’ve collected however, Rand is an absolutely heinous, heavy-handed author with a complete lack of tact, sense of characterization, or even the basic ability to weave together a coherent story that isn’t bogged down in hundreds of pages of self-connilinguising (it’s sort of like self-fellating, if you were wondering) nonsense. If the only thing I could charge Rand with was being a turd-tastic writer, I probably wouldn’t even waste my time with such a trifle. That said, Rand’s fans - both past and present - have turned that beady-eyed hack into something well worth deconstructing and debasing in a public forum.

I’ve always considered Ayn Rand to political philosophy what L. Ron Hubbard is to astrophysics. There really isn’t anything that Russian windbag said that has any sort of bearing on real life economics or public policy, but the same way thousands of Scientologists will tell you that there are alien microbes in our blood stream and that the planet was created when Martians dropped a nuke in a volcano, the “Objectivists” out there will tell you that ALL of our socio-political woes could be remedied if ONLY we took “The Fountainhead” to heart. This, I suppose, is sort of like framing a military defense strategy around the works of Dr. Seuss.

A lot of people call “Objectivists” a political cult, and they’re probably right. Of course, the adherents of Rand’s philosophy/utter bullshit will regularly criticize Marxists and religious folks of all sorts for basing their political beliefs on the dogmatic scripture of certain texts, but what do you know? Objectivists, you see, are exempt from accusations of “hypocrisy,” because their philosophy, they are quick to tell you, is based on “reason.” In fact, “Objectivists” seem to corner the market in terms of rationality, owning and possessing the one true path to self-enlightenment, the same way all of those naïve Christians and Muslims believe THEY own and possess the one true path to self-enlightenment in terms of morality.

So, I reckon I’m being quite forthright with all of you when I say I think Ayn Rand, Objectivism and pretty much everything associated with the terms is pretty stupid, contradictory and generally mendacious, before I even get into digesting the contents of “The Undercurrent.” I’m not claiming to give anybody a fair, impartial or unbiased review here…which, at the end of the day, makes me more commendable under Rand’s own philosophy than just ANYBODY that claims to be a follower of  “Objectivism” (and certainly, any of the dorks and dorkettes penning propaganda for this literary abomination.)

The first thing you’ll notice about the Spring 2012 issue of the newspaper (outside of realizing that it isn’t Darth Vader on the cover) is that it seems to be attacking two of my favorite popular causes, the Occupy Movement AND Ron Paul-a-Mania. For a few seconds, I actually gave the paper (really, more of a pamphlet if we’re trying to be technical here) the benefit of the doubt, and assumed that the commentary therein may have actually been…well, not all that awful and shitty.

The point to take away here? Even when they get it empirically “right,” the Objectivists still find a way to suck and sound like utter and complete jerk-holes.

Let’s begin with the feature story, shall we? According to Valery Publius (a boss monster in the Game Boy version of “Kid Icarus,” I do believe) the Occupy Movement is stupid, pointless and counterintuitive because the kids don’t have any designated cultural leaders, a concrete set of demands in regards to social change and ESPECIALLY because of their hypocritical celebration of guys like Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg. In other words, Publius is pretty much right on the money…that is, until she decides to say all of that damn brotherhood is what’s really keeping the youth of today down.

“By maintaining that each of us is his ‘brother’s keeper,” she writes, “this code has tied productive people to the ‘needs’ of the derelict through the chains of guilt.” This, it is to be noted, is situated RIGHT ABOVE an ad for…and I shit you not…a sex life-improvement manifesto based on Rand’s teachings.

Oh, Objectivism: the only pseudo-philosophical movement in history in which "beatin' it" is considered an act of valor.

As far as the rest of Publius’ rant goes, she rolls out the old platitudes we’ve heard a million, billion times before. Blah-blah-blah, “the Founding Fathers were actually Objectivists,” blah-blah-blah, “the motive power of human action,” blah-blah-blah. She concludes her spiel with a lengthy quote from “Atlas Shrugged,” which I will summarize accordingly: “Be a money-grubbing prick, and things will be all right.” Come to think of it, that pretty much summarizes her entire bibliography, if we were being honest about it.

