So Block Me!!! Ya Big Baby!

A number of months ago I decided to delve as deeply into the world of Twitter as I possibly could. The reasons for me deciding to do this are many and not really germane to the subject matter of this post. Thus far it has been generally successful. For reasons of my own I’ve decided to build a conservative following and to that end I’m gaining a lot of followers. I generally lean—well, way, way, way over to the right—being mostly Libertarian/conservative. So it comes natural to me to be able to collect a lot of those types of people. I can genuinely and sincerely speak the proper lingo and express the requisite beliefs to be accepted by the crowd on the right.

Now, no small part of the reason that I prefer the right is that they are more generally accepting of ideas and conversation than the left. They are most generally more tolerant than their leftist counterparts who would shout you down and/or block you at the first sign that you are not going to walk in perfect lock step with them.

While I’m kind of new at Twitter I’ve become very adept at surviving political discussions on Facebook. Ahhh, the many hours I’ve spent just trying to piss liberals off and get them to block me. When I find the really rabid ones I like to see how quickly I can get it to happen. I’m not certain what my record is exactly because it happened much quicker than I thought it would. I do know that it was less than twelve seconds.

On the flip side, I try to never block people. To date I think I've only blocked five times and I remember the details of each and every one of them. Maybe it’s just my experience at taking insults in the Navy, or life in general, but I like the idea of free speech. My skin is really quite thick although my critics would likely say my head is thicker. My only limits are that I don’t like it when someone attacks someone else’s religion who is involved in the conversation. I will not tolerate someone attacking my religion on my pages. I will not tolerate personal threats or threats and insults towards innocents such as the person’s family, and I won’t tolerate a person who is harassing in a spamming sort of way and making it so nobody else can have a conversation. Other than that the sky is the limit.

I’ve got a pretty high tolerance for personal insults, and to some degree actually like them in a debate, because they are usually the most obvious sign that I'm winning. If they can’t address the point they have to make it personal and attack you.

If someone happens to be a different religion I don’t mind. As a veteran I swore to defend their right to a different religion with my life and I prefer to be good for my promises. I never get insulted because someone believes something different than me. I get curious.

If someone supports Donald Trump or Ted Cruz or anybody else, whether it’s someone I could support or not, that’s okay. If they can talk to me and keep a civil tongue I will talk to them in a civil manner. That’s how we learn. That’s also how we beat the Main Stream Media. If they don’t want to be civil, well, I can do that too. Generally it’s not my favorite thing to do but I can, in so choosing, take someone right apart.

Generally speaking, if you call yourself a conservative or a Libertarian, and we agree on—oh I don’t know, let’s say seventy percent or more—I would call you an ally. You are someone who is sane enough to work with. But even if we disagree on everything, I wouldn’t call you an enemy. You’re still someone to talk to as long as you can remain civil. Then when others come along maybe they’ll be inspired one way or the other by the conversation.

So having the above ideas in mind you can imagine my disconcertion at having Twitter users, who claim to be conservative, who I’ve read down several pages of their feed, block me from following them for the slightest disagreement. Man some of these people are sensitive! Of course I fully expect liberals to block me. But conservatives? Some even say in their profile that they will block people who don't support the same candidate.

You don’t support Trump? Blocked! You do support Trump? Blocked! You don’t support Cruz? Blocked! You do support Cruz? Blocked! You don’t support term limits? Blocked! You don’t like Lincoln? Blocked! You’re not a Christian? Blocked! You don’t think there’s a Muslim waiting behind every corner to behead you? YOU’RE A PUSSY! Blocked!

Yes, that last one really did happen. I only pointed out that you are statistically more likely to die of a bee sting than a terrorist attack. It’s a fact. I never said I'm for terrorism or anything like it. I never said that terrorism wasn’t a threat because clearly it is. I never said that we shouldn't fight terrorism. I only said that I don’t live and worry every single second of every single day that someone wants to burn me alive, behead me or some such thing.

There is a simple fact of life that I’m always pointing out to people. “Just because we don’t agree on everything does not mean that I endorse what you conceive to be its most radical opposite.”

The unfortunate thing is that people get themselves worked up into an emotional state. Emotions are a great thing to experience when there is reason behind them. We don’t need to go all logical and become like Spock all the time. Laugh if there is reason to laugh. Cry if there is reason to cry. Get angry if there is reason to get angry. But when emotions take the place above reason, you are in what I call the “reaction zone.” You don’t think. You react emotionally.

So, if I don’t support Trump and you do, please don’t go off all half-cocked and say that I must hate America for not supporting your guy. If I make a reasoned argument against term limits (as Alexander Hamilton and other Founding Fathers did) please don’t call me a Pelosi supporter. If I say I don’t like Lincoln please don’t do the liberal thing and say that I must hate black people and support slavery. Don’t react. Just ask me why. I’d be more than happy to tell you. I may have actual reasons for what I believe that would be helpful to you which aren't based on some radically conceived extreme opposite.

If those who support smaller government and more personal liberties want to win their righteous fight for the survival of America as she was founded, we’ve got to have the strength to stick together and support each other on the big things. Our freedoms are completely dependent on our abilities to have and discuss other ideas. It is antithetical to the concept of freedom to expect people to agree on everything, and yes, that does include supporting a different candidate for president that you might not agree with. That’s what makes us more tolerant than the left.

If, however, you can’t handle the fact that I don’t support the same guy as you, if you can’t be big enough, or have spine enough, to tolerate the thought that I’ve got a slightly different idea on some subject here or there, then…

JUST GO AHEAD AND BLOCK ME YA BIG BABY!!!

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part 6, The Incompetence of Liberalism

Note: I originally wrote this article after the mass shooting/terrorist attack in San Bernardino. While this article is somewhat dated the underlying principle, that liberalism is incompetent and tends to defeat itself, is still true. 

At a time on a day when most other authors in the blogosphere are hard at work on the most recent of the public mass shootings—San Bernardino being the one on the top of the news at the moment—I find myself just too much in the mood to think of other things. Any other things. Not that the shooting is unimportant because certainly it is. Sometimes these things happen and you can just tell that the ramifications will be broad and long lasting.

Yes, I suppose if I had better survival instincts as an aspiring author I’d be out there talking about Radical Islam and the potential connections to Farooq Saeed. Or I could talk about how the death obsessed Liberal leftists freak shows think the only thing to do is ban guns; because that’s always so successful, in spite of the fact that California has really strict gun laws. I could talk about my own theory involving how so many of these mass shootings are done by people cranked up on powerful psychiatric drugs.

But as important as all of that is; you know what? I’m just not feeling it today. So instead, just to get us started on what I do want to write about, let us ponder the words of a great American soldier and hero.

“Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man.” — General George S. Patton

If you are into military strategy this is pretty simple in concept. For those who aren’t I will take some time to explain before we get into my favorite topic of defeating that rabid disease infecting the governments of earth known as Liberals. Indeed the above quote by the estimable general was inspired because, in part, of the defeat of the Liberal known as Adolf Hitler.

According to Wikipedia — “The Atlantic Wall was an extensive system of coastal defense and fortifications built by Nazi Germany between 1942 and 1944 along the coast of continental Europe and Scandinavia as a defense against an anticipated Allied invasion of Nazi-occupied Europe from Great Britain during World War II. Hitler ordered the construction of the fortifications in 1942. Almost a million French workers were drafted to build it ... The fortifications included colossal coastal guns, batteries, mortars, and artillery, and thousands of German troops were stationed in its defenses.”

This so called wall stretched all the way from the northern tip of Norway clear down to Spain and covered one thousand six hundred seventy miles. Got that? None of it could move. All of it was fixed fortifications. It was composed of troops manning guns too big to take to where the action was unless the Allied invasion of Europe didn’t happen to be right where they were.

The length of the stretch of beach in Normandy where the Allies came ashore was, Utah to Sword beach, somewhere in the neighborhood of fifty miles. Giving the “superior” German engineered guns an average of ten effective miles on each side of the landing zone, that would put one thousand six hundred miles of guns and troops out of range for combat. Thousands and thousands of troops, guns, bunkers, and supplies costing billions of dollars at today’s rates were just sitting there quietly on the beach during the invasion with nothing to do but pig out on warm beer, sauerkraut, and schnitzel. As far as stopping the invasion there was absolutely nothing they could do except ponder the supposed greatness of their fuehrer. As a result the Allies punched through the Atlantic wall and achieved a solid foothold on the continent after about four and a half hours of really tough fighting.

Many World War Two historians, both professional and amateur, consider this to be the greatest military blunder of all time. I as one of these concur most fully. I’d go a bit further though—and consequently much closer to the point of this article at the same time—and state that it is my most emphatic and humble opinion that it’s a damned good thing somebody did not successfully assassinate Hitler. Had that particular dummkopf gone to the great bratwurst factory in the sky early in the war, he might have been replaced by someone in the ranks who was just a little less idealistic and a lot more deadly and competent. The German generals were brilliant, from the militaristic point of view, at accomplishing as much as they did in spite of the lunacy of their orders.

That’s the reason we aren’t speaking German. There was an incompetent boob at the top whose authority and leadership was considered to be so brilliant that people took his word as the most brilliant of laws and not to be questioned. And in that consideration was sown the seeds of their own eventual destruction. Or putting it another way; Hitler, with his own mind and hands, made possible the conditions of the defeat of Germany. He couldn’t have been more destructive of his own ends had he intended to be. Tragic and catastrophic as it was while it was in action the “Ten Thousand Year Reich” only lasted about twelve years.

Throughout history there are a lot of these brutal dictators who come in, bust the place up, and then die quickly to the sounds of cheering formerly oppressed countrymen. Sometimes they last longer and sometimes they don’t last quite as long. But there is one thing they all have in common. “This too shall pass.” And depending on how bad they are they seem to pass more quickly on average.

Take a look at that. Most of the ones we think of as the worst didn’t last very long. When they passed the bounds of their own countries and started on the conquest and destruction of other countries, most of the rest of the world ganged up on them and put them back in their place. Quickly.

Yes, some like Castro continue to hang around for far too long. Then there are the tiny but deadly few, like Mao, with tens of millions of deaths to his credit. Both of those guys kept their insanity within their own borders though.

There’s no shortage of iron fisted dictators to mention in the history of the world. But if I were in the life insurance business I would never, ever even begin to consider covering any of them.

In the fact of their high mortality rate we have the single virtue of tyrants. Most of them piss so very many people off in their despotic rampages that it’s an extreme hazard to be anywhere near them. Just as much for the sake of what they might do to you as what might happen should you get caught in the wake of an assassination attempt involving explosives.

People often don’t have the choice of being trodden on by tyrants who don’t give a damn about little niceties like human rights. But they never like it. With everybody that they step on they make another enemy who is out to see the end of their rule, if not their very life. The worse they are the quicker it seems to come on average.

Yes. There are a lot of things wrong with the world today. But I tend to be a big picture kind of guy and look at the broader view of humanity. The old saying that twenty percent of the people cause eighty percent of the problems applies here in that the world won’t suffer the extremely violent tyrants for long. And the tyrants themselves very often set up the circumstances that lead to their own demise.

We could debate forever about the issues of President Bush invading Iraq and never really get anywhere as to whether it was a mistake or not. There is plenty to say about it and the causes and consequences of that war. But the singular thing that cannot be denied is Saddam Hussein, for all intents and purposes, committed suicide. Oh sure he was captured and hanged by his enemies, but prior to that he did everything to make the world and his countrymen very angry at him. He did everything to make people come after him and nothing to soothe their fears and hatred of him. The same kind of thing applies to Muammar Gaddafi.

Radical Islam is a problem that needs to be handled but I don’t worry too awful much about it. Oh certainly there will be people who think me naïve or uninformed for this opinion, and I’m okay with that. However I find it a particularly comforting thought that these kind of demented psychos often sow the seeds of their own destruction right into their own vicious actions. They are their own worst enemy.

The worst of Liberalism is based on an almost total lack of sense and thus tends to defeat itself if they have enough rope. All that's necessary on our part as decent people is to help it along.

Follow the links below for the rest of the series:

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part One

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Two

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Three

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Four

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Five

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Six

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Seven

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Eight

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Nine

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part 5, Ride the Rage

Criminals always accuse others of their own crimes. Always.

In my article “The anti-Liberal Techniques: Part 2” I wrote the following: “Do you think Rosie O’Donnell wants gun control laws to keep you from owning a gun? Maybe, but I think deep down she knows she’s a raving lunatic who is out of control of her own behavior, just enough to sense that it is her who shouldn’t have a gun. Think about this; it’s an irrational fear that someone is going to kill someone with a gun which they use as a reason to ban them. If it’s in Rosie’s head enough for her to say it, it must somehow also apply to her because she is the one saying people use guns to kill people. Whether this pattern of human nature is actually true or not, or even if you believe it or not, this is a line of logic that seems to work and so liberals have some serious trouble with it.”

In this article I’m going to develop that idea just a little bit further.

Let’s say you’re having a conversation about welfare with a liberal. You say something to the effect that you don’t think welfare should be increased. Now is the time to pay close attention to what they say next! Liberals don’t think. They are too full of unmitigated rage for that. They react emotionally to ideas they’ve got stuck in their own heads. By far the usual response will be something along the lines of, “You just want to starve children!”

Forget for the moment the complete lack of civil discourse here. Yes, it’s a bit shocking and completely untrue. Yes, you will be extremely tempted to react. But remember, the liberal is the one who doesn’t think. Don’t react! One helpful idea I keep in my mind for just such occasions is, “Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I endorse whatever delusion you think is the most radical opposite.” You can say this to them if you like, and it’s great for creating those long pauses and stammering, but the best thing you can do is listen and think about what has just been said to you.

“You just want to starve children!”

Now ask yourself the question, “who was even thinking about starving children?” You weren’t. You were most likely thinking that lower welfare means lower taxes on business, creating higher wages, in a more free and friendly economy, and less people needing welfare. That is if you are anything close to a typical conservative.

Between the two of you, who thought of starving children and reacted without thought in accusation and incivility because of it? The liberal did! That’s who.

(In reviewing this post I'm reminded of that old kid's saying, "I'm rubber and you're glue. What you say bounces off of me and sticks to you!" It would seem that approach does have some workability after all!)

There is no need to respond defensively at all in a situation like this because if you were listening and thinking about what has just been said to you, you would know with a high degree of certainty that the rabid reacting liberal is telling you what they fear about people. And if they believe something like that about the nature of people they also have to believe it about themselves.

I’m not going to attempt to duplicate all of my research on this subject here to prove my claims. It would just take too much time and it would be too long for a simple blog post. My purpose here is to give you a simple technique you can test for yourself and see if it actually works. You don’t have to trust me on it; I’d prefer you didn’t. Just try it and prove it to yourself. The thing is in order to beat liberalism you have to know what you are dealing with.

To that effect here is something about the liberal mind that I hold as if it were a biblical truth. Liberals tell you what they fear and they fear it because they see it so clearly within themselves. The other thing I hold as if it were biblical truth is something I wrote about in Part 3 that all leftist policy is directed at making the strong weak and making the weak die, while pretending to be of help.

Putting these together, if the liberal accuses you of wanting to starve children he’s worried that he’s going to do something that will result in the starving of children. It’s always liberal policy that results in starving children!

If the liberal is rabidly for gun control he is worried about what he would do if he had a gun. Liberal policy, like that of anti-gun Chicago, results in huge increases in gun violence!

If the liberal is rabidly anti-business and accuses business of corruption and being uncaring he is telling you that if he had a business that’s exactly how he would run it. The most corrupt administrations this country has ever had have been because liberals ignore the Constitution and accept huge bribes from corrupt corporations so that laws can be written that favor them instead of the People!

If he accuses you of fascism you can know with certainty that to some degree he’s worried about being a fascist. And the fascists that everybody thinks of are the Nazis, who were a Socialist Worker’s party. It’s even in their name!

When Ted Kennedy accused George Bush of lying it’s because that’s exactly what he would have done in Bush’s position. It has to be because it’s the conclusion he immediately jumped to. If the Justice Department accuses you of being a potential domestic terrorist because you are a veteran, own a gun, and are conservative, then they think this of you because they think if they were you they’d be a terrorist too.

In everything they say and their actions toward conservatives, they are telling you their own ideas of human nature. And make no mistake; their ideas of human nature are what any decent and civilized human being would call evil.

And conservatives—God bless them—tend to do the same thing in reverse. Because they almost always want to believe the best of people, they seem to behave as if they have no spine until they become extremely angry. Because they are most generally innocent themselves (at least more so than liberals) they have a tough time calling evil for what it is. They just don’t want to confront the idea that someone could be that bad. They think because they are good and see things that way, that’s the way everybody would see them too. So they tend to underestimate the depths to which liberalism can sink.

If they have one major flaw it is in the fact that they, if they don’t understand the principles above, tend to trust liberal’s intentions too much and let things pass that clearly shouldn’t be.

So in summary; if you remember that all leftist policy is directed at making the strong weak and making the weak die, while pretending to be of help, and when they accuse you of something they tell you what they fear and they fear it because they see it so clearly within themselves, you will do a lot better against them.

But above all, and for God’s sake, don’t back down!

Follow the links below for the rest of the series:

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part One

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Two

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Three

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Four

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Five

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Six

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Seven

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Eight

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Nine

The anti-Liberal Techniques: Part 4, Killing the Innocent

A number of days ago I had one of those agonizing conversations with a liberal about the government funding for Planned Parenthood. It was instructive to the person who would study ways to defeat the liberal arguments. This particular liberal claimed to be very Pro-Life yet he was completely for the government funding of Planned Parenthood based on the other services they provide.

I have stated rather openly in my article “The anti-Liberal Techniques: Part 3” that the driving force behind all liberal policy is to kill people while pretending to help. Here you have just one more piece of evidence to support that supposition but it is still necessary to look a little deeper into why this is so; and more importantly how to defeat the argument. To that end we must first take a look into the issues of morals.

The subject of morals can be frustrating and complicated in and of itself. There are a lot of different points to consider between the various secular and non-secular arguments but I think for the most part, the vast majority of people, regardless of their religion, understand at some instinctive level what they are without actually putting the words to it. But that is not to say there aren’t adequate words to convey the basic idea succinctly, so that the broad masses of people could easily and unambiguously understand what is being discussed. When Thomas Jefferson wrote these words; “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” he hit the nail right on the head.

In spite of his invocation of their Creator in this statement, the words, “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” gives us a simple basis for understanding what morals are in relation to government, quite independent of any complicating religious factors. It is immoral to unjustly deprive a person of his life. It is immoral to unjustly deprive a person of his liberty. It is immoral to unjustly deprive a person of their ability to pursue their happiness. For a government to do any of these things is like a solid punch in the gut to any decent human being.

On the flip side of the argument it is moral to protect life. It is moral to protect the liberty of people. It is moral to protect people so they can pursue their own happiness. This is the bedrock foundation of all just and moral law within the United States or anywhere in the world who understands basic human rights. It is this sympathy with basic human nature alone that accounts for the success of our country.

Of those three things I think life is the most important. You can’t have liberty without it and you certainly can’t pursue happiness without it.

In the shortest possible form then, moral equals life, and includes anything that increases life. Immorality then, equals death, and would also include anything that pushes people closer to death.

So having first answered the moral question we can then decide the issues of law. Using this line of logic as an observable axiom we can decide what laws and government programs are moral and which should be cut out as immoral. And here’s my point; if a person does not resolve the moral question first they will become quite lost in the morass of trivial arguments, having no point to orient themselves between the seemingly complex issues of right and wrong.

