Skip to main content
(Danger: The following post is political in nature. The author does not intend any of its contents to be representative of: American evangelicals, or Christians of any other stripe or nationality. These opinions are my own.)

And now, some worthwhile additions to JK's Political Encyclopedia:

Republican: 1. A person who identifies with the American Republican party. Subgroup 1: A self-absorbed group of uninspired, selfish, intellectually insipid dolts who, while opposing every good idea and sitting in elected office for eons, at least knows they're not Democrats. Instructive examples include: John McCain, Trent Lott, and Chuck Hagel. Subgroup 2: The intellectual and moral heirs to classical liberalism, who espouse capitalism, freedom, and at least a tolerance for (if not affection) the persistent prevailing religious sentiments of America's citizenry.

Libertarians: Angry or cynical individuals who've concluded that their sympathies lie with Republican Subgroup 2, but that these people must all be dead or jailed. Thus, many do not vote. Subgroup consists of doobie-rolling college kids (or adults who think they still are) who don't give a rat's butoot about capitalism, but would like to be left alone to enjoy their narcissistic drug-induced bliss.

Democrat: 1. A person who indentifies with the American Democratic party. Subgroup 1: Hopelessly deluded (or intentionally malicious) devotees of Marxism, completely unable to imagine anyone living joyfully while not a member of a union, nor receiving some kind of aid from the government. Also steadfastly opposed to achievement or individuality of any kind. Many members happen to hold high positions in American universities. Notable members of this subgroup include President Jimmy Carter, Jonathan Kozol, and an overwhelming majority of the press. This Subgroup often can be found colluding with Republican Subgroup 1 when a good idea needs to die. Subgroup 2: An earnest, honest group of patriots who often doubts the wisdom of ideas presented by Republican Subgroup 2, who often sadly mixes up the Republican subgroups, believing the first group to be the best representation of "Republican." Many in this subgroup are overpowered by a desire for compassion and inclusiveness, and by virtue of very effective propaganda by Democratic Subgroup 1, believe they cannot be Republicans. They would, and perhaps will, find common cause with Republican Subgroup 2, if the ambitions of D (1) come to an unhappy totalitarian conclusion. Most in this group are not socialists in any sense, but have been tricked by the other Democrats. Best exemplified by the phrase "capitalism with caveats." The more dangerous Democrats use these caveats as a bridge to their proletarian "paradise."

Progressive: An exotic variant of Democratic Subgroup 1. Under 30 and very wealthy, members of this group have potential to become members of Subgroup 2, or even members of the second Republican group with massive re-training. This group has a penchant for confusing, simplistic slogans, and chanting in unison. Enterprising young males of every stripe often pretend to be members in order to engage in sexual relations with Progressive females. See "1960s" for reference.

Tim Russert: Television personality and current steward of "Meet The Press", a noted political program. Russert hides his obvious bias with a false pugnacity. Nevertheless, he provides a valuable service. Democrats who cannot survive his tame questions are poor candidates for office in this nominally Republican country. Republicans who fail are likely members of Subgroup 1.

Jon Stewart: A humorous comedian whose fake news program, The Daily Show, provides talking points for Progressives. However, he quite expertly is able to unmask members of Republican Subgroup 1. Actual membership grouping unknown.

George W. Bush: 43rd President of the United States. Lack of articulation makes him ineffective as an advocate for R(2). In addition, an apparent desire to be well-liked leads him toward an aimless, confusing domestic policy program. Bush's foreign policy has been credited with saving the United States from Islamic fascism. That outcome also prevented the collapse of Europe. (As of publishing on June 1, 2009)

Fidel Castro: See "Evil Commies."

William Jennings Bryan: (1860-1925) Noted American Democrat who opposed capitalist Democrats from 1896-1908. Three time presidential nominee. Widely credited with creating the League of Nations, and principal author of Wilson's 14 Points. Served as Wilson's Secretary of State until 1917, when he resigned in protest over American entry into the First World War. By ideology, Bryan would rank as "hopelessly deluded," placing him in D(1). However, given his obvious patriotism and steadfast defense of the Bible during the Scopes Trial of 1925 (with his attendant opposition to eugenics and Social Darwinism) Bryan attains a classification of D(2). Bryan has a special entry in the "Great Americans" section, in the Appendix.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...

What I Should Have Said

 I was functionally fired from my teaching job in November, 2024, after an unjust administrative "process" initiated by HR , and triggered by false accusations the content of which I was never told. My "defense" therefore could have no reasonable basis or direction. I won't say the name of the Local Education Agency, but the town where I lived and worked was Cheraw, South Carolina. I think that once I was on administrative leave, they could use nearly any indiscretion of mine as the final straw to remove me. I did connect with students on social media in protest, and I did express hope that I would quickly be returned to the classroom. The principal of the high school where I worked--a true lackey of the bureaucracy, and fully committed to educational ideas, methods, and solutions that don't work--also allowed his personal dislike of me to take the form of a belief that I was a substandard teacher. He gave me an unsatisfactory review on October 12, and we ha...