30 definitions by Tex in Tex

Top Definition
The fundamental motivation for humans. Lucifer fell from Heaven in his attempt to become God--the ultimate power grab. Lucifer, as Satan, acting through the Serpent, suggested to Adam and Eve (the first humans created by God in his image) that they could become God luring them into rebellion him. Following the pattern set by their original parents, all humans are driven by a desire to be God.

Humans, now in a fallen condition, are continually trying to one up each other. Even members of one's own family or friends attempt to gain power over each other. As Nietzsche pointed out, virtually all human behavior is motivated by the "Will to Power." Nature even rewards people with more power as they live longer, feel happier, and have higher levels of serotonin in their brain. People band together in an attempt to dominate other groups even more thoroughly. Wars, racism, economic competition, cutting remarks at parties, domestic violence can all be traced back to the urge to dominate others.

Subtly, even attempts to equalize wealth, income, social status, racial disparities are attempts by those without power to pull down and dominate those who are currently in power. Equality of result is motivated by resentment and envy. Efforts to equalize people's conditions are movements by those who are presently less powerful to gain power over those who have dominated them. Many times these less powerful people are aided by those with power who feel guilty that they have power but then assume power over the minorities they claim to help. For example, witness the recent assertion by the Clintons that Martin Luther King and the black leadership in the Civil Rights Movement were not as effective in actually achieving their social goals until their cause was championed by white leftist liberals such as LBJ and themselves--meaning in clear language--shut up, stay in your place, and do not vote for that uppity Barack Obama.

The desire for power makes the entire project of the Left an impossibility. People are selfish, sadistic, and power-crazy. This urge for dominance will never change until the world as we know it ends. There is no exception in human history to hierarchy and inequality. A more reasonable goal is to limit those in power and induce them to serve the common good as classical liberalism sought to do.
"Two people fall in love when each thinks they are getting someone they don't deserve." Seinfeld on the subtleties of the will to power.
by Tex in Tex January 31, 2008
Katie Scarlett O'Hara is the main character in the novel and movie, *Gone with the Wind.* In the story, Scarlett is the oldest daughter of an Irish/Catholic immigrant and his French aristocratic wife in mid-nineteenth century Georgia. The family builds an opulent plantation they name Tara just south of Atlanta in Jonesboro. Scarlett loves her father and her home but is otherwise completely self-absorbed.

Before the Civil War, Scarlett is the coquettish belle of the ball attending soirees where she flirts with and torments young men who fall in love with her beauty and burning sexual energy. Scarlett is in love with melancholic Ashley who is love with Melanie. At one of these parties, Scarlett throws herself at Ashley as they are alone in a drawing room. Ashely rebuffs her advance and withdraws. Scarlett throws a vase against the wall in a rage only to find Rhett Butler lying on the couch who has overheard the previous exchange between Scarlett and Ashley. Rhett is immediately intrigued by Scarlett's beauty and energy as are most men. The audience, though, immediately recognizes that Rhett is the man for Scarlett. He is the only one who can tame and domesticate her, which is what she needs.

The story unfolds as the tension builds between the two properly matched couples, Ashley/Melanie and Rhett/Scarlett. Scarlett resists Rhett while being intrigued by him as she marries several other men along the way toward finally marrying Rhett. The entire time, she dreams of marrying Ashely who is married to Melanie. Finally, Scarlett wrecks her marriage with Rhett only realizing what the audience saw all along--that she was intended for Rhett, not Ashely.
Scarlett comes to her senses too late as Rhett walks out the door saying to Scarlett in reply to her question what will happen to her if he leaves her, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn." The final scene in the story finds Scarlett pulling herself together after crying over Rhett's leaving and her worrying over how to get Rhett back saying, "I can't let him go. I can't. There must be some way to bring him back. Oh I can't think about this now! I'll go crazy if I do! I'll think about it tomorrow. (She closes the door.) But I must think about it. I must think about it. What is there to do? (She falls forward onto the ascending stairs.) What is there that matters?...Tara!...Home. I'll go home, and I'll think of some way to get him back! After all, tomorrow is another day!"

Scarlett represents both the Old South belle and the New South businesswoman. In both settings that change so drastically in the story and in reality, Atlanta moves from a semi-feudalistic society of manners and morals to a raucous business climate in which everything goes. Scarlett uses her beauty, charm, and craftiness in both social climates to attain her ends. Scarlett gains most everything she thinks she wants through sheer willpower and moral compromise with the exception of Ashley only to realize too late that she has lost her integrity and what she really needs. The story unfolds as a mirror to Atlanta as it has sold itself out for money and acceptability. This is why Atlanta's Southern culture is tragically "Gone with the Wind."
Scarlett O'Hara: "Where will I go, what will I do?"