Such was the occurrence in my conversation with this so called “very Pro-Life liberal.” Now I know full well some of what he posted as an argument can be factually refuted but that’s not the point. A typical liberal, if he will converse with you at all, will throw an infinite amount of specious data at you in the hopes of winning by exhausting you. And the internet has an infinite supply of pure garbage he can throw at you. If you engage in refuting the myriad of “facts” a liberal will throw at you, you are going to be bogged down in it without getting anywhere because you’ve abandoned the moral argument that undercuts them all. You can and will silence him completely if you simply insist he answer the irrefutable moral question first.

So let’s take a quick look at what he presented to me:

“Below is a breakdown of all patient care services provided by Planned Parenthood affiliate health centers in 2010:

·         38% - Testing of and treatment for Sexually Transmitted Diseases/Infections (STDs/STIs) In 2010, Planned Parenthood provided a total of 4,179,053 services which encompassed: STI tests for women and men - 3,552,955 Genital warts (HPV) treatments - 51,197 HIV tests for women and men - 574,901

·         33.5% - Contraception (including reversible and permanent) In 2010, Planned Parenthood provided a total of 3,685,437 services which encompassed: Reversible contraception for women - 2,219,726 Emergency contraception kits - 1,461,816 Vasectomy patients - 3,290 Female sterilization procedures – 605

·         14.5% - Cancer screening and prevention In 2010, Planned Parenthood provided a total of 1,596,741 services which encompassed: Pap tests -769,769, Breast Exams and Breast Care - 747,607 Colposcopy procedures (for diagnosis of abnormal growth cells in the cervix) - 41,549 LOOP/LEEP procedures (treatment for abnormal growths) - 2,432 Cryotherapy procedures (treatment for abnormal growths - 1,254, (Planned Parenthood does not offer mammograms at any of their affiliate health centers but will refer clients to other local providers who do.)

·         10.4% - Other women's health services In 2010, Planned Parenthood provided a total of 1,144,558 services which encompassed: Pregnancy tests -1,113,460 Prenatal services - 31,098

·         3% - Abortion services in 2010, Planned Parenthood conducted a total of 329, 445 abortion procedures.

·         0.6% - Other health services In 2010, Planned Parenthood provided a total of 68,132 services which encompassed: Family practice services for women and men - 35,062 Adoption referrals to other agencies – 841

·         Other procedures for women and men (which include WIC services -- a federally funded nutrition program for low-income women, infants, and children up to the age of five -- as well as pediatric care and immunizations) - 32,229

So here we have, by Planned Parenthood’s own data for the year 2010, the basis of the moral question needed to smack down the liberal argument and expose them for the psychotic killers they are.      10,706,150 non-abortion services versus 329,445 dead human children in that year alone. No matter what else they do they are still killing children at a level that would be considered genocide if done by any other sector of society. “That’s only 3% of what they do!” the foaming at the mouth liberal claims.

The moral question is, “How many other services does it take to offset the killing of millions of human children?” See what I mean? It’s indefensible when you look at it from that perspective. If the Germans killed a million Jewish children how many free condoms (at government expense) would they have to distribute before society would have said; “okay, we can let them off the hook for that, let’s stop bombing them”? If a person went through a preschool class and killed twenty children how many free STD services (at government expense) would he have to perform before society would say; “you know, he’s not such a bad guy so I think we should give him our money”? Hell, if one person were to kill one child in as barbaric a fashion as Planned Parenthood themselves describe in the procedure for a partial birth abortion, most people would be for giving them the death sentence rather than giving him their money, no matter what else that person accomplished in his life.

From that perspective it turns into an argument that goes something like; “Hey! I killed a child today but I also baked some pies for the school band’s bake sale. So I got that going for me!” See? It’s ridiculous. But the important point is liberals can’t possibly answer the moral question without looking rather psychotic.

Sun Tzu, in the “Art of War” says, “So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak.” Point blank, liberalism is immoral. They are weak at that point. No matter what distraction they throw at you, no matter what “facts” they present, attack them at that point wherever possible, be relentless and ruthless at it and don’t let them distract you. You won’t change the rabid liberal’s mind. Just forget it, don’t even try. The objective is to win other people over, who are both moral and the vast majority of human beings, by the rationality of your arguments.

If you do this, while only being careful not to take the bait, no matter what they say or do to distract you, you will win supporters while silencing the opposition.

Follow the links below for the rest of the series:

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part One

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Two

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Three

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Four

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Five

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Six

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Seven

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Eight

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Nine

The anti-Liberal Techniques: Part 3, The Real Driving Force of Liberals

I’m going to say something in this post that will seem outrageous and extreme. It will sound like something a tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist would say. There will be people who will disagree with me about it. There will be people who will insult me and call me names because of it but I’m going to say it anyway, because it needs to be said.

As with all of my writings about the evils of liberalism I want it to be known that I’m not talking about the rank-and-file MSNBC watching type of liberal who is full of media created data that could not possibly be true. Those people, misinformed as they are, are victims of true liberalism. The ones I’m talking about are rabid ones who are the driving force behind all liberal policy.

I found this meme on Twitter a couple of days ago. It’s pretty good and pretty close to the truth. I wish I knew where it came from so I could credit them for it. But there is just one thing wrong with it, in that it does not go far enough. It’s not about control; although control is a necessary part of it, control is just a means to another end.

