scratch-mark

A Rant: Let’s Make Fun of Rick Santorum and His Congregation

Don’t worry

As bad as the shit is, this geeky looking dweeb will never be elected President—else I may become best friends with Alec B and high tail it to Canada or wherever else. 🙂

America still has a bit of sense and life in it. Santorum notwithstanding.

Also, don’t worry that I’ll go all political on you. I won’t. Election year, and I’ll simply not be able to resist ridicule from time to time. Last night was the kickoff, so this is to be expected. It’s just too damn hard to resist; and I do this just as much to poke fun myself, as to give commenters an outlet for their righteous ridicule. Detractors welcome, if you can take it. And if you have particular affiliations not accounted for this time, don’t worry even more: fuck Obama too.

So I guess that 30,007 Iowans—give or take zero—as so-called “representatives” of others, were just too fucking dumb to judge the essence of this evil depravity (it’s not long):

Did you actually get a load of that asshole?

Well, leave it to far-right, fundamentally religious Christians to come full circle, meeting up with commies—in true East meets West fashion—to declare that America is not really about the pursuit of happiness, and that freedom really means freedom to be responsible and subservient to the values dictated to you by on high (or Santorum, his Congregation and extended brethren). It’s about “others” and “society.”

Let’s then get to the essence of this. Once again, just like with diet and exercise (you eat too much, don’t exercise enough), it’s Original Sin played over and over. You, as a human being, are depraved. To the specifics of the video, notice the false dichotomy (Santorum, as a lawyer, knows what that means…not so sure about the congregation of 30 thousand). Notice how your desires, happiness, well being and so on, are naturally at odds with your so-called obligations and responsibilities.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t think there’s any inherent or intrinsic conflict between the rational and the practical (desirable) in non-emergency, non-life-&-death scenarios—at least not as a normal part of everyday life. Evolution simply doesn’t turn that way and it’s only due to the unnatural, forceful injection of subservience to authority into the equation that such Santorumesque ideas can even pass for something above the inexplicable rantings of a retard. Then again, he’s a Presidential candidate…

In my field of view, people don’t really want to be addicted to drugs—though they may like to indulge from time to time, irrespective of legality. And I also don’t think that the interest of having a generally wholesome and healthy family is in any way in conflict or at odds with natural individual desires and pursuits of happiness. And who really wants to take a shit on their own doorstep, or otherwise polute the neighborhood and breed acrimony amongst fellow humans? How could it be otherwise, on balance, globally and humanely? I guess Rick took a wife and had kids because his church, god, bible and social circle expected it of him. Who knows, he might otherwise me whoring it up, drunk in South America. Isn’t that what everyone wants to do without Rick guidance and authority in the world? On the other hand, he is a lawyer…

But perhaps Rick Santorum has simply led a life of solitudinous masturbation in a dark closet over his desires of the flesh…internal friend, but dangerous enemy. And he wants to be President so he can impose his repressive, fundamentalist, impotent hang-ups on you.

Misery loves company.

I’ll probably get heat over this, but nobody ever explained the essence of the evil depravity of the Doctrine of Original Sin better than Ayn Rand.

Your code begins by damning man as evil, then demands that he practice a good which it defines as impossible for him to practice. It demands, as his first proof of virtue, that he accept his own depravity without proof. It demands that he start, not with a standard of value, but with a standard of evil, which is himself, by means of which he is then to define the good: the good is that which he is not.

It does not matter who then becomes the profiteer on his renounced glory and tormented soul, a mystic God with some incomprehensible design or any passer-by whose rotting sores are held as some inexplicable claim upon him—it does not matter, the good is not for him to understand, his duty is to crawl through years of penance, atoning for the guilt of his existence to any stray collector of unintelligible debts, his only concept of a value is a zero: the good is that which is non-man.

The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin.

A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man’s sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. To hold man’s nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of your code.

Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a “tendency” to evil. A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free.

What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge—he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil—he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor—he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire—he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy—all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was—that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love—he was not man.

Man’s fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he’s man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives.

They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man.

So have at it.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More

57 Comments

  1. Jorge on January 4, 2012 at 15:11

    I really do think that after last night SNL might have a chance to have Jerry Seinfeld as guest host to do Santorum. When both of them use that plastered smile… I swear they’re dead ringers!

  2. Monica Hughes on January 4, 2012 at 15:54

    Exactly what I thought. Christian conservatism meets the commies. Of course, most of them are that way. Huckaboo was pretty bad, too.

