The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part 8, Common Sense

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  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.

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 7, Taxman

I have often observed that political liberalism, as practiced by the rank and file liberal, is a philosophy of emotion rather than thought. This is observable easily enough when you look at the propaganda they pass along.

Picture of a starving child; we should use the government to take money from the taxpayers and feed the child. Picture of a drowning polar bear; we should use the government to take money from the taxpayer and save the polar bears. Picture of a homeless person; we should use the government to take money from the taxpayers and buy homes for everybody. Picture of a child who can’t read; we should use the government to take money from the taxpayers and fund public libraries and teacher’s unions. The list goes on and on. They use any big crisis followed by a plea to use government to take money to fix the problem. The pattern is obvious and simple. Never let a crisis go to waste.

It’s also quite obvious and simple to someone who has the slightest inkling of human history and human nature that such emotional pleas are started by the true driving force behind all liberalism. The hardcore radical liberal is an angry person who seeks to take over and destroy anything they can get their hands on. This is evidenced by the many great historical examples of unfettered liberalism where genocides always seem to happen. Notice that every example I gave above includes an increase in government power with a corresponding decrease in the freedom of the taxpayer to control his own money as he pleases.

The primary difference between rank and file liberalism and conservatism is that a conservative takes the time to think things through. They don’t just shoot from the hip in a fit of emotion; rather, they look at the longer term consequences of having the government, which has minimal qualifications to handle anything with expertise, in charge of handling everything.

The problem becomes a matter of how to handle a liberal. You can put any sort of statistical fact or study or well based analytical opinion in front of them and it will simply bounce right off. Even if you get them to acknowledge the point you’re making and recognize the validity of the data they will usually say that they, “just have a feeling,” that whatever they are doing is for the best of all of us. Most often they will just tell you that you want children to starve, you’re a racist, bigot, etc., for not supporting what they do. Never fail to have the sense to recognize that what you are dealing with is not an analytical argument; it’s based on nothing but pure emotional stimulus response.

The problem is that when you approach a rank and file liberal, or someone who is on the fence, you have to approach them and make a basic, easy to understand and factual point which also appeals to the emotions of an unthinking person. Don’t bother giving them data from someone like the Heritage Foundation or Freedom Works or any obvious conservative source of data. No matter how valid it is they will simply mock it as data from partisan hacks. These sources make good points, but for the person who is paralyzed from the neck up it is useless because it requires that they do something that they can’t usually do. Think. It is a waste of time to send them something of that nature because it will go so far above their heads they’d never even see it.

Unfortunately there is no hope of easily handling the hardcore radical liberal and you will likely never win them over. Should you find yourself confronted by a rank and file liberal there are easy ways to handle them. You simply stick to only the very basic points that they cannot deny and appeal to their emotions as they relate personally to them.

Whether you are liberal or conservative, there is one thing inherent to the nature of all human beings. Emotions are universal. We all have them. If you show me a picture of a starving child I will have the same feeling as a rank and file liberal. The hardcore radical liberal looks at picture of a starving child and has an emotional reaction as well; they are gladdened by it. However, if you are bothered by something, a rank and file liberal is most likely bothered by the same thing and has the same emotional reaction. The difference is that a conservative sees many different ways to solve the problem which don’t interfere with the freedoms of other people. The rank and file liberal becomes consumed by the desperation of the situation and being somewhat hypnotized by the radical liberal’s propaganda, thinks the government is the only way to handle everything. That’s the only choice which does not require them to think.

I’ll say this again because it is important; you have to get below the level of thought, into an area where they can immediately observe a fact on an emotional level. If you give them a choice that causes them to have to think ahead in the slightest degree you will lose them.

To this end I give some examples. There are too many approaches to list out here but if you understand the basics you’ll be able to move things along nicely.

Basic truth; either you control your money or someone else does. So ask the rank and file liberal, “Either you control your money or someone else does; isn’t that correct?” Do this with manners and good communication skills. You wait until they answer it, even if this takes forever. If they never answer it, they never answer it, but it is your best chance to get them on to the lowest possible rung of the ladder towards thinking for themselves.