Sun Tzu wrote in “The Art of War” that, “All warfare is based on deception.” It’s not about greed. It’s not about helping anybody or being kind to them. It’s not about saving the children or charity or anything of that nature. It’s not about our personal safety or dignity or prosperity. Above all it is not about anybody’s human rights; in spite of their statements to the contrary.

There are some additional things not included in this meme that would greatly help me make my point. Why do liberals support genocidal abortion? Why do they support known violent and destructive protest movements like “Black Lives Matter”? Why do they support Socialism and Communism and lightly brush aside the criminal actions of leaders who are sympathetic with such policies? Why do they encourage the hatred of people who are more prosperous than others?

There is something all of these things have in common which people aren’t talking about nearly enough. Particularly those who oppose the above liberal policies.

Let’s take the very wide angle lens and look at the history of this world. One thing should be immediately obvious. There’s a whole lot of killing going on. Apparently somebody wants this kind of thing to happen and wants it to happen often.

I don’t regard it as the natural state of human existence. Somebody creates the situations that kill large amounts of people and they do it on purpose. There is no way I can conceive that a mass killing, such as the ones that have littered the history of this world, would just happen as an accident.

I’ve studied a lot of human history and I’ve noticed that the largest killers of mankind in wars and mass starvations are where big governments, under the pretense of trying to help people, went out of control and wiped out anybody who opposed them. Hundreds of millions of people have been wiped out over the last century by either communist or socialist governments. Hitler was a socialist; that’s what the word Nazi means—National SOCIALIST Worker’s Party. Lenin, Stalin and Mao were communists.

Now I’m absolutely certain that I’m not the first person to point out that lots of leftism is a very bad thing accomplished by very bad people. I am pointing out something very different that not a lot of people have really caught on to enough yet.

Most people of a conservative mindset think that the liberals are doing what they do for the sake of money or power over people’s lives. That is true enough from a point of view. However those things could be accomplished in so many other ways that would cause less damage to human life, that I can’t believe they are the only motivations of the things found on the liberal agenda. I think the real end they are after is so outrageous and barbaric that most people can’t possibly believe it is true.

So here’s a very positive note on human nature. Most people are good and just want to get along peacefully in life and do their thing. They, God bless them all, believe in a certain level of innocence. They have a difficult time conceiving the idea that someone would deliberately and with pure malice want to wipe them out. That degree of evil is just far enough beyond the edge of imagination that they don’t think anybody could actually intend to do it. Even when told about it they will reject it until it is absolutely proven to them by either tanks rolling down their street or the secret police knocking their door down in the middle of the night.

This is the way it was before World War 2 in Germany. They couldn’t understand their leaders were on a path to kill as many people as possible. Hitler’s propaganda machine was so good they thought he would only act for the good of the German people and state. In their minds “good” did not add up to killing tens of millions of people. They didn’t believe it right up until it happened. They didn’t want to confront it. They didn’t want it to be. Some still don’t believe it right up to this day.

America has had it good for quite some time now. We don’t want to believe it either. I certainly don’t.

Several years ago something began to change my mind. I wrote a science fiction book called “Lucifer’s Pocket.” In that book, a fiction set thousands of years in the future, one of the characters in a fit of bad temper made the statement, once, that liberals want you dead. Well I’ll be damned if every leftist who left a review for that book didn’t leave a scathing negative review which had nothing to do with the story and everything to do with defending liberalism.

As a person who is into studying human nature I look for reactions. They indicate something. Well, when a guy who doesn’t even exist makes an offhand statement that produces a frothing rage from leftists, there’s something there. There has to be or they wouldn’t react against it. They’d just say, “Well, it’s a science fiction book,” and move on with their lives.

So I started to look at what liberals support and why they claim to support what they do. Anybody would say that they are very inconsistent at best, unless they looked at the eventual outcome of their policies. The mistake is in listening to what they say and their stated intent. Those statements are drastically different than what the policies they are supporting actually accomplish. We should all know this by now. Where our side gets it wrong is underestimating the actual intent of the programs leftists want.

I pointed out in “The anti-Liberal Techniques: Part 1” that the programs have a tendency to be named after things that everybody would support because they sound so good. Yet those programs, like “The Great Leap Forward,” killed tens of millions of people at a time. The name of the program is what they say. Kill millions of people is what they do. So ignore what they say they are trying to do. They are lying. The point is they will say anything to make it sound like what they are doing is a good thing. They are “defending the poor” or “defending the children” or “defending the rights of women” or “defending minorities,” all the while causing disaster.

So I have to look at all liberal policy that I can and see what the results are. It’s not uncommon to find things on the internet that point out the inconsistency of the liberal policy of gun control and abortion. “If liberals want to use gun control to save children then why do they support Planned Parenthood?” See? It looks rather inconsistent when it is stated like that. Please believe me it is completely consistent. Gun control laws cause crime to go up and more people die. Planned Parenthood outright kills people. See?

