PDA

View Full Version : The Safety Cult and its corollary: Submit & Obey




Anti Federalist
05-23-2014, 05:24 PM
A Clover Encounter of The Third Kind

by eric • May 23, 2014 • 4 Comments

http://ericpetersautos.com/2014/05/23/clover-encounter/

What we’re dealing with here, is a failure to communicate.

No, it’s much worse than that.

Clover thinks he’s right – believes it, with the religious certainty of a Jesuit.

Convincing him that one ought to yield to faster moving traffic is as hopeless an endeavor as trying to get the Pope interested in a lap dance.

Yesterday, I was headed down the mountain when I had a Clover Encounter of the third kind – physical interaction with one of them.

The road – one lane in either direction – eventually dumps out into two lanes in either direction. I’m number three in line, with a Clover at the head of the line. What happens when the road widens to two lanes? You know what happens. The lead Clover refuses to move over to the right. The car that had been behind him is now in the right lane. Clover is pacing him in the left – and I’m stuck behind the rolling roadblock.

Eventually, at last, I get an opening – and jink my car through it and past the Clover – who of course remains in the left lane only now he’s flashing his lights at me and gesticulating angrily. He catches up to me at the light. I can see he is having a Clover conniption fit. So I roll down my window.

Clover does the same and begins to spew like Vesuvius. He is extremely upset that I did not remain placidly behind him, driving at his pace instead of mine. I retort, without spew: Did you see me in your mirror? Why not just move over into the right lane? There are two lanes. The left lane is for faster-moving traffic. I passed you the way I did (on the right) because you left me no option (except to sit behind you and drive at your pace, I thought to myself). The left lane is for passing, I amicably concluded.

My even-toned attempt to enlighten only made him angrier.

A profanity laden effusion about my “speeding” (sigh) followed. Then a paean to his lawful driving – which I (according to him) ought to emulate. He genuinely, fervently, believed he was in the right – and that I am a “reckless/dangerous speeeeeeeeeeeeeeeder.”

This is what we’re up against.

The on-wheels equivalents of the people who believe it’s ok to take your things if a plurality vote to do so (and not even necessarily that; a “representative” will do) and to cage – and kill you, if necessary – in the event you resist.

The same people who would squeal with delight to know a “tax evader” had been sent to prison.

I do not get them – and they of course do not get me. We are oil and water, night and day. No, more than that. We are ethical antipodes.

All I want is to go my way – and leave Clover, et al, free to go their way.

Clover wants me to go his way.

It’s not sufficient that Clover prefers to drive exactly the speed limit, no faster - and often, considerably slower . . . . Even if he could easily move right - no skin off his nose – he won’t. Because – as he sees it – I’m challenging him somehow by wanting to drive faster than he likes to drive. Or rather – key thing, for Clover – I am challenging authoritah. Clover’s god. His object d’ amour.

There is no hope. No reasoning with Clover. He is Stalin’s chicken. And he wants you to get plucked, too.

Here’s what Clover doesn’t appreciate: Even though I do not like him (mucho) I am not his enemy – in the sense that I am out to get him. I’m not. He has nothing to fear from me. I merely wish to avoid him -to have nothing whatsoever to do with him, in fact.

In the encounter detailed previously, all I wanted was to go on my way – and leave Clover far, far behind. It was Clover who could not abide. It was Clover who rolled up next to me, frothing hate. It was Clover who refused to move over – using his car, deliberately, to try to impose his notion of the “right” speed.

That’s the irony – which of course Clover doesn’t see.

He sees me as aggressive. But he’s the one who commits the actual aggression. My passing him/driving at a higher speed than his speed does not in any way impose my will upon him. His blocking me in does exactly the opposite. And when I manage to escape his Clover clutches, what does he do? Pursues me to the next light so that he can verbally assault me. Probably – had Clover discovered me to be physically smaller/weaker – he would have physically assaulted me. I have no doubt whatsoever he would have orgasmed had a costumed goon been on hand to “teach me a lesson.”

