Friday, October 7, 2016

An Important Announcement

In an effort to gain more notoriety, I too, like many others, am taking the low road: by denouncing stupidity. That's right folks, I said it. If you do something stupid, you're an idiot. Got that? It's particularly egregious (a word I know well from Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure (the original, stupid)) if you are smart and choose to act stupid, or even worse, are smart and act stupid as an act to garner more attention from stupid people who get to vote, which only muddies the waters because usually, even stupid people know to put smart people in charge of important things, but when smart people acting stupid say things that sound good to truly stupid people, that kind of confuses the stupid person into acting against their own best interests.
For example, when smart-person-acting-stupid (SPAS or spaz, just for the sake of stupefication and simplicity) says, "Muslims don't have Canadian values!!!" genuinely stupid person thinks, "Yeah, that's right!" without recognizing that being a racist dick (or dickette (and now look at me, being a chauvinist prick because I don't know the term for a female that acts like dick (or don't want to use it, maybe))) is already going against Canadian values, and doesn't make you look very good in the eyes of other Canadians, unless they are stupid, too; then you probably feel just great, which, when all your stupid friends are looking up to you as the great bastion of Canadian values, should be a dire omen, because you know THEY are stupid, just look at the shit they post on Facebook. And if they're looking up to you now, what happens if you make a habit of it, and then they start seeing you as some sort of elitist fool who is trying to put one over on them because they recognize that at some point, you'll be too smart for them, and when they can't understand you anymore, the pitchforks are coming out? Oh, the irony of stupidity is forever lost on the stupids and the spazzes.
As part of my ongoing series in in-depth analyses of my stream of consciousness, let's take apart Kellie Leitch. Actually, no, let's not bother, her handlers appear to be in charge of that. Let's just say, that in Canada, denouncing elites (and this is where I think Neil Macdonald has it a bit wrong by misdefining 'elitism' in the way that Leitch and her dazzle of zebras (get it? because they see everything as being black and white?) mean it; Macdonald is thinking she is belittling education and the lifestyle that comes with it, despite the fact that she is highly educated and enjoying the lifestyle that comes with it, whereas Leitch is trying to frame elitism as something that turns you into a pansy who understands the long-term impact of doing traditionally manly things like burnin' oil, fracking, or punching fellas in the head when they don't act like fellas (the fact that this is often a result of education is simply an added bonus). I'm fairly certain Leitch isn't one to go out and start punching fellas, but I suspect that she is well aware that there are still many people who would, and if she can gain a single vote by linking elitism to fella-punchin (because honestly, who wouldn't like to punch some smug smart person who speaks thoughtfully about feelings and climate change?). I'm also fairly certain Leitch actually knows a few Muslims, and knows them to be thoughtful, intelligent people, but actually hangin with them would not go over well with the stupids because it would take more than one sentence to explain why you're hangin with Muslims, and in today's world of constant entertainment, you've often lost your target audience after more than seven words. So it's just easier to say, "Anti-Canadian Values (one word and one hyphenated word < three words)" or "Barbaric Cultural Practices (three full words, that's pushing it)" even if the speaker doesn't have a definition for the phrase, because the speaker knows that the stupid person will fill in the blanks.
Wait, I started a sentence up there somewhere…right. In Canada, denouncing elites became more popular than ever under Stephen Haper, as part of his attempt to Stupefy! the population into believing that we don't need no stinkin scientists (it's remarkable how much staying power some expressions have) because they speak in long sentences that require you to put down your iPhone for a second and listen to the sound of the planet dying around you. Denouncing elites has become an art form under Donald Trump, which is super funny, because he embodies the essence of just about everything except common sense - common sense being the goal of everyone who is trying to get rid of elitist thinking and replace it with good ol' fashioned gut feelings. Gut feelings have their place, but they are usually the result of hours and hours and hours and hours and hours of contemplation and study (just ask Malcolm Gladwell).
Which now makes me realize that this post, much like my yesterday rant, also has a connection to our travels. In Cambodia, we learned about the Khmer Rouge and their 1970s campaign to revert their country to a form of hyper self-sufficiency, wherein everyone would grow their own food, use traditional medicine (solely), and basically not do everything they had been doing up until that point - depending on one another to make their country better. Anyone who even looked smart (a potential threat to the smart people in charge) was murdered. Books were burned. Religion was banned. Families were disconnected. People were marched from their homes in the cities out into the countryside and told to make it work. It didn't work, and millions of people died, because Pol Pot wanted everyone to think like him. Donald Trump is a little more creative in this regard. He isn't doing anything because he has some Utopian dream for America's future. He just wants attention, and thrives off of it. It's sort of like his superpower. He says ridiculous thing, thinking people go, "What the f…?" and stupid people go, "F…kin' A!!" and he gets all kinds of attention from every demographic possible, and his strength increases at a level proportionate to the amount of attention received. So how about we stop throwing grease on the kitchen fire that is Donald Trump? Stop lighting matches in the Space Station-sized head that is Donald Trump, and start talking about the things we do want? Agreed? Okay, now back to Canada.
I think it's safe to talk about Leitch's policies without creating a monster. Unlike He Who Shall Forevermore Not Be Named, we can debate the issues here without it blowing up into a reality show competition for numbskulls. Leitch's problems stem from her thinking and her ideology and her resulting policy, and we can see right through it. A policy based on xenophobia and exclusion and unthinking gut feelings is simply not going to fly in Canada, not if I have anything to say about it. And that is why right here, right now, I am announcing my candidacy for Prime Minister.
Now just to be clear, I have been known to do, say, and/or think stupid things on occasion. I mean for God's sake, I like listening to Manowar!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpvUqzPixAU
What I haven't done however, is try to build public policy around my stupidity. That's just stupid. Why on God's green earth would I insist that everyone listen to Manowar (Brothers everywhere, raise your hands into the air, we're warriors, warriors of the world…do do dee dooooo…guitar!)?
What I will do, is listen to smart people (the ones who are even smarter than me) who actually know about stuff, and use my immense amount of gut feeling (developed over years and years of thinking and study) and all facts and figures available to develop any necessary policy.
If that doesn't work, and some spaz beats me to the Prime Minister's chair, I'll grow my hair long, hit the weights, and command my army of metal marauders to take over the world. Don't make me use the heavy metal card, Mrs. Leitch, it won't be pretty.
NB: this is the picture that accompanied Neil Macdonald's CBC article. I am thinking that this was not an accident. Tell me, and be honest, what is the first thing you think of when you look at that photo?

No comments: