The last marble has rolled out of Rush Limbaugh's head

How else would explain this rambling, incoherent diatribe that El Rushbo posted onto his website. He's talking to someone named Snerdley, who I assume is one of the voices in his head. He mentions getting an e-mail with this message:

"I was shocked! I thought you were reasonably intelligent man. I'm a subscriber to your website and I've been listening to you for 20 years, but I can't believe how uninformed and embarrassing you are on Darwin."

 Rush Limbaugh's being linked with the word, "intelligent." Heh. That's funny. This person must not have been listening very close if thought Rush was "reasonably intelligent man." Great sentence structure, by the way.

Limbaugh's response was exactly the sort of well-researched and intelligent claim you would expect from him:

"All I said was Charles Darwin and Karl Marx were responsible for more deaths than even global warming."

I thought Rush Limbaugh didn't believe in global warming. Did he secretly believe in it all this time and  did he just accidentally let the cat out of the bag? Or is some sort of stealth joke? He doesn't believe in global warming, so that means he thinks it has caused zero deaths. Therefore, Darwin and Marx are responsible for more deaths than global warming. If that's the case, than why did he put the word "even" before "global warming?" Phrasing a sentence like that--"x has caused more deaths than even y"--implies that y has caused a lot of deaths, just not as much as x. If so, than global warming must be a big problem if someone who doesn't believe in it thinks it's caused a lot of deaths.

Also the part about Karl Marx is a non-sequitur that's not in any way related to the topic of Charles Darwin or evolution, but Mr. Limbaugh isn't exactly known for being a Mensa Candidate.

"And, man, survival of the fittest, maybe Darwin didn't say it, you know, frankly, I don't care about Darwin, either."

 I feel sorry for the comma key on Rush Limbaugh's keyboard. By the way, Darwin didn't say that. That was Francis Galton. "Survival of the fittest" is more or less the theme for Social Darwinism rather than the actual theories of evolution that Darwin came up with. Limbaugh says he doesn't care about Darwin and that's part of the problem. He would know his facts and wouldn't make stupid mistakes like this if he cared enough about the topic he was rambling about to do some proper research. This just makes him look lazy.

"As far as I'm concerned Darwin is corrupt and everybody that believes in Darwinism is corrupt and they present a problem."

This is one of the Dittohead King's biggest problems. Not only does he have a black and white view on morality, but everyone he disagrees with falls into the morally black region by default. It's the kind of worldview you have in grade school.

"Well, somebody thinks he said survival of the fittest and so they're running around saying so. So all I said was we know that liberals love Darwin."

Um, how are these two statements related, exactly? These are two different topics of debate. You're supposed to make sure that they flow into each other via a smooth transition. Rush Limbaugh just rams the new topic into the old one like a train hitting a brick wall.

So far, this is all pretty normal for Rush Limbaugh. If it were just the above quotes, I wouldn't even have bothered making this blog post. Finding a stupid screed by Limbaugh is not a challenge and criticize it is even less of a challenge. There's beating a dead horse. There's milking a cow dry. And than there's making fun of Rush Limbaugh. But it's the quotes below that inspired this blog post because El Rushbo somehow finds a way to completely own himself. And even better, he's completely clueless about it.

"Liberals love anything that allows them to say there's no God. Liberals will go anywhere and support anything if they can use it to say there's no God. Okay, fine. Then they come up and they say survival of the fittest, fine and dandy. Well, then why don't they let survival of the fittest rule in American society? They love Darwin, and they love survival of the fittest except when it comes to America. Now they want equality of outcomes. They don't want survival of the fittest. They want survival of the incompetents. In fact, they want the incompetents to triumph over the competent. They want the incompetent, the incapable, the stupid, to triumph over the genuine creators of wealth and the entrepreneurs, and that's what's wrong with these people. And if Darwin helps them get there, then they'll use it. And man, I'm telling you, a guy called and asked me about Darwin, evolution or whatever, I told him what I think and my e-mail was just overflowing. I almost had to get a satellite account to handle the overflow, Snerdley, and every one of them was arrogant and condescending: "I can't believe how stupid you are. I had so much invested in your intelligence, you really need to reexamine what you think about Darwinism." These people that believe in Darwin are no different than people who have faith in Jesus Christ or Mohammed or what have you. It's fascinating."

