• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

Today we delicately approach the profound sociological question, “Why do some people disagree so vehemently with Jim Rutz, who must certainly rank among the most likable public personae of our time?”

After two years of writing this peaceful pillar of prose and treading oh so lightly on the toes of carefully selected interest groups, I have arrived at some objectively derived, scientific conclusions.

My careful analysis of e-mails from readers coincides neatly with my lifetime study of media reports on the various screwloose factions treading the world stage. Briefly put, I have found that their deviations from the gold standard of sound judgment (me) derive not only from differences of opinion, but more deeply from their severely pathological profiles. In lesser words, they’re a bunch of jerks.

This disinterested conclusion is all the more valid because of my broad range of sampling. Over these past two irenic years, I have touched gently upon the little foibles of liberals, homosexuals, Muslims, radical feminists, Nazi retreads, atheists, FDA bureauquacks, lawyers, Marxists, AP reporters, FEMA officials, Democrats, New Agers, politically correct trendoids and most recently, Hindus.


I cannot claim my analysis has defined all these groups distinctly; the overlaps among them are simply too massive. In fact, their psychospiritual distinctives often get lost in the dark swirl of misanthropic bile, rather like the inky clouds squirting from a distressed octopus.

The ever-reliable Thomas Sowell, in his May 16 column, noted that “for many on the left, indignation is not a sometime thing. It is a way of life.

“How often have you seen conservatives or libertarians take to the streets, shouting angry slogans? How often have conservative students on campus shouted down a visiting speaker or rioted to prevent the visitor from speaking at all? …”

No, their problem is not so much a difference of opinion; it’s an absence of soundly ordered facts. And being chronically bereft of good arguments, they instinctively revert to the only arsenal they have left: vituperation and violence. What we have here is not a failure to communicate, but a severe shortage of anything worth saying at all. So lacking any big bombs of logic, they resort to splitting up society (rich vs. poor is one favorite) and pitting them against each other. Weapons of mass distraction!

Often these weapons are launched with a telltale barrage of noisy expletives. Case in point: On Dec. 12, 2006, I offered a few quiet observations on some likely chemical causes of homosexuality. Not the social or moral causes, mind you, just the physiological.

Well. The reaction of the Internet homosexual community was voluminous. A few of the e-mails I received were polite, but about 90 percent were energetically insulting and studiously filthy. There was an occasional bow toward evidence and logic, but mostly it was wall-to-wall invective, questioning my ancestry and my I.Q. – and suggesting that I go do some things that I frankly had never even considered physically possible. It brought to mind Huckleberry Finn’s observation on one character’s outburst of a stupendous string of profanities: “Somebody said it was as good as Sowbelly Hagan in his best days, but I reckon that were stretching it a bit.”

Lest you miss my point, I am saying that the interest groups I’ve mentioned above are composed mostly of people who are morally adrift – not mere victims of aberrant ideas, but devotedly evil in at least some respects. Their hate-riddled tirades and occasional vulgar or offensive tantrums are just the visible part of their ungodly edifice of twisted concepts and values.

After my last week’s column, which was down on Hinduism, I was surprised to find that I have a larger following in India than I thought. The range of expletives from my Hindu correspondents was only slightly less broad than that of my homosexual fans. And given the fact that English is a second language for most of them, they did a remarkable job of dredging up some impressively obscene tirades.

Make no mistake, a majority of the e-mails I get in response to my columns from homosexuals, Muslims, Hindus and some others are seething with hatred. And the odd part of that? They constantly accuse me of being hateful! The irony never strikes them.

Such folks reject not only conservative economics, libertarian politics and Christian philosophy, but our precious, underlying foundations of polite behavior and moral restraint. The issue isn’t just right vs. wrong, but good vs. bad. And that’s the problem behind the problem. (For further research, can anyone send me some good statistics on how many felons and drug addicts are Republicans?)

P.S. Did you ever notice that (apart from show biz types) beautiful women and good-looking guys are usually conservatives?



Related special offer:

“Liberwocky: What Liberals Say and What They Really Mean”

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.