When I started this blog what feels like a lifetime ago, back in that innocent time when fascism was a joke nobody took seriously & I mostly wrote ’bout laissy libertarians ’cause ’twas hipper & they still had some relevancy back then, the 1st article I wrote was “Conservative Political Correctness”, ( this was also before such hip terms like “SJW”, which has now completely usurped the term “PC” ) making fun o’ the hypocrisy o’ conservatives who criticized leftists who… have morals that they believe in & care fervently ’bout & how conservatives could be, naturally, quite peevish ’bout having their sacred cows like capitalism, Christianity ( which comes 2nd, ’course — let’s be honest here ), or o’erpriced, low-quality fast-food chicken mocked, e’en tho these things deserve it mo’ ’cause 1, they’re mo’ powerful, & 2, they’re older & therefore obviously less sexy than religions like Hylianism or economic systems like dommunism, — only reactionaries still like communism, get with the 21st century — which is a government-controlled market place that operates entirely on voluntary S&M trades — that trade mainly being o’ the product known as “cum”. You can learn mo’ ’bout this in the latest Robert Heinlein novel.

Anyway, that article was badly-written & is full o’ cringe, which is why I didn’t link to it. I think I recommended people “expand their minds” by reading that dumb Britain-worshipping Richard Dawkins, who was dumb ’nough to put up Shakespeare o’ all people as “evidence” that Britain has the best poets, e’en tho Shakespeare’s poetry is his worst work that clings sickeningly close to that incessant iambic pentameter, which to a largely-atheist internet crowd is like recommend white rock fans expand their minds by listening to Metallica. You should read Proudhon, tho, as he came up with a lot o’ interesting economic questions that mainstream hacks like Keynes & Marx ripped off & watered down as they clung to classical economics¹.

Anyway, years later I wrote a marginally better article, “People Who Criticize “Social Justice Warriors” Are Mindless Hypocrites”, wherein I declare myself a “Social Justice Black Wizard”, which is a weirdly self-effacing thing to say, as anyone who has e’er played Final Fantasy knows that Black Mage/Wizard are some o’ the weakest classes, since Square Enix are racist. You’d think my commie ass would’ve picked “Red Wizard”, since that better matches my ADD-riddled master-o’-none tendencies.

Anyway, a certain event that wasn’t a big deal that recently happened — & if it takes me half a year to publish this article, that event was 1/6, by the way; & if you’re not a US citizen, ¡good job! Also, that was a day when a bunch o’ Dukes of Hazard cosplayers invaded the hilariously badly-defended US capitol ( Islamic terrorists: ¡take note! ) as revenge for their favorite TV star not winning the US’s most prestigious beauty contest — made me realize ’nother fun hypocrisy I can joke ’bout to my tiny clique o’ people who already agree with me & will not derive any change in opinion, thereby making this article useless ( & by that, I mean confusion as to why a blog that’s been talking ’bout nothing but programming & video games for the past years is suddenly talking ’bout political punditry bullshit ): conservatives, who oft criticize leftists for their s’posed “moral relativism”, oft exhibit these same traits themselves. ¡How droll!

¿How else can we describe conservatives who try to defend the attempted capitol insurrection by comparing it to Black Lives Matter riots? Ironically, conservatives are proven right ’bout many liberals ( who are just half-assed leftists ) in that many liberals will rush to point out minute details, like that a few people were killed in the attempted insurrection ( as if it would’ve been perfectly fine if nobody died ), while ignoring the far grander answer: the Black Lives Matter riots were gainst racism, which decent people agree is bad; the attempted insurrection was bad ’cause ’twas gainst democracy, well, it wanted to make the US e’en less democratic than it already is, which decent people agree is good. After all, Americans have no problem cheering on our “founding fathers” when they committed acts o’ terrorism & treason gainst their government for the sake o’ democracy aristocratic republicanism. You can’t claim violent revolt sets a bad precedent when your country was founded on the precedent.

But despite the snake flags & dumbass hats they wear, the Capitol Crusaders weren’t revolting gainst monarchy, but for it. & the conservatives who defend them are just using moral relativism to shroud their implicit support for racism & opposition to democracy.