    Now he will be viciously attacked and vetted by Exhibit B (Romney).  This is good.  But Romney may have a problem with the Christian conservative wing of the party, since they won’t want to support someone that believes a heretical alternate version of the Bible. Mormonism, is, in essense, viewed as a cult by most fundamentalist Christians, so I just see some of them not voting if Romney winds up garnering the nomination. Or maybe they’re so afraid of Obama they’ll vote for Romney anyway. Hard to tell.

    So this time around we’ll have a contest between who has the best hairdo and who has the most retro Che Guevara type campaign posters with fists held high, Occupy-style. Yawn.

  3. Trish on January 4, 2012 at 16:07

    I hope you read the part on his Wiki where he and his wife brought their dead fetus home to show to their small children. Made them hold it, too. Yeah, they’re totally not scarred for life. /sarcasm

    For real fun gGoogle “Dan Savage Santorum.” It’s been driving Ricky bugshit for years.

    • Richard Nikoley on January 4, 2012 at 16:14

      Heh, yea, someone mentioned that on the FB page. Actually, just Google “Santorum.” It’s the first hit.

    • becky yo on January 4, 2012 at 19:20

      I always think bashing him for bringing home his stillborn baby is stupid. Yes, it’s kinda weird, but I plenty of other people have done the same thing and it doesn’t make them assholes. It’s all the other shit (lol) that makes him an asshole.

      • Richard Nikoley on January 4, 2012 at 19:51

        Or, look at it this way: nobody should rule anybody. But if there’s no choice, look for weirdness.



  4. Gene on January 4, 2012 at 16:09

    As defined by Urban Dictionary:
    Santorum (noun)

    The sometimes frothy, usually slimy, amalgam of lubricant, stray fecal matter, and ejaculate that leaks out of the receiving partner’s anus after a session of anal intercourse.

    Named, by popular demand and usage, after legislator Rick Santorum because of his homophobic political statements.

    • pfw on January 4, 2012 at 16:16

      This is the best part of him doing well. It’s a gift from the troll gods; imagine all those Santorum supporters, homophobes all, finding that as the first google result 😀

      The internet is good.

      • Richard Nikoley on January 4, 2012 at 16:26

        Perhaps when he finally crashes, we can say that he has Santorum on his face.



      • Alex on January 4, 2012 at 18:15

        And, of course, it makes for fabulous! headlines, like “Santorum Surges From Behind in Iowa”.



  5. jeff on January 4, 2012 at 16:10

    Holy crap what an ahole.

  6. LXV on January 4, 2012 at 16:44

    Rick Santorum is an idiot and absolutely a bully. And my dad just adores the guy. I’ve already spent too much energy discussing this goober with my dad to give any thoughtful commentary here. So I’ll just stick with “Santorum is a bully, a goober, and a steaming pile of santorum.”

  7. Kelly on January 4, 2012 at 17:05

    For someone who says “Fuck them all. Why the hell should I vote?”, you sure are up to speed on which candidates are leading in the polls (or at least in a tie). Why are you interested in the race if you don’t care who “rules” us next? Let’s see a post on food porn instead!

    • Richard Nikoley on January 4, 2012 at 17:15

      Oh am I now, Keely?

      The extent of my knowledge is I caught that vid some days back via an FB friend and whilst driving home from dinner last night heard on NPR that this same Santorum was in a dead heat with Romney, Paul a close third. Didn’t bother to thng more of it until a few hours ago when I got bored and felt like a rant. Did a simple fact check to get the actual numbers of votes.

      Materially, my total time watching cable news of all flavors, local news, newspapers, news magazines, and even news blogs or websites is effectively zero, though I do hit news websites now and thenl but only as links in comments here, posts on FB, or Twitter.

      Nowhere have I ever counseled being purposefully uninformed. I just thnk news will get to you no matter what, so why do a downer by being a news junkie?

      On another topic, just what axe are you grnding on about, here?

      Come clean.

      • Keely on January 4, 2012 at 18:04

        I thought you blogged about what you care about, not just passing the time. My bad.



      • Richard Nikoley on January 4, 2012 at 19:24

        I only blog about what I care about, but what I care about turns from minute to minute, day by day. And I care about my own amusement.



    • Richard Nikoley on January 4, 2012 at 17:18

      Oh, and by the way. It’s not that I don’t care about “who rules us next.” It’s that I care a great deal. Nobody. But that’s not exactly the choice we have before us, is it?

