“[T]his bobo New Yorker is so blue pilled she may as well be a smurf. “
I know, right? I LOOOOOOVE SMURFS!!! And I can totally rock that look:
I shall treasure this quote always! *sniff*
Wait a minute, what’s a bobo?
Informal. a liberal, highly educated person who combines a bourgeois, affluent lifestyle with nonconformist values and attitudes.
Origin of bobo
David Brooks? You mean the guy with perhaps the least explicable writing career in the entire history of The New York Times? Hahaha, okay. What’s curious, though, is that while my new hater knows nothing about my lifestyle—bourgeois, affluent, or otherwise—he seems to be under the impression that I live in an actual palace on Perry Street, replete with a zoo, a massive pool and sprawling, spectacular gardens.
The d00d—this has to be a d00d, as women rarely achieve such soaring heights of farcical imperiousness—fancies himself some sort of “philosopher,” I guess. At any rate, he goes on to quote me at some length:
For our future Chinese historians, here is how, non-ruling, Brahmins understand political reality in 2017:
That being said, conservatives and other assorted @$$holes are manifestly not marginalized, oppressed or less-privileged individuals or groups. They control the government of the most powerful nation on Earth, have done so for decades if not centuries, and show no sign of retreat (quite the opposite). They have taken over state and local governments across the nation and are eagerly destroying civil liberties, labor unions, the human right to bodily autonomy, the air and the water, the rule of law, living wages, the country’s standing in the world, public education, the insufficient social safety net, crops and coastlines, the wall of separation between church and state, the wall of separation between big business and government, and the lives of millions of innocent people, including children, here and around the globe. (This is not a complete list of grievances.)
Jeez, this non-ruling Brahmin can’t even remember when I last updated that page; it’s probably been at least two years, maybe more. But I still stand by all of that, because of course it’s all still demonstrably true, has always been true in my lifetime and will almost certainly be true very far into the future. It’s like a law of physics or something: wherever some form of human civilization arises conservatives insist on running it, then ruining it, and in the process causing egregious harm to (almost) everyone and everything. They can’t help themselves.
Anyway, our incoherent blatherer isn’t quite finished with me yet:
What’s fascinating about this is that she is 99% percent correct, it is just that she fails to grasp the actual source, structure and composition of power — a deficiency, no doubt, brought about by a lack of historical knowledge, thanks to the Cathedral.
Now the most important thing to note here is that I AM 99% CORRECT, people. Just FYI. And I think it’s fair to say that this state of affairs is far superior to being 100% wrong (just read David Brooks or indeed any other conservative to verify this fact for yourself).
But for the life of me I cannot understand what the Cathedral has to do with my (*alleged*) 1% rate of wrongness. Last time I was in Barcelona I did not sense any weird mindfuckery or anything, much less a total memory wipe of my historical knowledge.
WELL THERE ARE NO OTHER CATHEDRALS OBVIOUSLY. Or at least none worth mentioning. So if I visit it again, will I lose another 1% of my correctness? How does this even work???
Like pretty much every right-wing screed, the whole tedious rant is as unintentionally hilarious as it is banal. Still, when I rule the world (from my palace on Perry Street, duh!) I may consider sparing this d00d’s life, solely on account of the smurf comment. That shit is pure gold.