So let’s try something different with liberal policy. If we see an apparent inconsistency like the one above, let’s ask ourselves, “What would kill the most people?” I’ve been doing this for at least three years and have eliminated all inconsistency and doubt from my mind as to the merits of liberal policy. You don’t need to look at the details, although you can if you want. The general big picture serves to inform you just as well if not better.

They want socialism. Hello Adolf. Hello Marx. Hello millions of dead people. They want redistribution of wealth. It’s useless to try and convince them that it causes poverty because they already know it and that’s what they want. Poverty makes people desperate and thus crime rates go up plus a lot of people starve and die through lack of medical attention. Speaking of which, the Affordable Care Act, will increase poverty, cause an increased lack of funds in the healthcare system, which will cause them to have to resort to rationing, then the people who get cut out through rationing will die sooner. What to do with illegal immigrants? Easy. Just let them across the border. No, don’t track them. Sure the violent crime rate is high among them so there will be more deaths. And if they overwhelm the system that protects American citizens? So what? More dead people. If the United States falls then that’s great! You know how many hundreds of millions of people the United States has saved over the years? The liberal mind screams in hatred and outrage against the United States of America only for this reason.

See what I mean? It’s completely consistent. Every time I look at any political debate the leftist is on the side of the argument that would kill the most people. Every. Single. Fricken. Time.

So why not just cut to the chase and call it what it is? All leftist policy is directed at making the strong weak and making the weak die, while pretending to be of help. Don’t doubt it, they want you dead. Every policy decision from the left is based on it. It is their highest consideration, first, last and always.

Follow the links below for the rest of the series:

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part One

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Two

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Three

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Four

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Five

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Six

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Seven

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Eight

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Nine

The anti-Liberal Techniques: Part 2, The Opposite Extreme

I’ve got some questions for all of the people on the conservative side of the political aisle. Are you tired yet of being called racists? Are you tired of being told you’re part of some kind of war on women? Are you tired of being told you are a homophobe? Are you tired of the same old discourteous and rude attitudes and insults being directed at you by liberals who just can’t stand the fact that someone might view something a little bit differently than them?

Well I’m very sorry to say that it is never going to go away until liberalism is completely and totally defeated. I know, I know. That leading paragraph made it sound like I had some special way to just get rid of the problem but let’s face it; there are plenty of liberals around and quite frankly sometimes—most of the time really—they are not very friendly people. That’s why they can’t restrain themselves from jumping to the kinds of insulting behavior they seem to take towards people who oppose them. And while I have no magic secret to make them go away so that the rest of us, the sane people, can just peacefully get on with our lives, I have to say “the hell with it!” if they are here and they are obnoxious, why not have some fun messing with them?

Now, there is something that has to be understood. For the purpose of this discussion there are two major kinds of liberals. There are the rank-and-file liberals and the rabid liberals.

The rank-and-file liberals are what some would call, “low information voters,” and things of that sort. For the most part they aren’t bad people. But for one reason or another—usually related to things like MSNBC—they’ve fallen into the leftist propaganda tricks. I know several people who used to belong to this category but after having certain things pointed out to them they changed their minds and started to view politics with some kind of rational sense. I, as a matter of fact, used to be one of those kinds of liberals. Rational people rather resent being lied to and as long as someone has the ability to think they can be brought to see the light.

Then there are the liberals who are the real driving force behind liberalism. They are the leaders. They are usually surrounded by rabid supporters who couldn’t generate a rational argument if their lives depended on it. They are all about emotions and force and never about thought. For many reasons I will not go into here, I consider them to be typically insane. Unfortunately they are also the people who are currently in power in Washington. The entire Democrat party and about half of the Republicans (establishment types) fall into this category, to a greater or lesser degree.

If you find yourself talking to someone who you suspect is liberal it is wise to keep your patience for a bit to see if they respond to reason. Show them hard facts if they are to hand. Don’t try to think for them. Let them think for themselves and they just might come to some sense. If you find yourself dealing with the second of these two in some social capacity, I have found the following a great way to deal with them if they decide to attack. I wouldn’t recommend it to be used on many of the rank-and-file types unless they happen to be giving you some particular kind of trouble. Just because someone is liberal doesn’t mean they are a jerk but as in gun safety, you should verify your target.

In my article, “The anti-Liberal Technique: Part 1” I wrote about how liberals will name something and make it sound all warm and fuzzy; as if it were a government program that nobody in their right mind would want to oppose. “The Great Society” or “A New Beginning” or maybe even, “The Great Leap Forward” are fantastic examples. I also mentioned how the liberals like to use such titles to make people who oppose them look kind of nutty or extreme.

This could be about some program having to do with race, or equal opportunity and rights for the poor, or dealing with illegal immigrants, or really, just about any issue involving a lot of emotion. I had one of these conversations just the other day about anti-discrimination laws where I used this technique and it was a very gratifying success. For the sake of demonstration I’m going to use an issue that is of ultimate importance to everybody, everywhere. I’m going to talk about, “The Defense of Cute, Fuzzy Little Kittens Act.”