This is what we’re up against, people.

And each year, there are more of them out there.

Newly-minted “drivers” who grew up always wearing their helmets for safety, strapped into child seats until their Ritalin-addled, asperbergian iPhoned adolescence.

Not all – but many. Probably most of them. Joining the ranks of the eyes-half-shut Boomers now entering their Depends Years. They invented the Safety Cult and its corollary: Submit & Obey.

The Boomers like to imagine themselves – or their youthful selves – as hippie rebels who fought The Man, man. Maybe some of them did.

But most probably just wanted to smoke dope, fuck and avoid Vietnam. Not that I am against any of those things. I am in fact all for those things. But in the heart of their darkness, their generation ended up snuggling The Man.

They became moms (latter-day pejorative sense, as distinct from women who have had children) and suits – and learned to love authoritah. Especially when it was their turn to wield it. The same passion they brought to End the War was brought to bear to end you do your thing – and I’ll do mine.

Cloverism – conformity/obedience/busybodyism – is the norm now.

Guys like me (and maybe you, too) with the WWII-era Bugs Bunny/Woody Woodpecker attitude - authoritah is absurd; and besides, who are these guys? - we’re as out of step as a minstrel show at the White House correspondents’ dinner.

But I’m not giving in, apologizing, or changing.

Much less submitting and obeying.

Look out, Clover. Because here I come!

jkr
05-23-2014, 05:34 PM
:D

jkr
05-23-2014, 05:43 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjPau5QYtYs

phill4paul
05-23-2014, 05:47 PM
To be fed, to be entertained and to exercise petty tyranny.

This is the petty tyranny. They have just eaten or continue to eat their heart conscience non-Chik-fil-A meal and are listening to "All things now." What better way to round it out than to block the flow of traffic?

I understand my "liberal" take may be offending and not entirely accurate. Take it for what it is.

DamianTV
05-23-2014, 06:10 PM
Safety is a guise under which Obedience and Control is the only end result.

Floss or else this Corp / Govt can fine you for damages! Buy Health Insurance or you are a Criminal! How dare you have a Diving Board in your private pool, you need at least 3 fences to keep those "innocent" children out of your pool, and I can fine you and profit from it! How dare you ride a bike without Class 3 Body Armor! Follow the money. All these mandates for Safety show one common thing: Someone profits from your risk. I thought that should be perfectly clear to everyone by now.

The consequences of this Safety campaign is that peoples Perceptions of Rights is that Rights should be looked upon negatively and those Rights should be eliminated in the name of Safety. Example, you shouldnt have the Right to Free Speech because you might say something that someone else disagrees with! You shouldnt have a Right to have a Gun (where "arms" would technically include swords, knives and baseball bats as well) because you might hurt someone, even accidentally, that is trying to completely control you, for your own good! Oh yeah, and everyone in Govt should be packing heat so they can do what ever the hell they want and you dont have the ability to do shit about it, especially when Govt will seek to protect itself from your actions against their injustices. You shouldnt have the Right to Privacy because it makes it easier for Govts to crush Dissenters. Guess what. You DO have all these Rights, and more! You have the Right to Take Risks! Its not enumerated, but it is well within your Right to have unprotected sex (as so long as your partner is willing). You have the Right to Open a Business, which is considered to be very High Risk! You have the Right to be Uninsured! You have the Right to ride a bike without a fucking helmet! But these Risk Rights come at a price: the Price of Responsibility! You have the Right to use a Diving Board, but since you have to take Responsibility, it then exceeds the scope of your Rights to try to sue the Manufacturer for consequences that result from your actions. You also have a Negative form of Every Right. You have the Right to just shut the fuck up as well as Speak! First and Fifth Amendments are the Positive and Negative form of the same Right. You also have the Right to not break into someones house. I really thought this should go without saying, but based on the level of stupidity in this country, stating the obvious is now the only way to get through to many people. However, if you do choose to break into someones house and get your ass shot in the process, guess what, you violated their Property Rights and suing for damages from getting shot exceeds the scope of your Authority over your self.

