Nuclear Counterarguments 22-Essay Series
A Reference Library
See essay previews below
• A conservative’s challenge is not victory over liberalism.
The real challenge is that liberals desperately need help. Until now conservatives have singularly focused on winning a match of ideas with liberals – and if that was the only criteria, conservatism would have won long ago. But conservatives are losing because that is not the real battle. Liberals care little about a game of matching ideas because they are engaged in a fulltime war with their own inherent fears, dragging the country down like a drowning man who pulls others below the surface with him. Liberals don’t need to be defeated – they need to be rescued. To save America from the ideology of liberalism, it needs to be ‘defeated’ by rescuing liberals.
• Liberals are not deliberately attempting to destroy America.
Conservatives have been told that liberals are deliberately destroying the country. This makes no sense. Why would liberals deliberately destroy the country they also must live in? There simply must be a deeper reason for their destructive attitudes and policies – and there is. The destruction is a result of their own panicked reactions to their own ingrained paranoia. A liberal’s whole world revolves around a foundation of paranoid delusion.
• Conservatives must engage and disarm liberals on their battleground of paranoia.
Liberals are the casualties of a pernicious societal conditioning that leads them to fear almost everything – they see evil monsters hiding beneath every rock (examples are explored throughout the essay series). As a result, these irrational fears drive liberals to attempt to create a safe, collective utopia at the expense of individual liberty, where all of their imagined evil monsters can be slain. It is this paranoid compulsion for safety-through-control (reactive collectivism) that destroys individual liberty and drags the country down.
• The Nuclear Counterarguments Essay Series is a strategy of rehabilitation.
To overcome liberal paranoia conservatives must first understand liberalism. Conservatives are motivated by ideas. Liberals are obsessed with fears. To win a liberal over to conservatism one must simultaneously disable their fears and replace them with ideas. If the fears are not dealt with, the ideas will be useless (think about it – certainly you have witnessed this many times). The Nuclear Counterarguments Essay Series provides tools to do both. I call this process deprogramming liberalism with nuclear counterarguments.
• Above all, conservatives must provide a sanctuary for liberal refugees.
Even though for conservatives the Nuclear Counterarguments Essay Series reads like having the other team’s playbook, it is actually written as a personable exit counseling process for liberals – a remedial rehabilitation. For conservatives it is The Art of War against reactive collectivism. For liberals (and America as a whole) it represents dry land to a drowning man – a lifeline to shore!
The N.C. Essay Series explains the thought and belief process behind liberalism in detail as never before – all of liberalism’s strengths and weaknesses are exposed. Within the first few minutes of reading in essay #1 the reader is exposed to liberalism’s kryptonite – an Achilles’ heal realization that immediately shocks a liberal’s thought process right down to their shoes! Essay #2 focuses on liberal attitude and their compulsive paranoia. Essay #3 expands on what motivates liberals, where their power comes from, and how it can be defused by responding to how liberals think. Essay #4 outlines contemporary liberalism’s origins. And essay #5 delves deeper into the liberal’s thought process – there are 18 principles that drive liberalism. The following essays are issue oriented, pragmatically illustrating the inherent paranoia that infects virtually everything in a liberal’s ideological life. Done properly, a liberal’s thinking can be turned from an irrational fear of conservative ideas into an intellectual rejection of liberalism’s inherent paranoia. Only then is a liberal rescued from drowning. And, one liberal at a time, America can be saved from being pulled under by them.
The N.C. Essay Series is much more than just a set of opinions. It is based on provocative questions, factual critical analysis, and fully sourced contextual investigation. With over 1,300 pages of text, over 1,200 reference citation links, over 600 recommended-reading citation links, over 600 profound insights, close to 400 bookmark links, dozens of original graphs and tables, and dozens more externally sourced graphs, tables, maps and images, the N.C. Essay Series is a political issues reference library like no other.
Series Theme: The Nuclear Counterarguments Essay Series explores the state of freedom in America based on societal issues and conflicting ideologies.
Series Premise: The core American value of individual liberty is being undermined by a reactive collectivism as a result of societal conditioning.