We see this with the way they throw round ’nother fancy new slang term that doesn’t mean anything, “cancel culture”. Back in my day we called this “boycotting” & ’twas an intentional part o’ market economics to empower consumers thru their “money votes”. To be fair, since genuine electoral systems — which, also to be fair, doesn’t include the US government, which apparently thinks giving hundreds o’ thousands o’ people in cities the same voting power as 10 people in Wyoming & the electoral college system, which is as logical as the ceremony they use to choose the Pope, is in any way comparable to true democracy — don’t give a few people millions o’ times the voting power as other people, this is, indeed, a stupid system, but I don’t see conservatives doing much ’bout that but to… I guess try to “cancel” people or institutions that do this. ¿Shall we call this “cancel cancel culture”? I can only expect this to build up the strange loop o’ meta levels.

The truth is that pretty much everyone who has some semblance o’ morality engages in “cancel culture”. ¿How many people would willingly pay to watch a movie that advocates for legalizing pedophilia? Well, maybe conservatives, since they supported a bill to allow doctors to feel up li’l girls’ hoohaws in their valiant attempt to foil the crafty plots o’ young men disguising themselves as girls so they can… play sports gainst them — ¡the worst crime! Nobody seems to question why we have gender-segregated sports in the 1st place. I guess it’s ’cause the average women has ’bout 2% less muscle mass. Letting the giant bully kid pound the fuck out o’ the thin-boned sickly kid in dodge ball is still perfectly fine, tho.

¿So why don’t leftists throw round “cancel culture”? Well, for one, we’re hipsters who care too much ’bout our dignity. But the other reason is that they’re mo’ likely to focus on the actual issue in question, rather than the vague idea that some person is being negatively affect in some nebulous way. For instance, we could say that Republicans threatening to let doctors sexually assault trans kids is a form o’ “cancel culture” gainst trans people… or we could call it encouraging people to sexually assault trans people, which is far worse. But when conservatives throw round “cancel culture”, it’s not to defend trans people but to defend designing CPAC’s stage in the shape o’ some dorky Nazi symbol that’s probably based on Norse mythology, ’cause whitebread cracker-ass motherfuckers are all RPG dorks. The only alternative would be to defend supporting Nazism. & while conservatives might think that showing support for the most infamously murderous government regime in history is on the same moral level as defending people who change their genders, people who aren’t deranged tend to disagree.

This is nothing new: I noticed conservatives’ lack o’ consistent morality when I witnessed the ’bout turn from “questioning the President is unpatriotic” under Bush to “anti-government libertarians” under Obama², & now twisting all the way round to outright fascism. Granted, fascism & libertarianism aren’t nearly as diametrically opposed as many on the internet will tell you: Ludwig von Mises defended the OG fascists as “necessary” for combating communism ( which is odd, since they got their asses kicked by Stalinist Russia, so they didn’t e’en succeed @ that for which they were “necessary” ); & Friedrich Hayek lavishly praised fascist dictator Pinochet, arguing that he was fine with dictators so long as they “govern[ed] in a liberal way” ( used violence solely to benefit rich people — also known as how gangs operate ). While both showed misgivings for the inconveniences fascism might hold for property rights ( which Mises literally defines as the core definition o’ liberalism ), neither showed nearly as many misgivings for the mass murder that happened under either regime, since people aren’t money, & only money deserves rights ( so long as it’s not 1 o’ those dirty fiat currencies — ¡they go straight to the gas chambers! ).

All o’ this is to say that I still remember all the mean things I looked up ’bout laissey libertarians years ago.

Also, all o’ this is to say what everyone already knows ’bout conservatives: their only consistent principle — or rather, lack o’ principles — is serving their own short-term, hedonistic self-interests, which includes debasing themselves in every ways they can, including spewing the most flagrant lies in the world like that a bunch o’ fat, middle-aged military men who refuse to wear masks that were @ the capitol insurrection party were the kind o’ hippies that comprise antifa or that bro country is good music — which includes the lie where they pretend to have morals @ all.

Having now opened all your eyes to the grand secret, I now look forward to the Republicans fooling the majority the minority o’ ignorant rural hicks, who’ll hold the country hostage till the s’posedly-educated urban people grow the spine to o’erthrow them, into voting them into office in ’22 & continue valiantly keeping the US government from doing anything useful while people continue to die o’ COVID & the economy continues to collapse & Nintendo will continue to make shitty rehashes o’ series that haven’t had good games since under the Clinton administration.