Saturday, February 27, 2016

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part 8

There is a line in one of the Harry Potter books where Professor McGonagall tells Harry to, “Do use your common sense!” Little did J. K. Rowling know when she wrote that line she would be inspiring advice to conservatives on how to defeat liberalism.

The term, “common sense,” as defined by Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary is, “sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.” [Emphasis mine] This is an immediate and direct observation of something, rather than a transfer of perception to you from some other indirect authority. The word, “common,” in this phrase implies that it uses the senses that most everybody has; smell, touch, sight, sound, etc. If, for example, I tell you I want you to tell me what the sky looks like you have two options. You can go out and look at the sky for yourself and develop your own opinion on what the sky actually looks like to you or you could go to the Weather Channel and get someone else’s opinion, having never seen the sky for yourself. I cannot emphasize enough that the latter of these two options is not common sense! This is because the senses commonly available to most human beings were not directly used to perceive what the sky looks like. It is the simple difference between an opinion and a fact.

Continuing on this line of logic let us suppose that you return from your adventurous expedition to the wonderful world of the outside and report to me the simple and direct observation that the sky is blue. Let us also suppose that I choose to disbelieve your report based on the fact that I went to the Weather Channel which claimed that there would be nothing but solid and constant rain today. Thus we have a difference of opinion. One is based on the senses most common to almost all of us. The other is based purely on an opinion derived from a disreputable authority. And have no doubt ever that this is how a weatherman’s reputation is earned.

Now you, having seen the sky for yourself, would be nothing but the world’s biggest fool if, because of the authority and expertise of the well trained weatherman, you decided that it was, in fact, raining after all. Wouldn’t you?

Supposing that you, deciding not to be a fool, you stand by your simple and direct observation of the situation that it is in fact not raining outside. I could then say to you that, because of the authority and expertise of the well trained weatherman, talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. You refuse to see the truth. The Weather Channel is smarter than you, they have more experience than you, they make more money than you by predicting the weather, you are being simplistic, and you are just stupid for not seeing what they see as today’s weather.

Who is using common sense in this simple exercise? I also ask you, what argument could possibly persuade you to deny your obvious senses and get you to believe it is really raining when you’ve seen for yourself that it is not?

Now let us transfer this example of logic to something more directly related to the defeat of liberalism. From the United States Constitution we have this simple portion of a sentence, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” What does this mean? Really?

We could go by the indirect and authoritative view that because Doctor Professor Muckenfutch, PHD, MD, ESP, EIEIO, of Umptigump University, wrote in his book, translated from Latin to French to Eskimo, and back to English, as related by the website Bullshit.com, that the United States is in fact, irrevocably and indefinitely, a democracy. Such opinions, based on specious and indirect reasoning, are formed only by people who have a vested interest in the destruction of the republic. They will resort to the most deceptive subterfuges their minds can conceive to get their way. They will most commonly redefine the words republic and democracy to mean the same thing or variations of the same thing. They will tell you that the federal government (which didn’t even exist at this time) was guaranteeing to the states that the states themselves are republican, not the federal government; an argument which is so illogical that I can’t even cover it all here. They will also frequently tell you that because of the past decisions of the Supreme Court this is a democracy. Forget all of the other bogus SCOTUS rulings over the last couple of centuries and forget the fact that the Court has absolutely no authority under the Constitution to make such a determination.

Or we could go to the infamous internet meme with a picture of Thomas Jefferson or John Adams next to the quote that, “This is a democracy,” or other words to that effect. Just forget completely the fact that the word democracy appears nowhere in the Constitution or any other founding document. And while the words of Misters Jefferson and Adams are mostly deserving of some respect, just completely forget the fact that they weren’t even in the country when the Constitution was debated, written, or signed! Never mind the fact that the founding fathers were drastically different people with drastically different histories, opinions, viewpoints, and facts. We are to suppose from this quote, verified or not, that the opinion of all of the founding fathers and the interpretation of the Constitution are dependent exclusively on the opinion of two people who were almost half of the way around the world at the time!

In my humble estimation, if you buy into these arguments you are the world’s biggest fool.

You can call it stubborn and thick-headed all you want but if you take any of these arguments, over your own reading of the Constitution, you have taken the first step down the path of your own destruction. The simple fact that they would call you stubborn and thick-headed for not changing your mind according to their specious reasoning is the first sign that you are winning. If they can’t make their point they will resort to name calling just as exactly and predictably as in the weatherman scenario above.

I, personally, would rather suffer the fate of being called names for being unyielding in my own directly formed opinion, than that of a person who is fickle minded enough to suffer the whims of blind and indirect authorities who have a demonstrable and vested interest in my own destruction.

No comments:

Post a Comment