      • Kelly on January 4, 2012 at 19:04

        There’s nothing to come clean about, I just said what I was thinking. I wouldn’t be surprised if other readers thought what I said, but were too polite to say it. Please forgive my rudeness, this is your blog afterall. I thought you didn’t care about politics, but you do. Do you vote on the local level?



      • Richard Nikoley on January 4, 2012 at 19:22

        Kelly

        I never vote on any level, but that’s a different subject. I suppose someone can accuse me of “caring” even in making fun of it all.

        I’ll try not to do it too often. I’d hate to lose you over this.

        Thanks for stepping in.



      • Uncephalized on January 5, 2012 at 09:37

        I don’t think Richard is any more constrained in his behavior by his declaration of “I don’t care about politics” than he is by his dietary and exercise choices. He eats like a wild human, presumably, unless for some reason he decides that eating fake food is what he wants to do that day instead. Likewise, he can ignore politics 99% of the time but still feel motivated to blog about a particularly egregious bit of fuckwittery that comes to his attention.

        To avoid doing something that you feel like doing, for no reason other than a self-imposed and arbitrary generalization, is pretty fucking stupid. Rant on, Richard!



      • Richard Nikoley on January 5, 2012 at 10:06

        Good call.

        Similarly, I never waste my time searching around for porn on the Internet. But that doesn’t mean I won’t click in an take a look when one of the 2-3 friends who do now and then, email a link saying “you have to take a look at this!”



  8. Steve on January 4, 2012 at 17:17

    I agree entirely about the sexual repression stuff. All of his issues (abortion, birth control, homosexuality, sodomy) point to christian sexual self-loathing.

    Regarding Iowa, YOU MUST WATCH this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLZZ6JD0g9Y. It is a riot. As an Iowan, I loved it.

    Keep in mind that the number of people who caucused for Santorum equal approximately 1% of the three million people who live here. Caucuses magnify the influence of those most motivated, like christian fundamentalists.

    • Richard Nikoley on January 4, 2012 at 17:25

      That’s a great video primarily because unless you’re a total tard, you admire the style whether or not every view expressed is right up your alley.

      • Steve on January 4, 2012 at 17:39

        Skillful application of “fuck you.” Good timing, usage. Proves that profanity can be profoundly effective.



    • Uncephalized on January 5, 2012 at 09:41

      That video was funny as hell.

  9. Tracy on January 4, 2012 at 18:35

    Man – your fundies are completely banana-pants crazy. Apparently right-wing xtianity is on the rise here in Canadian politics as well, but for the time being we have to make do with amusing ourselves with your theocratic republicans 🙂

    You have to wonder if guys like Santorum have ever had a really, REALLY good blow job.

    • Steve on January 4, 2012 at 18:41

      He did, but he hated himself afterwards for it.

      I’d be very surprised if he doesn’t have doubts about his orientation.

    • Richard Nikoley on January 4, 2012 at 19:30

      Tracy:

      That is a very good Q. But, history is pretty replete with “do as I say” types, so who knows?

      What I do know is that nobody gets out of this mess alive. So make the best of all you can, while you can.

      I trust just about everyone to see to that for themselves and the few predators can be dealt with summarily as the pop up on radar,

  10. Greg on January 4, 2012 at 19:49

    Thanks for sharing this, Richard.

    What I find hilarious and disturbing is that Santorum and his GOP brethren sure as hell think that corporations have a right to pursue profit without regard to who gets hurt and very little responsibility for any harm (be it personal, societal, economic or environmental). But they’ll be damned if they’ll allow individuals to pursue happiness as those individuals see fit. No hypocrisy there.

    • Richard Nikoley on January 4, 2012 at 19:56

      Yea, you know, I’ve always been more of a business favoratizer that so for politicians.

      One day I realized that for the big ones (corps), there’s really not much difference.

      My only hold out is that unless it’s a corp where GovCo has mandated you buy their products and services, you can still decline, not so with GovCo, so always keep that in mind. But it’s a total mess. I don’t think corp owners should be legally shielded from liability.

      • Greg on January 4, 2012 at 23:32

        It’s not just a mess, I think it’s a very complex issue. What chafes me so with conservatives these days is their desire to regulate individual freedoms and revoke civil liberties (though even Dems are doing that as well with the recent NDAA) while whining about regulations and restrictions on business. When corporations have more freedoms and protections than individuals, it’s a sorry situation (I’m not saying we’re at that point, yet).