Rhett Butler: "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn."
by Tex in Tex February 15, 2008
A term coined by Austrian economist Murray Rothbard to describe people who call themselves libertarians defining liberty as moral license (see libertine). They are former Marxists, contemporary liberals, practicing drug-users, homosexuals, self-appointed members of the avant-garde, haters of tradition, anti-religious (especially anti-Christian) atheists, alienated teens and young adults, politically correct leftists, humanitarians who see the established culture and morality as equally or more threatening than an expansive government. They also reject the classical liberalism that the United States of America is founded upon. In fact, many of these people have not read or do not care to read the writings of the Founders of the United States or the philosophers who influenced them. If they do appeal to the Founders, they cite quotes taken out of context to support their leftist views. They also care little for community, culture, or history.

These "libertarians" have taken on the name to justify a nihilistic view of the world, where restraint of any kind is removed so that they can indulge their appetites. Many modal libertarians have an appreciation of the free market because they realize the market can supply their drugs, pornography, and prostitutes more effectively. They confirm the fears expressed by Daniel Bell of the cultural contradictions of capitalism where increased levels of wealth produced by capitalism undermine the traditional values based on self-restraint that make capitalism successful. The same ethic of self-indulgence explains their support for abortion on demand and unrestricted euthanasia. The logic here is to kill anyone who cannot keep up and is deemed to have an inferior "quality of life."

Former *Reason* magazine editor, Nick Gillespie, personifies this anti-social trend. He praises as "Heroes of Freedom" Madonna, Dennis Rodman, Larry Flynt, and William Burroughs alongside such true heroes as Milton Friedman and Barry Goldwater. Gillespie epitomizes this brand of libertarianism by posing as the angry young man hipster too cool for the rest of us poor unimaginative slobs.

These so-called libertarians are more interested in civil liberties that undercut law enforcement not because of fear of an abuse of power but because of their rejection of the imposition of pain including just punishment. Instead, they unrealistically believe that if all people are treated as equals and given opportunity to get rich in the market, then there would be no crime.

Although more traditional or paleo-libertarians such as Ron Paul are strict constitutionalists, modal libertarians are all in favor of using judicial activism to further their social goals of removing barriers to self-destructive behavior or placing barriers in the way of law enforcement and national security without regard to precedent or the text of the Constitution.

These bits of meliorism go hand in hand with their non-interventionism in foreign policy. Instead of opposing foreign wars to protect the lives and traditions of citizens of their own country, they believe that if wealth and opportunity can be expanded, then people would live harmoniously together in a peaceful cosmopolitan world. The basic assumptions about human nature and the human condition only differs from the leftist internationalist by replacing a super-statist/socialist order with a super market capitalist order that would transcend the nation state and particular local cultures. The same leftist vision is simply implemented by a different strategy. This line of thinking explains their support of mass immigration. It also explains why one does not hear these libertarians defend freedom of association.

Modal libertarians disdain tradition or any sense of social stability. They relish change for the sake of change. They crave novelty and destruction of anything that they have become bored with. Virginia Postrel, now writing for the *New York Times*, is a prime example of this love of frenetic activity. She misquotes Hayek on the nature of change as a thorough-going, radical process that countenances no constancy or commitment.

Modal libertarianism could be called left libertarianism. There is a variation of libertarianism which stresses voluntary collectivist social and economic arrangements that are still respectful of the right to private property and non-intervention by the State. These libertarians argue for people to choose to pool private property and live communally in various frameworks. This is not modal libertarianism. This type of leftist libertarianism is still consistent with the more traditional libertarian framework because each individual in such communities chooses to participate. There is a long history of such communities in the United States. Modal libertarians are more interested in re-shaping the world to fit their mold and defining the results as achieving freedom. Modal libertarians seem to slip on the term, 'liberty,' moving from what Issiah Berlin called "negative liberty" to "positive liberty." John Stuart Mill fell into this confusion in his writing as he tried to blend liberalism with egalitarianism. Mill is the cross-over figure from classical to modern liberalism. Something similar is going on with modal libertarians.

A lot of people calling themselves libertarians on the internet are teen-agers and young adults who are simply stuck in a mindless rebellion against all authority. Modal libertarians tap into this unrelenting, destructive rebellion in many young people who have been neglected or mistreated by self-absorbed parents. Ayn Rand's writings look especially inviting to these folks.