Series Observation: Based on an inherent paranoia, contemporary American liberalism is attempting to create a safe collectivist utopia at the expense of individual liberty.
Series Goal: To provide understanding and countermeasures for those opposed to this reactive collectivism, plus exit counseling for those afflicted with the societal conditioning of contemporary liberalism.
The United States of America is the single most important reason that freedom has spread around the world. Every person who enjoys any amount of freedom today owes at least some debt of gratitude to America for promoting and protecting the ideal of individual liberty against the tide of tyrants and rival ideologies that have assaulted freedom during the past century. Unfortunately, for over four decades individual liberty in America has been weakened from within by a collectivist ideological movement contemporarily known as liberalism. The primary purpose of the N.C. Essay Series is to defeat the collectivism of contemporary liberalism by re-establishing individual liberty as a core American value in every reader – whether conservative, liberal or otherwise.
Learn about each of the 22 essays:
Capsule: #1 Deprogramming Liberalism with Nuclear Counterarguments is a primer for the Nuclear Counterarguments Essay Series, setting out its purpose which focuses on understanding the ideology of contemporary American liberalism – how it originated, how it operates, how it spreads, its motivations, and its sociological and psychological implications. Throughout this exploration a strategy of exit counseling (that will be nothing less than eye-popping), is offered for the liberal reader to free them self from the inherent paranoia of contemporary liberalism. The conservative reader will be enlightened with profound insights that cannot be found at any other source.
Most Liberals In Their Core Beliefs Are Conservative
Focus: As a principle, would you prefer others to direct your life, or would you prefer to have the freedom to direct your own life? Answer this and I will tell you who you really are – and who you are not.
Details: #1 Deprogramming Liberalism with Nuclear Counterarguments reveals one important reality above all: Virtually every contemporary American liberal (and progressive) lives a life of blatant contradiction, primarily living their ideological life as a liberal, while also passionately possessing a core belief that is exactly 180 degrees out of phase with that liberalism. To be confronted with this contrast is like a double-kick to the chest – the realization that the vast majority of self-proclaimed liberals, when defined by their core beliefs are in fact, not liberals at all. This realization then opens wide a door for the liberal reader to understand the negative implications and unintended consequences of their affliction, and deal with them head-on.
The contemporary American liberal is a product of a societal conditioning propagated on a foundation of paranoia which drives the afflicted subject into the deceptive comfort of attempting to create a safe, collectivist utopia at the expense of individual liberty. The N.C. Essay Series offers a process through which those afflicted can effectively dispense with that paranoia through a rediscovery of the core American value of individual liberty. Unsurprisingly, I call this exit counseling process deprogramming liberalism.
Excerpts: ~Liberal American neighbor, you may think that at some time in your past you knowingly decided to accept liberalism as your ideological world view. Realistically, that is very, very unlikely. You may have at some point in your life markedly decided to embrace and overtly act upon your liberalism, but it is much more likely that your liberalism originated as a subliminally acquired condition in your early childhood. From then on it has been compounded throughout your life, likely with no real awareness of its covert progress by yourself or those around you. … A person’s belief system is based on what a person has lived. Obviously if you had been born of a family in rural Pakistan your belief system would be much different than if you had been born into the upper crust of Boston high society. In each case your belief system would have been molded by your life experience. … Few get to the point where they are able to consciously choose their world view outside of their circumstantial conditioning. This unique opportunity is what I am offering you, American neighbor. As someone who has already gone through the process, I am willing to guide you through it as well.~
Avoid regret later by saving a link to this website right now…
Capsule: #2 Contemporary American Liberalism = Paranoid Delusion deals with the theory presented in the 1964 essay by historian Richard Hofstadter called The Paranoid Style in American Politics, and how it applies hand in glove to contemporary American liberalism. Liberal motivations, how they view themselves, and how liberals see the motivations of others are keys to comprehending this Paranoid Style. An understanding of these three elements of liberal thinking leads to a foundational understanding of everything liberals think and do.
An Evil Monster Beneath Every Rock
Focus: How would you describe a person who constantly sees evil monsters attempting to destroy every aspect of the country, the world, and their very life?
