Keeping up with the cool kids

Greg Gutfeld explains the Hollywood left:

The thirst for fame is based on an unquenchable need for admiration. This thirst drives many people to Hollywood, in search of the love they so desperately crave. This adulation, however is never enough. Meanwhile it is this same need that drives all people to become liberals. When one becomes a liberal, he or she pretends to advocate tolerance, equality and peace, but hilariously, they’re doing so for purely selfish reasons. It’s the human equivalent of a puppy dog’s face: an evolutionary tool designed to enhance survival, reproductive value and status.

In short, liberalism is based on one central desire: to look cool in front of others in order to get love. Preaching tolerance makes you look cooler than saying something like, “please lower my taxes.” This is why the only true form of rebellion left on this planet is conservatism. Conservatism, by rejecting the trademark forms of romantic rebellion (anarchy, activism, nipple rings) turns out to be far more subversive than anything on the planet. The conservative, every day, knows that he or she says things that aren’t considered cool among the media elite. Yet the conservative still comes out and says it. This is why Dick Cheney is closer to the Hell’s Angels than Hunter S. Thompson ever could be. And why Jon Stewart is about as daring as a diaper filled with Nilla Wafers.

There are, I should point out, anarchists who might almost qualify under the contemporary definition of “conservative”: they’re generally somewhere around the far edge of libertarianism. And I am not persuaded that every single person on the left is either (1) faking it or (2) covered by two coats of Sherwin-Williams Insincerity Enamel (Pat. Pending); I’ve met enough counterexamples over the years. Then again, I have never felt the overweening need to present myself as a Kind and Caring Person, and I have this weird idea that results are more important than process — cf. the ostensible War on Poverty, which costs at least as much as we spend perforating insurgents and has gone on for quite a bit longer without even the faintest suggestion of success. Or, for that matter, of an exit strategy.

Of course, I have no sense of entitlement:

On a more metaphysical (or, at least, less mercenary) level, I don’t automatically assume that I have X coming to me by dint of Y; it has always seemed to me that my only legitimate and unassailable birthright is death. And this, I suspect, is not a commonly-held belief; on the contrary, the world seems to be largely filled with people who think that on the basis of some Y or other, they deserve all the X they can get.

Not that many of them are prepared to explain Y.

(Via Cold Fury.)



  1. paulsmos »

    25 January 2007 · 8:23 am

    The Libs are not interested in results of their excursions/incursions into social areas….their mantra is “my intentions were good, damned the results”. They are nothing but asshat and fuctard feel-gooders who think with their dinks.

  2. Mister Snitch! »

    25 January 2007 · 4:43 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post