Even though some of the language and the policy positions cohere with those of Locke, Jefferson, Montesquieu, Mises, Hayek, Friedman, et al., the meanings they pour into the terms and phrases used by traditional libertarians and classical liberals are completely different. Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party has departed from their earlier candidates such as John Hospers, Roger MacBride, and Ron Paul and have moved to this liberal/leftist vision. We are now witnessing Bob Barr flip-flopping all over himself to appease these nihilists who have taken over the mantle of libertarianism.
Traditionalist libertarian: "I am looking at the Libertarian Party platform and see mostly a leftist agenda. What is going on here?"

Modal libertarian: "Yes, we modal libertarians have moved away from that rightist repressive model of liberty to true liberty. The real enemy of the people is not the State so much as it is traditional morality, bigotry, Christianity, and nationalism. Conservatives are the real enemy now."

by Tex in Tex June 16, 2008
Taken to the extreme, an irrational fear of strangers or more broadly, a fear of those who are different. Taken in a more moderate way, a rational fear of those who are different in some significant way, such as race, ethnicity, culture, politics, religion. Since people live together in families and communities where blood ties and cultural similarities foster cooperation, those who are different undermine this social solidarity. The very presence of people who are different in appearance or belief or language make the majority of people in a community wary of those who do not share a common interest in preserving the dominant group.

This fear is justified since people naturally view those who look, believe, and act in a similar manner as extensions of themselves. Since people are naturally selfish, they will lend aid and befriend those whom they see as similar to themselves. Conversely, since people are naturally selfish and seek to dominate others to enhance their own power, they will naturally first seek to dominate those who are different. People who are different are more likely to be seen as objects rather than fellow humans.

When confronted with these threats to social cooperation based on viewing others as objects, it is rational to foster laws, social and economic policy, and attitudes that preserve one's own kind in power. To do otherwise is to hand power over to those who will destroy one's own way of life, culture, and political system.

Political power as well as cultural and social power are zero-sum games. When one group gains in the same geographical region, other groups must lose.
Campus Leftist: "Oh, those conservatives really show their xenophobia in opposing open immigration. That shows what closed minds they have and how paranoid they are. Of course, we had to shout down a conservative speaker last night at the lecture series, and drive him off campus in order to promote diversity and pluralism. We would never be prejudiced as those conservatives are."
by Tex in Tex February 01, 2008
A term used to describe the consistent bias affecting news stories on the American television networks' news departments, CNN, major news magazines such as *Time* and *Newsweek,* and newspapers in several big American cities, especially the *New York Times.* The term 'liberal' here is used in the contemporary sense of social democracy or democratic socialism along with a selective conception of civil liberties that further the social goals of the moderate left.

Bias by these media outlets is shown in assuming in their reports the rightness of State action to force people into more egalitarian patterns of living including income and wealth redistribution, forced racial integration, egalitarian pluralism in terms of selective cultures and life-styles including perversions such as homosexuality. They also tend to be ill-informed or hostile toward traditional religion, especially Christianity.

Frequently, the leftist bias comes out in not reporting stories that fail to reinforce their point of view, such as IRS harassment of innocent people, the practical, verifiable benefits of religious belief, the decrease in poverty before The Great Society and the lack of progress after its implementation, the benefits of tax cuts and decreased regulation to the economy, Robert Putnam's study showing that greater "diversity" fosters social isolation. Questions to the president or other prominent policy makers or advisers are overwhelmingly framed in terms of why are these people not doing more to implement the News Media's agenda.

Conservative or more radical leftist positions are actively suppressed, ignored, or vilified by these major news organizations. They tend to view this informal censorship as being "responsible." They seem to view themselves as the "keeper of the flame" of democratic socialism that began in the U.S. with the New Deal and continues today through the modern Democratic Party and "progressive" politicians, judges, and celebrities. 'Progressive' in this context means greater government power to achieve as much equality of result as possible. They see conservatives and common sense, traditional Americans as crypto-Nazis. They oppose the far left due to their perception that those who are more consistent in espousing their political philosophy will discredit their more incremental approach to reach the same goals.

