Purity of Essense

It seems that Ted Nugent has written a new book. This may seem strange to you, but it is something I can believe easily enough. The Prince of Artificial Penis has written several books before, and at any rate if someone were to tell me that a five year-old had written a book titled "Mommy and Buster Kill the Space Dragons" I would be inclined top believe that the book had indeed been penned by a child. So when I hear about a book titled "Ted, White, & Blue" and quoted as follows, it is clear that nobody but The Nuge could have possibly written it.


"War: “[I’d] instruct the US military warriors to do their job — win the global war on terror right now and eliminate all threats from all sources by any means necessary.”

Peace: “Each morning I bow down on bended knee in reverence to the Almighty and pray for good bombing weather. The history of mankind is one of war, not peace…’Give peace a chance’ will get you killed. John Lennon was wrong. Imagine that.”

http://www.celebitchy.com/14765/ted_nugent_for_president_the_nugent_doctrine/

"Imagine that?" Damn but you're a clever devil Teddy. All the same the second statement is a half-truth. While it's true that, throughout history, there has always been somebody fighting somebody else, and that large empires such as our own invariably find themselves involved in incessant low-level military housecleaning somewhere, the fact is that most societies are in a state of peace for a slight majority of the time, or at least long enough to do things like invent books and bombers. Any history book worth its salt will tell you whatever you need to know about Gutenberg or Tycho Brahe or Goethe or Kirkegaard or any other human being who did some pretty cool non war-related things. But it's quite clear that Ted was one of those kids in school who skipped all the faggy shit between The Crusades and The Black Plague.

Joking Aside, I might to be able to accept the gist of Nugent's "peace" quote as reflecting an intellectually valid conservative worldview; that the savage history of humanity is proof that there is a universal human nature that seeks to compete and dominate. That societies cannot possibly change this nature, in fact can only make things worse by trying to do so, and that the only thing to be done is to put societies in the hands of a ruling elite wise enough to recognize it's own will to power, and to channel both the social and the individual need to dominate into acquiring more material resources; either by inventing them yourselves, or taking them from somebody else.

But I really don't think that this is what Teddy is talking about. What really interests me is what he had to say about war: "eliminate all threats from all sources by any means necessary.” All threats? From all sources? Here we see the childishness of the right wing in its essential form, the difference between the old economics professor with a sour view of human nature and the modern Christmas Warrior who holds this bleak view of everyone else while seeking some cultural merit badge; Americanism, Christianity, what have you, to exclude himself from it.

What Nugent and his ilk (such as the executive branch of the United States government) seek to do is nothing less than to separate the inseparable, existance from vulnerability. If you are alive, than every other living thing is a potential threat. There are the obvious enemies, of course, and there is nothing wrong with direct self-defense; no more virtue in it, mind you, then there is in eating, shitting, or any other biological imperative, but certainly nothing wrong with it.

But that's not what "all threats from all sources" means. Your best friend might kill you one day for your car or your wife. Your mother could have easily tired of your whining one day while she happened to have a pair of scissors nearby. Whether Nugent is consciously aware of it or not, this is the meaning of "all threats from all sources."

I imagine that Nugent is familiar with the bonged-out hovel version of the Yin-Yang
concept, and so am I. There is bright, substantial, "masculine" life and strength, and there is dark, insubstantial, "feminine" weakness and death. Keep in mind that I'm only the messenger here, but the prevalence of witches, hags, and evil mother goddesses across different cultures is no accident. Man surrenders himself completely only in orgasm and when the strain of taking another breathe becomes too much. Death is perceived as female. She who gives birth gives death. Man perceives himself as creating life within the safety of his own private utopia, while the woman exposes life to the world of decay, her screams reminding him of the pain his child has to look forward to.

Become immortal. Tear yourself away from the woman inside you. Inoculate yourself from all threats from all sources, be they physical or emotional, or medical. But no, that won't do. Emotional threats are too insubstantial, medical threats too uncertain and you must become a perfect wall of substance and certainty. Turn everything you fear, everything you secretly desire, everyone who has ever denied you some sort of happiness, into The Enemy. Al Queda is not just one of the endless number of things that can and eventually will kill you. It is death itself. So is the man who raped and killed a child on the other side of the state, so are the boogeymen who would take your guns away and deny you the cheapest means of establishing yourself as complete master of your environment, affecting but unaffected.

("But you said death was female Josh." So I did, and I direct you to read up on The Lavender Scare, or the blatantly erotic description of Baligant in "The Song of Roland")

There has been a very successful rhetorical attempt by the right to frame differing views of morality into "clear standards of right and wrong" and "moral relativism."
That is, believing in something or not. But the real conflict between right and left here is the different understandings for what right and wrong are. Does the essence of good lie in being good towards others, or does it lie in hatred of and willingness to punish wickedness?

The latter view has obvious appeal for all aspiring immortal rocks. Evil is not some insubstantial malevolence or indifference towards others. If that were the case one would have to become vulnerable and womanly to recognize this dark shade and perceive it in himself. No. Evil is simply those who do evil. To destroy the murderer is to destroy murder. To destroy the terrorist is to destroy terrorism. When a right-winger says that those oppose the death penalty are not properly offended by murder, he is not making a cheap ad-hominem. This is what he truly believes. To support the existence of a murderer is to support the existence of murder.

It all makes perfect sense now. Billions of dollars wasted on SDI; well, would you rather just lay back and receive Russian missiles? Now we can blow them to bits with our lasers! The invasion of Iraq, the howls for Iranian or North Korean or Syrian or Venezuelan blood. Anyone who has the minutest chance of ever being a real enemy must be annihilated. All threats from all sources. Anything less is to accept mortality and uncertainty, to accept feminine death. Callousness towards poverty is absolutely essential. The poor simply haven't learned to unchain themselves from their yin (Think of all the stereotypes of the hedonistic minority or poor person) and become wholly invulnerable. At any rate, the most important step to becoming pure Yang is to never admit to any imperfection in "your" society. Physical invulnerability is worthless if you accept that there is any such thing as valid social criticism. What, after all, could be more insubstantial and womanly than the very concept of society? This so-called society is nothing but an extension of you own impenetrable
self. This is why you have every right to be offended by a department store that doesn't celebrate YOUR holidays, YOUR God, or YOUR perfect, impenetrable heritage as slavishly as you do. It is your society. You control it. You command it. Affecting but unaffected. To criticize society is to criticize you, to remind you of your own fallibility as a human, to remind you that you can not, after all, inoculate yourself from the world. Yin, woman, death, etc.

Needless to say, the ability to cling (Yeah that's right) to such a worldview requires such lacerating mental and emotional self-deception as to leave one functionally insane, and not the cute sort of insane, not Ted Nugent's loin cloth and longbow act. The constant stream of enemies that the perfect yang absolutely needs is the quiet, lurking malevolence of a sociopath who one day slashes his neighbor to death because she reminds him of the banshees who laugh at him in his dreams.