Let’s say you’re having a happy conversation with someone on Facebook and the subject has just turned to politics. You get some snarky smart ass liberal looking for a fight who asks you…

Liberal: “Are you for 'The Defense of Little Kittens Act?'”

You: “No, I’m not.”

Liberal: “So you hate little kittens.”

DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!! The trouble starts here! This person is about to launch a full attack against you.

This is where you have to keep your wits about you. Don’t be flustered. Don’t get angry. From here on out just assume that’s the liberal’s job. Above all, DON’T TAKE THE DEFENSIVE STANCE! DO NOT; UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, ACCEPT THE PREMISE!!! You know it’s a false one so don’t behave otherwise. The objective here is to throw it back in their face, while all the while keeping your cool. If you can bring it off, you’ll impress other thinking people around you. You’ll be the object of admiration from your conservative friends and family. You might even get laid; although, honestly, that hasn’t happened to me as a direct result of this yet, and I’m certainly not giving any guarantees on the matter, I’m still holding out hope.

Here’s your response…

You: “Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I endorse whatever delusion you think is the most radical opposite.”

I have to say that if there is anybody with any ability at all to think rationally, within the sound of your voice when you say this, they will approve. You’ll get some “likes” for certain. And while it won’t do anything to change the rabid liberal’s mind (most of the time that’s impossible anyway) it will be obvious even to him that you are a truly formidable foe and it will soften him up a bit. More often than not they will pause for a fairly long time because they’ve just been caught off guard (they expect you to try and deny it) and have to collect themselves. Usually they will just repeat…

Liberal: “So you hate little kittens.”

You could almost picture a question mark there, as if they’ve lost some certainty. The amount of certainty they’ve lost is proportional to the length of the pause. They might even rephrase it slightly to try and seem as if they are saying something different but it will almost always amount to the same kind of thing. Either way your response will be something to the effect of…

You: “You know what? I think it might be you that hates little kittens.” (In effect you’re invading his territory, which is where the fight should be.)

Liberal: “What? It’s YOU that doesn’t want a law to defend the little kittens!”

You: “Yes, but that only means the little kittens don’t need to be defended from me. I think maybe you’re afraid of what YOU might do to little kittens and need a law to restrict YOU from harming cute little fuzzy kittens.”

(In reviewing this post I remembered something from my days in the Navy. One of my shipmates said to me in an effort to rattle my chains, "You know what Ashton? Ohio is the only State in the country that doesn't have a law that you can't screw your sister." My response with a smile was, "You need a law to tell you not to screw your sister?")

There is actually a pattern of human nature to back this line of logic up. Do you think Rosie O’Donnell wants gun control laws to keep you from owning a gun? Maybe, but I think deep down she knows she’s a raving lunatic who is out of control of her own behavior, just enough to sense that it is her who shouldn’t have a gun. Think about this; it’s an irrational fear that someone is going to kill someone with a gun which they use as a reason to ban them. If it’s in Rosie’s head enough for her to say it, it must somehow also apply to her because she is the one saying people use guns to kill people. Whether this pattern of human nature is actually true or not, or even if you believe it or not, this is a line of logic that seems to work and so liberals have some serious trouble with it. I guarantee you’re going to get some interesting and disjointed responses from its use if you can act as if it is absolute truth. The liberal will usually follow with something like…

Liberal: “That doesn’t make sense.” (Or something of that nature.)

You: “Sure it does. Think about it. I don’t need a law to tell me not to be mean to little kittens. Apparently you need a law that tells you not to be mean to little kittens.” (You might be tempted to mention how much you like kittens here. Don’t do it! Keep the attention on him. They are not used to fighting on defense.)

Liberal: “Wrong. That’s just so illogical!”

You: “Apparently I’m right. You seem to think people are evil and need laws to restrain them from abusing little kittens. I assume that you’re a person. Therefore according to you, you’re evil. Therefore YOU need a law to restrain YOU from abusing little kittens because you obviously don’t know better yourself.”

See what’s happened here? He’s on defense. You aren’t. This is usually the point where they give up. But if they don’t…

Liberal: “You’re wrong.” Or “You’re an asshole.” Or “That doesn’t make any sense.” Or “By that logic…” It will be something of that nature usually.

You: “Why don’t you just confess? There’s obviously something there bothering your conscience that makes you think you need laws to control your behavior towards little kittens. Why don’t you just fess up to it? You’ll feel better.”

If you keep this kind of approach up, never yielding an inch from that point and behaving in every demonstrable way you are certain of it, they’ll give up shortly enough. Accolades from those who have witnessed it will come from all around. This not only works well on various social media but it also might have some application in face to face debates; though I’ve never tested it.

No matter what happens though, if you keep your cool, keep the fight in their territory, don’t expect any kind of logic from rabid liberals, and don’t take the defensive, you’ll have some serious fun. And while you will likely never convince the rabid liberal you’re conversing with, there is a good chance other people who witness it will be convinced.

And that’s what it’s all about.

Follow the links below for the rest of the series:

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part One

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Two

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Three

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Four

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Five

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Six

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Seven

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Eight

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Nine