Those who question the existence of the liberal news media fall into the same blind-spots as reporters, anchors, and editors themselves fall into. They do not question what seems reasonable to themselves. For example, why would anyone in their right mind question the need for a minimum wage law? Well, there are two sides, at least, to this issue. For instance, higher minimum wage laws can create unemployment among the unskilled. But those with such closed minds do not even consider that there might be problems with their policy prescriptions based on what they see as an unquestionable political philosophy.
"Is the news on?"
"Yes, I am watching Pravda...errr...I am mean NBC, part of the vast liberal news media."
by Tex in Tex January 24, 2008
Aunt Pittypat Hamilton was a character in the novel and movie, *Gone with the Wind.* She was the older maiden aunt of Scarlett's first husband, Charles. She was also the aunt of Melanie Hamilton, Scarlett's friend and romantic competitor for the affections of Ashley.

After the death of Charles during the war, Scarlett moved from her home at Tara in Jonesboro to live with Aunt Pittypat in Atlanta. When General William T. Sherman and the Federal army attacked Atlanta in the summer of 1864, he deliberated shelled the civilian population of Atlanta. In the story, Aunt Pittypat flees the city to escape the bombardment shrieking "Yankees in Georgia!" just after a shell explodes as she boards a carriage.

During the Battle of Atlanta, Melanie who is "with child" gives birth. Scarlett's slave, Miss Prissy, promises to help deliver the child if needed. Scarlett goes to the doctor for help only to find him overwhelmed with the wounded from the battle. Scarlett reluctantly returns home to Aunt Pittpat's house. She turns to Miss Prissy for the promised help when Miss Prissy famously begs out saying, "Oh, Miss Scarlett, I don't know nothing about birthing no babies." Scarlett slaps her and then proceeds to deliver the baby herself.

After Melanie gives birth, a stray Yankee soldier enters the house looking for loot. Scarlett confronts him on the stairs and he attacks her. Unknown to the soldier, Scarlett is packing a pistol and shoots him in the face as Melanie comes up from behind Scarlett brandishing a sword.

A restaurant in contemporary downtown Atlanta is named "Aunt Pittypat's Porch" in honor of Aunt Pittypat and the culture that she represented.
Aunt Pittypat with shells bursting in the background: "Yankees in Georgia!!!"
by Tex in Tex February 15, 2008
The path that God has provided for reconciliation with him. He has disclosed himself to humans through the experiences of selected people, notably Abraham and his descendants through his son Issac. These people were brought into immediate contact with God in trials and blessings so that people might come to love and trust him. The record of these experiences are recorded in the Bible. These experiences are examples and invitations for everyone.

God is tripartite: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The penultimate event in human history was when God the Son assumed human identity in the form of Jesus of Nazareth. He lived a perfect life and then allowed himself to be crucified by the Jews and Romans then in power in Judea. Ultimately, the crucifixion was a crucial part of the original plan to redeem humans from the sin they fell into in the Garden of Eden after God had created perfect humans in a perfect world. Each human falls into sin himself/herself through their own choices recapitulating Adam and Eve's original sin. Jesus assumed humans' sins and paid the retributive price to God the Father for them. Jesus was then resurrected from the dead three days later to overcome death for all humans and to verify his divine identity to humans.

Jesus loves all people, including those who have ridiculed him on this website. He reaches out in love to them. All it takes for a relationship with him is to accept his sacrificial death on the Cross to cover our sins from God the Father. This acceptance is a pure act of faith that does not first require attempts to justify oneself in God's eyes. God simply requires that a person accept his Son as his/her Savior and his/her Lord.

If a person rejects God by rejecting his Son, then God will grant the wish of the person to be left alone for eternity. But when God's presence is not manifest, then nothing good is present to be enjoyed. People in Hell are quarantined from the rest of God's Creation which enjoys his full presence. These people receive only just punishment for their sins committed while on Earth.

The act of faith that reconciles the person with God is a rational act that is supported by the historical accuracy of the Bible and the verification of such miracles as Jesus' resurrection (if he did not rise from the dead, then why did not his adversaries display his dead body? If the disciples stole his body, why did they willingly allow themselves to be tortured to death when they could have revealed what actually happened to his body and cut a deal with the Roman and Jewish authorities?) As Pascal observed, belief is rational because it is a good bet--nothing to lose and everything to gain, while the non-believers' payoff matrix is the reverse of the believers' matrix. As William James observed, this decision is required by each of us whatever one might decide.
If you were to die tonight and were to come face to face with God, why should he let you into his Heaven? The answer that Christianity provides is: Because of the price Jesus paid for my sins on the Cross and my acceptance of this sacrifice to atone for my personal sins.
by Tex in Tex February 05, 2008

Free Daily Email

Type your email address below to get our free Urban Word of the Day every morning!

Emails are sent from daily@urbandictionary.com. We'll never spam you.

×