Considering the sizable Ron Paul following amidst the Objectivists of America, I was somewhat surprised to see an article penned by Nicholas Marquiss (who looks sort of like that kid that we all know that used to eat boogers at recess for other kids’ milk money) take the contrarian stance and actually criticize the libertarian icon. Unfortunately, Marquiss’ disagreements with Paul’s platform is limited to simply disputing his pacifist stance against military actions directed towards Iran. I really ought to draw up a picture of Carl Winslow taking a step outside a door that reads “exit,” because this shit right here is a real “cop-out” if there ever was one. 

According to Dorkface McDweeb, America's education system would be a lot better if it was more like the music industry. Really.

There are a couple of more articles in there, but they really don’t contain anything of note. Some guy named Noah Stahl writes about how things would be better if we focused on fundamentals  as an abstract , all-purpose principle (an idea that no one has ever thought of before, of course) and Alexander Hrin says some boring bullshit about energy regulation. Our good buddy Marquiss actually has an additional essay in there, in which he considers “state-sponsored-schools” (we used to call them “public” ones) to be “enemies of liberty.” Seeing as how it’s never explicitly stated whether or not Publius (who is described as a “teacher in the American South”  in her bio) works for a private or public institute, does that make the staff of “The Undercurrent” such “enemies of liberty” by association? According to their own philosophical dogma, the answer appears to be a resounding “heck yeah.”

You know, you really don’t need me to tell you that “The Undercurrent” is a crappy newsletter. That, I suppose, would be readily apparent to anyone with a working set of eyeballs. That said, I would STILL recommend that you give it a glance if you ever see a stray copy floating around, if only to see some case study-worthy examples of just how dry, logically circular and utterly irrelevant Rand’s philosophy is to the modern state of American affairs. I mean, the best writers these guys could find were a bunch of bifocal-sporting dweebs with early 1990s haircuts that excel only in demonstrating the fallacy of reductio de absurdum, so that ought to give you a pretty clear picture of the kinds of wannabe-capitalistic-supermen that home in on this crap like dung beetles on an overturned outhouse.

That said, I will say that, at the end of the day, I did find the “The Undercurrent” to be an excellent paper of an entirely different variety, however…

Hankering for some more critiques of libertarian lunacy? 

Check out my review of “The Morality of Capitalism” RIGHT HERE!

Read More

The Many Similarities Between Gangster Rappers And Republicans

The shocking number of parallels between the Grand Old Party and the world of hardcore gangsta' rap

At first glance, it would not seem like hardcore conservative Republicans and hardcore gangster rappers would have that much in common. In fact, it sort of seems like the two are exact opposites, if not ideologically, than definitely as far as skin tones go.

               

But once you get past the superficialities and really examine the two populations, you walk away with a rather startling revelation: for all intents and purposes, republicans and gangster rappers hold pretty much the same ideologies, and behave in practically identical fashions.

               

On the surface, it seems like there would be a WORLD of differences between the GOP and OPP, but in reality, it’s kind of difficult to separate one culture from the other. What do I mean, precisely? Well, just take a look at the uncanny similarities for yourself:

Both are ardent supporters of capitalism, free trade and unregulated commerce

“We have to make it easier for people to do the things that allow them to rise. We have to let them compete. We need to let people fight for business. We need to let people take risks. We need to let people fail. We need to let people suffer the consequences of bad decisions. And we need to let people enjoy the fruits of good decisions, even good luck.

That is what economic freedom looks like. Freedom to succeed as well as to fail, freedom to do something or nothing. People understand this. Freedom of speech, for example, means that we put up with a lot of verbal and visual garbage in order to make sure that individuals have the right to say what needs to be said, even when it is inconvenient or unpopular. We forgive the sacrifices of free speech because we value its blessings.

But when it comes to economic freedom, we are less forgiving of the cycles of growth and loss, of trial and error, and of failure and success that are part of the realities of the marketplace and life itself.”

Jeb Bush, “Capitalism and the Right to Rise” (2011)

“You don’t have to respect a nigga’ but respect his cash / ‘cause for the money, niggaz will murder ‘dat ass”

50 Cent, “Power of the Dollar” (1999)

Both are known for making homophobic and misogynistic statements

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.”