Details: #2 Contemporary American Liberalism = Paranoid Delusion drills down to the inner thinking of what makes a liberal tick. Liberals are convinced that their ideology is noble and that all that opposes it is evil. This justifies in the mind of a liberal all sorts of nefarious behavior, such as sophistry, demagoguery, hate and even violence, and excuses any and all failures and indiscretions displayed by other liberals (literally dozens and dozens of examples are presented to illustrate both sides of this attitude). This attitude also leads to imagining evil monsters lurking everywhere, devouring everything good – which is liberalism, of course (literally hundreds of examples are presented with regular updating from the news).
An examination of Richard Hofstadter’s 1964 The Paranoid Style in American Politics, reveals an uncanny description of today’s liberal ideological movement from before modern liberalism even developed. Hofstadter gives us a detailed list of things to look for that communicate the paranoid style, all directly applicable to liberals (again, with a multitude of examples).
Excerpts: ~It is on this base of compulsive paranoia that the liberal programmed mind embraces the principles of playing stupid and accepting irrational double standards, that are justified by generating the principles of a war between noble liberal motives and evil conservative motives, that then reinforce the paranoia. It is virtually circular – each step perpetuates the other, but the key to understanding liberalism is the compulsive paranoia. … It is the paranoia of evil monsters imagined as out there everywhere that leads liberals to give up directing their own lives just to keep from being eaten up. Everything is out of control. Monsters are ruining everything. Somebody must take control. So the liberal voluntarily and incrementally gives up the control of directing his own life to a life of indenture so that the monsters can be kept at bay. … So, what do you think is the primary difference between a contemporary liberal and a contemporary conservative, American neighbor? It is paranoia. Liberals are afraid of almost everything. The sooner a liberal realizes that paranoia drives their life, the sooner they will want to get rid of that paranoia. Quite simply, separate the foundational paranoia from a liberal and you end up with a conservative. That is what the process of deprogramming liberalism is all about, American neighbor.~
Contemporary American liberalism results from a societal conditioning, propagated on a foundation of paranoia, that subsequently drives liberals into the deceptive comfort of attempting to create a safe, collectivist utopia, at the expense of individual liberty.
Capsule: #3 Groupthink Truths Versus Self-evident Truths expands on the liberal concept of playing stupid (lying to oneself and others), introduced in the first essay of the series. The scoff reflex is examined in detail along with the Uncle Tom Syndrome, the noble lie, and a Solomon Asch study on self-interest versus group-interest. Then we conduct our own interactive study using the so-called Clinton budget surpluses of the late 1990s as our platform.
In Ideology Liberals Act Out as Rebellious Fourteen-year-olds
Details: #3 Groupthink Truths Versus Self-evident Truths is a fascinating look into the various aspects of truth, through definitions, studies, behavior examination, the role of peer pressure, and the two types of contemporary liberals – alpha and beta liberals, with their roles defined and broken down in regard to their respective influences as to what is accepted as a liberal truth.
Using the supposed Clinton budget surpluses of the late 1990s, the liberal reader is directly confronted with a choice between the fraudulent group-interest of liberal dogma and their own self-interest. On one side of the argument is the liberal truth in the form of a dogmatic mantra repeated by liberals for over a decade. On the other side are self-evident debt numbers that completely defeat that liberal mantra. The liberal reader is confronted with a choice between continuing to lie to themselves, or instead embracing a position of honesty with them self that, if accepted, refutes some of the basic principles necessary to remain a liberal.