      • Shameer M. on January 5, 2012 at 18:40

        Where do you think Obama stand in all of this? He’s a democrat and supposed liberal but his time as President has resulted in the some of the biggest, if not the biggest, abuses and usurping of the Constitution and civil liberties. His signing of the NDAA has cemented the Presidency as a Hitler-style dictatorship – legally. And the crazy part is that majority of Americans haven’t noticed a thing.



      • Richard Nikoley on January 5, 2012 at 18:53

        Shameer:

        In their clamoring to be non-racist, America can’t help but focus on the fact he’s black. Obama’s presidency is far more about that fact than anything else.



  11. Jay Jay on January 4, 2012 at 20:08

    I am a political junky, with no apologies. I love this stuff, and I do think it sometimes matters who we vote for. But I have no desire to debate you on that account. Your outlook is entirely appropriate, IMO.

    But let me tell you something about Santorum. I am a Pennsylvanian, and I have followed his career since day one (when he moved here from Virginia).

    He has duped you.

    And me at one point, too.

    When he started out, I was actually a supporter. He first ran as a moderate, if not liberal, middle of the road Republican. Fiscally liberal and a “hands off, keep the government out of social issues” type guy. I loved it!

    But something strange happened when he got into office and was challenged by some conservative Democrats. He made an abrupt veer to the right, both socially and fiscally. And he suddenly became a poster boy for social conservatives. I lost all trust in him at that point.

    So by all means, mock him for his apparent fundamentalist beliefs.

    But be aware, he might not be what he seems. You can decide which is worse.

  12. Karen on January 4, 2012 at 20:24

    And not only is Sanctimonious Santorum concerned about what you do in bed and with whom, he also wants Big Gov in my whelping box. He was responsible for PAWS which dog breeders managed to defeat. Now we have PUPS on the horizon. If you want to buy a quality purebred dog from a hobby breeder, your time to do so may be getting short. Assholes. All of ’em. Just efing assholes.

  13. Rip on January 5, 2012 at 00:29

    Not sure how at least one of these nutters manages to get rolled out every four years. Can’t decide on whether I dislike him or Palin more, and will spend no more time deciding as I live in the UK (where the US elections are still big news). Kurt Harris for President (probably with you, Rich, on the diplomatic staff ;-)).

    • Richard Nikoley on January 5, 2012 at 08:02

      LOL. Diplomatic staff.

  14. rob on January 5, 2012 at 05:35

    Did anyone else think Michelle Bachmann was kind of hot in a batshit crazy kind of way?

    • Jasen on January 5, 2012 at 08:54

      I’d like to have a threesome with Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin!

      • Keith Thomas on January 5, 2012 at 11:44

        Hey, Richard, have you thought of adding a “thumbs up/thumbs down” button to each comment, preferable with a running total for each?



      • Richard Nikoley on January 5, 2012 at 12:23

        I’d thought of it. Just searched high and low and weirdly enough such plugin is hard to find. The one I did find is old. Installed it and it doesn’t work and messes up the display.

        I’ll ask my developer.



      • Paul on January 5, 2012 at 13:21

        You would downvote this specific comment, right? ^^



      • Jasen on January 5, 2012 at 14:46

        I am a human animal, the male of the species as it were. I was merely stating that I am sexually attracted to these 2 females. So I vote 2 thumbs up, waaaay up!
        By the way I am a conservative or I was until I realizez that all politicians are a bunch of fucking crooks who don’t give 2 shits about their constituents. I regularly call, write and e-mail my elected officials and the still do whatever the fuck they want! They don’t care about you so stop fooling yourself.



  15. TMT on January 5, 2012 at 07:38

    I typically avoid ‘a load of asshole’ out of my daily diet… It’s simply not paleo.

  16. Keith Thomas on January 5, 2012 at 09:56

    Rick Santorum gave forth an unscripted outburst of thanks to supporters shortly after the caucus results were announced. I heard it on radio, and hunted for it afterwards on the web, but could not find it. Seemed to have similar potential to Howard Dean’s famous Tarzan call back in 2004. Can anyone give me a URL of this exquisite Santorum overflow?

  17. Be on January 5, 2012 at 11:47

    Direct quotes from Rick Santorum

    “[I]f the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery,”

    “If Darwin is right, I have organized my life around an illusion. We have no moral demands if we are evolved.”

    Apparently, some people need to evolve a bit more to understand the moral demands of being human. But before you get too excited remember that in 1988 the even whackier freak Pat Robertson got 25% of Iowa voters! WTF Iowa?

    • jon w on January 6, 2012 at 09:58

      I’ve always been a little mystified by the reaction to that first quote. Given that I DO have the right to consensual sex — in my home or anywhere else for that matter — what business is it of the supreme court whether my partner(s) are married to me or not? Or what degree of family relation they are to me? Or what sex they are? I kind of think his logic is pretty solid there.

