"School" for Solipsism?

(Rule One: "Never Write about Yourself!")

Hell hath no fury like a fanatic who feels patronized.

If you are dealing with a fanatic or absolutist of any kind, you'd better either agree with what he says or else take the exact opposite position. If you agree with him partially, you'll really piss him off.

Example? When dealing with Christian fundamentalists, don't dare tell them you believe in God or Jesus Christ. Because they will then consider it a moral duty to save you from the error of your ways. Better just to tell them you're an atheist, or a Pagan. That way, they'll be happier, they won't feel as threatened, and their absolutist world view will have been confirmed. You are either on their side or you are on the wrong side.

I found this out firsthand in a lifetime of trying to be a nice guy. I tried getting along with Communists and other Marxist fanatics, with the Christian fundamentalists who hassle the kids on the Berkeley campus, and I even tried it with Moonies. The way they reacted, you'd think I'd stepped into the line of fire.

Gay Guns, 1982, same thing. Some issues, if mixed together (no matter how politely or reasonably), create an instant combustion of emotion similar to mixing vinegar and baking soda. Yet in logic why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to own guns and speak out in favor of their right to do so?

Even the abortion issue; if I say that the founders left things like that up to the individual states, it is guaranteed to annoy almost everybody. Never mind that it happens to be what I think.

To the ultra-Orthodox Objectivists (even close friends), I am sometimes tempted to say something like, "Ein volk! Ayn Rand! Ein Fuehrer! "

But they wouldn't get it. Besides, it's not really what I think, and it is a cruel, illogical, ad hominem attack. I really believe in tolerance. But no one -- NO ONE -- wants to be merely tolerated.

I'll give you an example: Contrary to popular belief, New England Puritans did not come to this country seeking tolerance. Tolerance they had already found in Leyden, Holland -- but it was the "agreeable nature" of tolerance which the Puritans deemed "dangerous." They came to America get away from tolerance. I know how ugly this sounds, but it happens to be true. You will not make too many friends pointing it out to moral conservatives, either.

This means that I will have to continue as an utter failure. I failed at Marxism, failed at Democratism and liberalism, failed at Republicanism and conservatism, failed at "homoconism," failed at altruism, failed at Objectivism. I am unable to live up to any of these definitions. (A topic which plagues me.)

What about libertarian with a small "l"? I took a test which assigned that label to me, and I am pointing out the results in the interests of full disclosure. If the other small "l" libertarians won't let me have that label, well, find me another one, and I'll ask whoever the people who share that one to tell me whether it fits.

After a lifetime of this nonsense, I have concluded that honesty simply means pissing people off, and it is a great way to ruin your life. Hey, don't take my word for it; Hollywood even made a film about this very subject.

One thing I like about blogging, though, is that being honest is an exercise in the surreal and the absurd -- especially when, like me, you are a small fish swimming among many schools, with many different stripes and labels. You cannot eat the other fish, and they cannot eat you -- which is good. However, the other fish can't be expected to feed you. You might be able to gobble a few crumbs here and there, but the real food has to come from somewhere else.