The conequences of having No Rights is far mor dangerous than Risk being Outlawed. History has shown this to us time and time again.

heavenlyboy34
05-23-2014, 06:58 PM
God bless Eric. :D :cool: Makes me wonder if I'll find myself having to Go Galt pretty soon here...

Henry Rogue
05-23-2014, 07:29 PM
I'm on board with the sentiment of this thread and the op article, but what does clover mean in the context of the op article?

Christian Liberty
05-23-2014, 07:39 PM
Clovers = statist sheep that value "the law" and "safety" way too much.

heavenlyboy34
05-23-2014, 07:44 PM
I'm on board with the sentiment of this thread and the op article, but what does clover mean in the context of the op article?
http://ericpetersautos.com/2010/12/23/are-you-a-clover/

Petar
05-23-2014, 07:53 PM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0nLb6DaCQ5c/T3YLPddAGXI/AAAAAAAAA4c/B6sr0XwBp7I/s400/00a231618115a88ea7b0258a367872da.gif

Committee Of Public Safety (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_Public_Safety)

Henry Rogue
05-23-2014, 08:04 PM
Clovers = statist sheep that value "the law" and "safety" way too much.

http://ericpetersautos.com/2010/12/23/are-you-a-clover/
Thanks for answering my question. Does anyone know why the word clover was chosen for this particular identifier? It's not obvious to me.

heavenlyboy34
05-23-2014, 08:08 PM
Thanks for answering my question. Does anyone know why the word clover was chosen for this particular identifier? It's not obvious to me.
Nah. It was coined before I began reading Eric's stuff. Sorry I can't help. :/

Christian Liberty
05-23-2014, 08:08 PM
There was a troll on epautos who's been there for years who chose the name "clover" as a username and defended statism basically all the time, so Eric "borrowed" his username and used it to describe all control freaks/statist sheep.

Anti Federalist
05-23-2014, 08:12 PM
There was a troll on epautos who's been there for years who chose the name "clover" as a username and defended statism basically all the time, so Eric "borrowed" his username and used it to describe all control freaks/statist sheep.

Exactly right.

Throw it in the woods!

heavenlyboy34
05-23-2014, 08:15 PM
Exactly right.

Throw it in the woods!
I'll be buggered! Learn something new every day. :)

Henry Rogue
05-23-2014, 08:16 PM
There was a troll on epautos who's been there for years who chose the name "clover" as a username and defended statism basically all the time, so Eric "borrowed" his username and used it to describe all control freaks/statist sheep.
Ok, thanks. There is usually a reason behind the use of such words and names and I like to be in the know.

Christian Liberty
05-23-2014, 08:20 PM
Yeah, I didn't know either. I asked Eric awhile back and that was what I was told.

That said, I don't usually post there anymore, as my Christian-based libertarianism didn't really go well over there. There's a post about me awhile back on this subject. I still occasionally check in to read his stuff though, his political stuff is excellent when you don't really think deeply into the epistemological basis for it (Which is hard for me not to do) and I occasionally recommend his stuff as well.

Henry Rogue
05-23-2014, 09:09 PM
Yeah, I didn't know either. I asked Eric awhile back and that was what I was told.

That said, I don't usually post there anymore, as my Christian-based libertarianism didn't really go well over there. There's a post about me awhile back on this subject. I still occasionally check in to read his stuff though, his political stuff is excellent when you don't really think deeply into the epistemological basis for it (Which is hard for me not to do) and I occasionally recommend his stuff as well.
By the way, welcome back from your vacation.:D

Christian Liberty
05-23-2014, 10:09 PM
By the way, welcome back from your vacation.:D

Thanks:)