Basic truth; either you believe you should control your own money or you believe someone else should control your money. This is where the emotional point comes in. Most people, by far, inherently recognize at an emotional level, the connection between their own freedom and control of their bank accounts and pay checks. People don’t like to have things taken away from them. “Do you believe you should control your own money or do you think someone else should control your money?” Most people will follow the basic truth at the emotional level and admit that they’d rather have control of their own money. There are some that will hedge and try to dodge all along the way but if you persist and get this question politely answered there may be hope for them.

Basic truth; either a politician believes you should have control of your money or he wants control of your money for himself. Do not point out which side is which! Remember, you are dealing with a person who has been programmed at an emotional level to support the left. If you at any point mention Democrats are bad they will react emotionally. Just stick to the question and let them observe for themselves. If you’ve handled it smoothly enough, and if the person is capable of thinking at all, you should see the lights come on to some degree.

There is a difficult part that not even a lot of people who support Republicans get. Basic truth; if a politician says he is justified in taking any percentage of money from you, for any cause at all, without your own personal consent; you do not have control of your money. I know that is a radical statement as some people would see it. I’d challenge anybody to disprove its factuality on the basis that even if the politician says, “I’m only going to take a paltry five percent and you won’t even miss it,” it is the politician who is deciding that you can only control the remaining ninety-five percent of what is yours. If he changes his mind tomorrow and says he’s going to take seven percent, ten percent, twenty percent or like most European Socialist countries a whopping seventy-five percent, it is him who is taking it and making the decision that whatever is left over is yours to do with as you please. It is a principle that leads back to my first basic truth; either you control your money or someone else does. The government, backed by any number of people, taking money against the will of the person who is giving it, violates the basic definition of having control of your own money.

The preceding paragraph is more than you could explain to a person who isn’t thinking. There is also the point that the government of any country does have valid expenses that do need to be covered. And there are certainly people who would wish to not contribute to the cause at all. For myself, I have never understood why the government can’t have its own source of income, rather than feeding like leeches off of the income of others. But that’s not the point of this article and setting my own tendencies towards digression aside we have to impress upon the fence sitting rank and file liberal that less taxes equals more freedom. The above basic has the flaw of being stated as a rather complex absolute.

In keeping with the need to make the appeal to a liberal an emotional one that would tend to get him to change his mind a very gentle approach on a gradient works best. “Do you feel that you would have more freedom if less of your money was taken from you?” You are not appealing to his sense of logic or compassion for others. You are directly asking for his emotional feelings on the subject. If you can move him down a single percentage point in his support for taxation, you’ve moved him in the right direction. Tomorrow maybe you’ll move him another point.

There is one problem that is very difficult to handle. Class envy. If he’s not a person who understands the wealthy of this country, which he isn’t one of, carries the economic circumstances of both the rich and poor, there is only one argument I can think to use on him, and this is a very long shot. Again, this argument needs to be stated as an emotion and needs to be directly related to him. “Do you feel it would be easier for you to move from being poor or middle class if the government has less control of your money as you progress?”

If the person you’re talking to is complaining about unpatriotic corporations moving overseas don’t bother pointing out to them that the United States currently has the highest corporate taxes in the world. They will have no sympathy for this point at all, even if you explain to them that they are paying higher prices for it because corporations will only pass the expend of the tax on to their customers. It is far too complicated and does not have the personal emotional appeal they need to understand. So again you stick to simple and personal. “If the town you’re living in requires you to pay forty percent of your income to taxes and the next town over only requires ten percent, where do you feel would be the best place to live?”

Hopefully these points and principles will give you the ability to make some headway. While they may not change the viewpoint of the person you are having the conversation with they will usually convince other people who might incidentally overhear the conversation or read it in social media if that’s where you are having it. Frequently I hear accolades from someone who wasn’t even in the conversation about how it was handled. Be polite and have good manners and most of the time you’ll pick up some support.

If all else fails there is still one very good thing you can do to make your point. Basic truth; liberals love the Beatles at a personal and emotional level. Send them a link to the song, “Taxman.” If that doesn’t win them over nothing will. Either way you’ll have the benefit of getting a great song stuck in your head. And that’s better than arguing with a liberal any day.

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

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