Wow. I've seen arguments in YouTube comments that were more coherent than this. Go ahead and reread that paragraph before I take apart piece by piece.

"Liberals love anything that allows them to say there's no God. Liberals will go anywhere and support anything if they can use it to say there's no God."

Are you sure you can't reword that to make it sound just a little more redundant?

"Then they come up and they survival of the fittest, fine and dandy. Well, then why don't they let survival of the fittest rule in American society?"

Because they've learned form the Eugenics Era that that's a bad model for society to operate on…?

"They love Darwin, and they love survival of the fittest except when it comes to America. Now they want equality of outcomes. They don't want survival of the fittest. They want survival of the incompetents."

That's not what "equality of outcomes," means.

"In fact, they want the incompetents to triumph over the competent."

I'm sure that's exactly why they voted against such genius minds as Louie Gohmert and Michelle Bachmann. They just didn't want such competent and intelligent people in Congress.

"They want the incompetent, the incapable, the stupid, to triumph over the genuine creators of wealth and the entrepreneurs, and that's what's wrong with these people. And if Darwin helps them get there, then they'll use it."

So let me get this straight. They love Darwin and survival of the fittest so much that they want the incompetent to triumph over the fittest? That's what Rush Limbaugh is trying to argue here. And earlier,  Rush Limbaugh said that survival of the fittest was a corrupt ideology, but now he's saying that liberals are wrong to oppose it even though they support it.

Boys and girls, this is what it looks like when an argument collapses onto itself. It looks like purified fail.

"And man, I'm telling you, a guy called and asked me about Darwin, evolution or whatever, I told him what I think and my e-mail was just overflowing."

Whoa! Whiplash! You can't change gears like that in the middle of an argument. These topics don't flow into each other. They pile up on top of each other until the argument becomes one huge coagulated mess.

"I almost had to get a satellite account to handle the overflow, Snerdley, and every one of them was arrogant and condescending"

It's like talking into a mirror, isn't it?

 "I can't believe how stupid you are. I had so much invested in your intelligence, you really need to reexamine what you think about Darwinism."

Mr. Limbaugh, if these people are saying that they had "invested in your intelligence," they probably aren't liberals. In fact, these messages seem to be from your own fans. If your own fans are criticizing you for your massive display of ignorance on the subject of Charles Darwin and evolution…I think that's a sign that you're doing something wrong. You might want to think about that for a few minutes. Oh, unless you have such a huge ego that you think that there's no possible way you could ever be wrong about anything.

"These people that believe in Darwin are no different than people who have faith in Jesus Christ or Mohammed or what have you. It's fascinating." 

So, people are who believe in a scientific theory that has a wealth of evidence to back it up (far more so than when it was first published by Charles Darwin in 1859) are no different than people who have faith in religious figures? That's right, according to Limbaugh, scientific theory = religious faith. In fact, why should the comparisons stop there? Just go all out with it.

"Gee, there's some people who believe that the TriMet buses will always be several minutes late. It's fascinating because there's also people who believe in Jesus. Those two things are just like each other!"

In a way I sort of almost half-way semi-respect Rush Limbaugh. He's found a way to make millions upon millions of dollars off of his own ignorance. He knew that there was a niche demographic of willfully ignorant people out there that he could relate to, and he found a way to exploit the shit out of it. And he managed to do this before the internet and political blogs became popular. So, it's not like Limbaugh can't be intelligent. He just chooses not to be. But this particular screed makes me wonder if Limbaugh has spent too much time in "ignorant and proud mode." When you can't form coherent points anymore--and when your own fans are calling you out on stuff--I think you've gone into character a bit too deep. That's what has happened to Rush Limbaugh here. He's gone so far into his persona that he's becoming his persona.

For most people, this would be a problem, but Rush Limbaugh is so rich that there's no consequences for him if he no longer has any marbles rolling around in that tin can of his.

And who the fuck is Snerdley!?