Rick Santorum, “On Lawrence v. Texas” (2003)

“Here is a bachelor comin' straight at ‘ya / I see trim and bag it, take it home and rag it /
the Big Daddy law is anti-faggot / that means no homosexuality.”

Big Daddy Kane, “Pimpin’ Ain’t Easy” (1989)

“I tell you, you women, why don’t you just make it official, put on some burqas?

And I’ll guaran-damn-tee you nobody’ll touch you. You put on a burqa, and everybody’ll leave you alone, if that’s what you want.”

Rush Limbaugh, “In Defense of Herman Cain” (2011)

“And we walked over to the ho / she continued to speak / so we beat the bitch down in the goddamn street.”

Ice T, “6 ‘N The Mornin’” (1986)

Both claim to be deeply religious, despite promoting hypocritical behaviors and ideals 

"It's vile. It's more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction. "

Mark Foley, "On the Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal" (1998)

 

 "Maf54: I may be now that your coming
Maf54: who you coming to visit
Teen:   haha good stuff
Teen:   umm no one really
Maf54: we will be adjourned ny then
Teen:   oh good
Maf54: by
Maf54: then we can have a few drinks
Maf54: lol
Teen:   yes yes ;-)
Maf54: your not old enough to drink
Teen:   shhh…
Maf54: ok
Teen:   that’s not what my ID says
Teen:   lol
Maf54: ok
Teen:   I probably shouldn’t be telling you that huh
Maf54: we may need to drink at my house so we don’t get busted"

   

Mark Foley, "IM Conversation" (2003)

"God gave me style / God gave me grace / God put a smile on my face, ha-ha" 

50 Cent, "God Gave Me Style" (2005)

"Y'all niggaz know know what I'm about / Fuck with my dough, then the guns come out."

 50 Cent, "Gunz Come Out" (2005) 

Both REALLY seem to like the Second Amendment

"I get asked sometimes where do I stand on the Second and 10th Amendment, and I have a little saying...we need a sign at every harbor, every airport and every road entering our state: 'You're entering a 10th Amendment-owned and -operated state, and justice will be served with the Second Amendment.'"

Mike McCalister, "Palms West Republican Club Speech" (2011)


"Goddamn, another payback with a twist / the motherfuckers shot but the punks missed / Ice Cube is outgunned / what's the outcome? / Will they do me like Malcolm...I deal with the devil with my motherfucking steel..." 

Ice Cube, "When Will They Shoot?" (1992)

Both aren’t known for being too friendly to Hispanics, Asians or Jews

“Indeed, of the last seven justices nominated by Democrats JFK, LBJ, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, one was black, Marshall; one was Puerto Rican, Sonia Sotomayor. The other five were Jews: Arthur Goldberg, Abe Fortas, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan...if Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats...is this the Democrats' idea of diversity?”

Pat Buchanan, “Are Liberals Anti-WASP?” (2010)

“Pregnant Asian women pay $15,000 to agents to ensure they are in the United States when their child is born so that they can return home secure in the knowledge he or she will be a U.S. citizen with the right to a U.S.-taxpayer subsidized education in college.”

Pat Buchanan, “Is This Our America Anymore?” (2010)

“Aliens granted amnesty by the DREAM Act will have the legal right to petition for entry of their family members, including their adult brothers and sisters and the parents who illegally brought or sent them to the United States, once they become naturalized U.S. citizens. In less than a decade, this reality could easily double or triple the 2.1 million green cards that will be immediately distributed as a result of the DREAM Act”

Jeff Sessions, “DREAM Act Rewards Illegal Immigration” (2010)

"Crucifixion ain't no fiction / So called chosen frozen / Apology made to whoever pleases / Still they got me like Jesus"

Public Enemy, “Welcome to the Terrordome” (1990)

"Every time I want to go get a fucking brew / I gotta' go down to the store with the two / Oriental one-penny-counting motherfuckers / They make a nigga' mad enough to cause a little ruckus."

Ice Cube, "Black Korea" (1991)

“…I’ll stab yo ass / quicker than a Mexican…”

Geto Boys, "Mind of a Lunatic" (1989)

Both are proponents of cultural insulation and elitism

"You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness. We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny."