      • Richard Nikoley on January 6, 2012 at 10:31

        But I believe he’s intending to make the point that you should _not_ have the right to consensual sex—in your own home or anywhere else—that’s not prescribed by the state and that the state has the right to to proscribe anything it wants. Not certain of that though, so clarification would be good.



      • Contemplationist on January 6, 2012 at 11:14

        Yep, thats his point. I don’t see the reason for hysteria around those quotes, they are logical and sane. Obviously his intention is to say that its NOT OK, so that’s bullshit. But I dislike psychoanalysis of political opponents. Also, note that the same stuff applies to leftist crap on employment, labor, and right to earn a living.



      • Richard Nikoley on January 6, 2012 at 11:29

        Well’ OK.

        Fuck them too.



      • jon w on January 6, 2012 at 12:01

        Richard, you’re right. Santorum is playing up his target audience’s horror of wild multi-partner sex to scare them into accepting the supreme court’s authority.

        Contemplationist, now that I look at it, his second quote is logically sound too. Darwin is right, Santorum has organized his life around an illusion, and humans have no moral demands. It’s pretty clear that he doesn’t mean what he think he means.



  18. Razwell on January 7, 2012 at 13:05

    The world according to Rick Santorum and other ultra religious loonies:

    (sung)

    Pre marital sex, refrain from it

    Pre martial sex , abstain

    Pre marital sex, do it with yourself, and nobody else

    LOL !!!!!!!!

  19. Craig on January 9, 2012 at 00:14

    Santorum is evil, depraved, stupid and well, let’s be honest here, the list of slag offs, ever more base, go on and on don’t they? With no low ever being too low. And all being delivered from a self-assumed position of enlightenment that is truly breathtaking to behold! My God, look at yourselves in the comments! You revel in the vilest and cruelest of denigrations and in doing so, call yourself superior! Does not one of you ever look at the behavior you are collectively engaged in, and then ask yourself, if you are so very, very right, why you comport yourself in such a sniggering, smirking, fatuously adolescent fashion?
    To hold that without morality as a guardian barbarity overwhelms in a free society, is warranting of this barbarous behavior on your part? And to think, I had thought until now that Islamic fundamentalists had the irony impairment of the year award down!
    What a vile way to venerate yourself, to talk with bilious glee of the way in which a family dealt with the death of child. Yes, a child. With a soul. Not an automaton of flesh that was so much meat refuse to be disposed of when the battery failed. And then, after this, speculate as to the father’s masturbatory habits and his repressions?
    There is one spectacular reason to vote for Santorum, and it is this: the effect just his words elicit amongst the superior and the enlightened. For all your denunciations of the left, your behavior here is identical to theirs. I say, lets draw the curtain back fully, turn up all the lights, and the let the people decide upon the worth of an individual’s position, not by what they say they are about, but by how they actually behave. When that is done, how do you think your behavior here will be judged? Oh wait, that’s right, there is no judgment, other than your own as to your self-evident superiority. Convenient the way that works out isn’t it?

    • jon w on January 9, 2012 at 07:44

      The man deserves denigration because of his insane aspiration to power – he wants to impose his version of morality on 300 million other humans. Every blog commenter here is superior to Santorum, just by the fact that none has made such an outlandish claim.

      By the way, with “morality as a guardian,” no society can be free. The evil that Santorum would bring about is worse than “barbarity.”

    • Richard Nikoley on January 9, 2012 at 08:12

      Craig:

      [yawn]

      The man is a fuckwad, and that’s what fuckwads get.

  20. Jasen on January 9, 2012 at 09:29

    “morality as a guardian” Who’s morality? Who decides? I will decide for myself what is right and wrong. I don’t need the gummint deciding for me.

  21. A.West on January 11, 2012 at 14:02

    Perfect use of the Ayn Rand quote, Richard. Santorum is a great example of why Ayn Rand despised conservatives. And in that video, Santorum said the problem with Americans was that they “pursued their happiness”.
    I’m sure that same day he claimed that he’s following the Founding Fathers of America, who risked their lives to help create a country where individuals could pursue their own happiness. The left wants people to live as slaves serving society out of duty. Santorum wants people to make people slaves forced into a kinky three-way with Society and God.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

YouTube1k
YouTube
Pinterest118k
Pinterest
fb-share-icon
40
45
Follow by Email8k
RSS780