Why the Right is Full of Shite

THE DEVIL [mortified] Señor Don Juan: you are uncivil to my friends.

DON JUAN. Pooh! why should I be civil to them or to you? In this Palace of Lies a truth or two will not hurt you. Your friends are all the dullest dogs I know….

~ George Bernard Shaw – Man & Superman, Act III, “Don Juan in Hell” (1903)

Ladies and Gentlemen, meet the douchebag I am about to be uncivil to:

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. A former senior political writer for United Press International, he is currently a senior fellow at the Institute for Liberty and at Let Freedom Ring, a non-partisan public policy organization. His writing has also appeared on Fox News’ Fox Forum.

Another mental midget of the Right, incapable of serious thought, a walking, squinchy compendium of talking points, bumper stickers and a wasted education, he is the poster boy for all of the right-wing idiocy and hypocrisy that has followed in the wake of the death of Andrew Breitbart.

Time for some fisking, because, really, this is what the entire response of the rabid reich-wing has stood for: imbecility masquerading as martyrdom. Emphasis on “dumb.” To wit(less):

Andrew Breitbart a Pioneer Journalist Who Stood Up to Liberal Media

U.S News and World Report (shame be eternally upon them)
March 1, 2012

The old saying about the weather—everyone talks about it but no one does anything about it—used to also apply to the problem of liberal bias in the establishment media. Lots of conservatives complain about it, many of them even seem to enjoy doing so, but few actually do anything about it.

“Liberal bias in the establishment media” is such a hackneyed piece of garbage that only a brainwashed buffoon would have the effrontery to believe that it actually even MEANT something, but this buffrontery would be unworthy of a baboon. “Establishment”? Like Righties are the “hippies” fighting against “The Man”?

Puhleeze! For all but four of the last 32 years, the GOP has controlled either the White House or one house (minimum) of Congress. Making them the “outsiders”?

The continuing error of the “outsiders” is that what they mistake for “liberalism” is cowed incompetence, which, if one were to reasonably mistake for ANYTHING, it would surely be the non-evidentiary cloud-cuckooland fantasies of the “conservatives.” (And note that to them “liberalism” isn’t an actual ideology, it is merely negative space. If it doesn’t fall on its knees and worship at the false altar of Reagan — which has nothing to do with the actual terms of Ronnie — then it must be “liberal,” which is intoned with a venom formerly reserved for the N-word.)

Get a grip, monkey-boy. If ANY-one is the “establishment” it’s Peter Roff. Got that? Good. We continue (and I am reprinting the entire execrable essay, so that we may treasure every scream of horror as children and women cry “Dear GOD, what is that THING?”):

Andrew Breitbart, who left us early Thursday morning unexpectedly and far too soon, was different. Rather than simply complain, he established something approximating an electronic and social media empire on the Internet that, it needs to be said, changed journalism in America.

No: he didn’t change journalism in America. That’s hyperbolic nonsense. Period. Try again.

It’s not just that Breitbart did it well. He did it with an energy and passion and determination that made him the equal of the left, which even in his death continues to express its hate for him with a passion. As former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld—himself no stranger to controversy—tweeted, “Andrew Breitbart never shied from controversy. He was one of conservatism’s most forceful spokesmen and will be greatly missed.”

Really? His barbarism in “taking out” Anthony Weiner — not through his arguments, but, rather, through the most scrofulous form of electronic peepery — is a) clearly NOT “journalism,” nor b) was his “forceful” arrogation of the podium at Weiner’s resignation announcement anything OTHER than a barbaric display of utter abrogration of civility that no civilized human ought do other than condemn.

He pulled this crap again and again, and no “civilized” person had the good sense to cold-cock the brute. Happily, Ghod took care of that oversight. And quoting Rummy as any sort of “moral” arbiter would seem utterly laughable in light of his decision to abrogate 230 years of American policy and tradition to engage in torture.

Through his various websites and media appearances, Breitbart broke stories. Without him, for example, former Rep. Anthony Weiner might still today be in Congress and on the way to being mayor of New York City. He was ruthless in his pursuit of truth, a rare quality among the left-leaning establishment press, which more often carries the agenda of bigger government forward rather than questioning it.

Anthony Weiner’s only sin was that he stood up to bullies LIKE Breitbart, who had to find some sleazy way to destroy him outside the boundaries of civil discourse or debate, and succeeded, hoping to (along with morons like Mr. Roth) destroy his marriage as well. Merely removing Weiner from the public stage was not enough, and that’s not a “forceful spokesman.” No: that’s being an assassin and a thug — as in “Thugee.

This is so verdantly scrofulous and corrupt that it seems a minor feat to have packed so much blatant, errant psychotic nonsense into a single paragraph.

Scrofulous is precisely the term for it, too: “scrofulous – morally contaminated; “denounce the scrofulous wealth of the times”- J.D.Hart immoral; deliberately violating accepted principles of right and wrong.

“He was ruthless in his pursuit of truth, a rare quality among the left-leaning establishment press” is a grammatical outage (not “outrage”). To hold “ruthlessness” in pursuit of “truth” as a POSITIVE is, in context, a justification for torture, spying and extortion. All of which Breitbart demonstrably engaged in. Again, the means justifying the ends.

This conservative dimbulb seems to believe that the ends justify the means, which entailed falsification and tactics that would make the scumbags at the National Enquirer blanch. Only a mindless hypocrite would embrace this sad, sordid legacy and THEN decry any perceived incivility to the dead  Breitbart as awful and horrible — as the entire Reich-Wing blogosmear has delighted in, from before the moment that rigor mortis actually set in.