Ronald Reagan, "A Time For Choosing" (1964)

"Niggaz ain't ready for war / to blast me / ask me / if I give two shits / if you ain't Pharoahs / Q.D. / my kids or my bitch"

Army of the Pharoahs, "Dump the Clip" (2007)

Both promote “family values,” despite rarely practicing them

"I believe they are awful and I have worked with them, but you are not going to argue here that out-of-wedlock pregnancy and related things are less damaging overall to a life's career than somebody who has been sexually harassed, which, by the way, may also occur in the teen pregnancy and the out-of-wedlock or non-married sexual activity."

Mark Souder, "Cervical Cancer and Human Papillomavirus Subcommittee Hearing" (2004)

"In this poisonous environment of Washington, D.C., any personal failing is seized upon, often twisted, for political gain. I am resigning rather than to put my family through that painful, drawn-out process. ... We are a committed family but the error is mine and I should bear the responsibility. Not only am I thankful for a loving family but for a loving God."

Mark Souder, "Indiana Rep. Resigns After Affair with Staffer" (2010)

"But your host can't stand me / Wu-Tang for the kids, bust them off for family"

O.D.B., "Lift Ya Skirt" (2003) 

"According to the Brooklyn District Attorney's office, O.D.B. (who was born Russell Jones and recently adopted the moniker Big Baby Jesus) stepped before the judge and signed an agreement to pay $35,000 in back child support owed to Icelene Jones, the mother of three of his many children. The District Attorney says that the total amount owed was actually higher than that, but that $35,000 is the amount deemed acceptable by the family and the court. He is due back in court on July 24 to make sure that the agreement is honored."

"O.D.B. Pledges To Pay Child Support in Court" (1998)

They accept SOME people of color as honorary members

 “While some African Americans who have been characterized as an honorary White have light skin, e.g., Colin Powell…these are neither sufficient nor necessary for the status. Condoleeza Rice, the Secretary of State under George W. Bush, for example, has relatively dark skin and features associated with African descent but has been characterized as an honorary White based on her forms of speaking and self-presentation, her success in elite, White-dominated institutions, and her conservative political positions.”

Benjamin Bailey, “Language, Power, Race and Class” (2010)

"Eminem is actually quite pale and blond so this latter comparison appears to confer on him an honorary Black status within hip hop." 

H. Samy Alim, Awad Ibrahim and Alastair Pennycock, "Global Linguistics Flows" (2009)

Both seem to LOVE Machiavellianism  

"Schlesinger was just one of dozens of presidential advisers who behaved like little Machiavellis in the years when revolutions in Vietnam and Latin America brought hysterical responses on the part of the U.S. government. These intellectuals could see no better role for themselves than to serve national power.

Kissinger, secretary of state to Nixon, did not even have the mild qualms of Schlesinger. He surrendered himself with ease to the princes of war and destruction. In private discussions with old colleagues from Harvard who thought the Vietnam War immoral, he presented himself as someone trying to bring it to an end, but in his official capacity he was the willing intellectual tool of a policy that involved the massive killing of civilians in Vietnam.

Kissinger approved the bombing and invasion of Cambodia, an act so disruptive of the delicate Cambodian society that it can be considered an important factor in the rise of the murderous Pol Pot regime in that country. After he and the representatives of North Vietnam had negotiated a peace agreement to end the war in late 1972, he approved the breaking off of the talks and the brutal bombardment of residential districts in Hanoi by the most ferocious bombing plane of the time, the B52."

 

Howard Zinn, "Machiavellian Realism and U.S. Foreign Policy: Means and Ends" (1991)

“Makavelli in this? Killuminati / All through your body/ it blows like a 12 gage shotty"

2Pac, "Hail Mary" (1997)

With both, criminality seems to come with the territory

"People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook. I've earned everything I've got."

Richard Nixon, "On Watergate" (1973)

"Damn it feels good to be a gangster /a real gangster-ass nigga plays his cards right /a real-gangster ass nigga never runs his fuckin' mouth / cause gangster-ass niggaz don't start a fight"

Geto Boys, "Damn It Feels Good To Be A Gangster" (1992)

Well, that last one does indicate one major difference between the two groups: primarily, the fact that gangster rappers are at least honest about their inherent hypocrisies and dirty dealings.

Read More