They come not to bury Breitbart but to fight the preconceived notion that anyone watching his barbaric, childish bullying tactics, his deceptively-edited tapes, his wanton destruction of lives and careers, and his utter hatred for the “left” — that he engaged in with the feral glee of a hydrophobic dog — and for days now, they have publicly masturbated to their fantasy that all should be properly civil to the dead brute. In the MOST uncivil of terms.

“Breitbart broke stories” is precisely correct, albeit not in the manner that our felching necrophile “journalist” conservative seems to believe.

“which more often carries the agenda of bigger government forward rather than questioning it” is a slur stereotype that is mindlessly accepted by the mindless, but is idiotic to anyone capable of rational thought who does not masturbate to the speeches in Atlas Shrugged.

The trope that “Establishment Liberal Journalists” carry the water for “Big Government” (implicitly because their “liberalism” makes them either willing or unwilling dupes) is sheerest bad science fiction. Like foaming-at-the-mouth TV “prophets” they find justifications for their apocalyptic mentality in every news item, somehow linking it back to the babbling nonsense of a book that no one has ever been able to make heads or tails of. (I speak of Atlas Shrugged and not The Revelation of St. John, since there IS some meaning that can be derived from the latter.)

And now, the pièce de résistance from the pièce de shite writer:

There are others who knew him better, worked with him more closely, and are in a better position to comment on him as a person. His accomplishments as a journalist pioneer, however, are evident for everyone to see. He paved the way for a new generation of conservative writers and pundits, taught many of us how to use social media as an effective communications tool, and, in the end, made a difference. Few of us can probably think of a better epitaph.

They’re evident, all right. But the evidence is that Andrew Breitbart resurrected the ruthless blood-lust of the Neanderthal or Cro-Magnon raider and adopted it to new technology. No student of history, or of ethics or of morality can embrace his modus operandi without abandoning any lessons derived FROM those studies.

If he paved a way then the road he paved was wide and the “good intentions” espoused are those espoused by the first character quoted at the beginning of this essay.

I attempted to be respectful at the demise of Breitbart, but the license it has given his admirers for rapine pillage in the arenas of public discourse abrogate any attempt at respect for the dead. Since ANY dissing of dead Andy would be ramped up and megaphoned from the rafters as the conservative monkeys gleefully threw their feces, the actual display was not surprising, except in the universality and fervency of that flinging.

Which is Andrew Breitbart’s true epitaph. Legitimate journalists everywhere were chary about announcing his death — because Breitbart’s HOAXES were so ubiquitous that no one wanted to be caught in yet another one.  That is the first epitaph.

The second is from morons like this idiot, who have twisted truth, nobility, moral purpose and the very foundations of American democracy into the Roman gladiatorial arena in which the only important spectacle is the death and dismemberment of the contestants, without regard to who they are as PERSONS — only that they are the negatively-defined “liberals” just as Jerry Falwell once defined anyone who didn’t accept HIS reading of the Bible as “secular humanists,” a term coined by that demon-spawn while on his way to worm-food.

Now, Andrew Breitbart is food for the worms, and I doubt seriously that the worms will survive his toxicity any more than the targets of his psychotic hatred did.

The necrophiles at Breitbart’s “media empire” are now reprinting essays on his toxic hatred of the President of the United States, and, thus, civility is no longer in order, as it ceased to be in order after a thousand essays like Mr. Roth’s.

I will not comment on the latest one in THIS essay, save to say that Mr. Breitbart has proven, posthumously, that he was every bit as lousy a drama critic as he was a lousy human being. I leave it to the worms to comment on how tasteful he might be, although I doubt it will be any less so than his reprinted essay, whose opening refrain of purest equine fecal matter I reproduce here:

THE VETTING, PART I: BARACK’S LOVE SONG TO ALINSKY

by Andrew Breitbart

Prior to his passing, Andrew Breitbart said that the mission of the Breitbart empire was to exemplify the free and fearless press that our Constitution protects–but which, increasingly, the mainstream media denies us…

Utter garbage. (Or, as I have noted before: Occam’s Dull Razor tells us:  Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained just as well by stupidity. See “At the Mountains of Madness,” which applies here, as well).

Let us conclude, instead, with Mr. G.B. Shaw, who has written a better epitaph for Mr. Breitbart than could I or Mr. Peter Roth:

Nothing would flatter him more than your opinion of him. He loves to think of himself as bold and bad. He is neither one nor the other: he is only a coward. Call him tyrant, murderer, pirate, bully; and he will adore you, and swagger about with the consciousness of having the blood of the old sea kings in his veins. Call him liar and thief; and he will only take an action against you for libel. But call him coward; and he will go mad with rage: he will face death to outface that stinging truth. Man gives every reason for his conduct save one, every excuse for his crimes save one, every plea for his safety save one; and that one is his cowardice. [ibid.]

For in the end, Breitbart was not a swaggering bully, nor some great innovator. No: in the end he was and remains a coward.

He should enjoy his new domicile in Hell very much, I believe.

Courage.

================

A writer, published author, novelist, literary critic and political observer for a quarter of a quarter-century more than a quarter-century, Hart Williams has lived in the American West for his entire life. Having grown up in Wyoming, Kansas and New Mexico, a survivor of Texas and a veteran of Hollywood, Mr. Williams currently lives in Oregon, along with an astonishing amount of pollen. He has a lively blog His Vorpal Sword. This is cross-posted from his blog.

Bookmark and Share

About Hart Williams

Mr. Williams grew up in Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas and New Mexico. He lived in Hollywood, California for many years. He has been published in The Washington Post, The Kansas City Star, The Santa Fe Sun, The Los Angeles Free Press, Oui Magazine, New West, and many, many more. A published novelist and a filmed screenwriter, Mr. Williams eschews the decadence of Hollywood for the simple, wholesome goodness of the plain, honest people of the land. He enjoys Luis Buñuel documentaries immensely.
Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.