Excerpts: ~Contemporary liberalism requires a strict adherence to playing stupid. It begins with lying to oneself. Liberals are often aware that what they espouse is a lie, at least in the beginning, but continue to play along even with truisms [a self-evident truth] staring them in the face. They think it is noble to perpetuate the noble lie, because in their minds they are fighting evil. Eventually – and it may not take long – they will not even remember that their new truth began as a lie (or has since been proven to be a lie). Playing stupid becomes their identity on that issue. … The awakening is when you realize that your life has been run by beliefs that were never your own. They were someone else’s truths implanted in you. Not only were they someone else’s beliefs, they were frauds masquerading as truths. At the awakening, you will realize that these fraudulent beliefs have enslaved you to an ideology of subjugation that is a matrix of lies, half-truths and manipulations, but it is even more than this. It is not just what you believe – it is how you think that is repaired with the awakening. It is a realization that you have been playing stupid by lying to yourself for a very long time.~
The Five Predominant Characteristics of a Typical Liberal: | 1. Paranoid | 2. Desires a safe utopia | 3. Sees all opposition to utopia as evil | 4. Views liberalism as nobly fighting evil | 5. In their core beliefs they are not a liberal |
Capsule: #4 Benevolent Utopia or Tyrannical Dystopia reveals the origin and background of contemporary liberalism in America. Liberalism in its current form only really began in the late 1960s. It was preceded by a scatter-gun progressivism that didn’t have a specific ideological purpose other than “progress” toward a happy utopian state. Liberalism then turned progressivism into a paranoid ideology that refocused the effort into creating a safe utopian state. Contemporary American liberalism was born of a mother of progressivism and a father of paranoia.
Invasion of the Mutant Liberals
Focus: John Dewey nurtured progressivism in America for over half a century, only to have it suddenly mutate into unintended consequences – contemporary American liberalism.
Details: #4 Benevolent Utopia or Tyrannical Dystopia is a history lesson in the ideology of liberalism. Over the past century until the beginning of today’s liberalism in the late 1960s, the predominant ideology of America can be virtually diagrammed by the ideologies of the Presidents of the United States. Woodrow Wilson established progressivism as a governing ideology in the 1910s. Presidents Harding and Coolidge went back to the classical liberalism of the previous century in the 1920s. Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt again returned to progressivism, but mixed in a liberal dollop of the then fashionable Euro-fascism. Truman was forced to water his wine with much of the fascism introduced in the 1930s removed by congress in the 1940s. Eisenhower and Kennedy moved the needle toward classical liberalism even more, but with progressivism as still dominant. It was President Johnson in the 1960s that tipped the scale over to what we now know as contemporary liberalism. Presidents have come and gone since then, but liberalism has steadily gained steam, with only an occasional bump in the road.
Excerpts: ~What is now known as contemporary American liberalism began with arguably the most famous (I would argue infamous) educational philosopher of the past century, John Dewey. He was a progressive utopian dreamer who lived from 1859 to 1952 and is known as the “Father of Modern Education”, which is hardly different from saying the “father of contemporary liberalism”. … John Dewey was not a liberal by contemporary standards – he was not a complete paranoid. In other words, liberals today would probably not agree with John Dewey on many points, and he would probably be horrified with much of contemporary liberalism’s reactions to their extreme paranoia. Nevertheless, he is the father of contemporary liberalism. … Utopianism assumes that humanity and society can be perfected. This is what John Dewey believed, and liberals also believe this for the most part. … But Dewey thought that as society was perfected politicians would become less and less necessary as this new utopian society would naturally function with little governance necessary. This is the goal of an idealistic communist state where each person supposedly desires to work and live for the good of all at the expense of himself – no self-interest, only group-interest with little management necessary. … This, of course, is the first major contrast between Dewey’s utopianism and contemporary liberalism. Liberals are paranoid of anything that might provide resistance to achieving utopia, so government control is central to liberalism. Under liberalism, to reach utopia, limits must be imposed on a society. This of course requires a guiding hand – the hard rule of big government. … Liberalism demands an ever-expanding ruling class to coerce society in the ‘proper’ direction.~
Liberalism: A fear-driven submission to collective life-management – modern slavery.
Conservatism: A bold self-reliance of being one’s own life-manager – individual liberty.
Capsule: #5 Bouncing Around Inside a Liberal’s Head is about how people react to phobias – and discussing phobias. A person with arachnophobia has an irrational fear of spiders. You could have an intellectual conversation with this person about how irrational arachnophobia is, and they would probably agree with you entirely. Nevertheless, if you were to then place a spider on the table in front of them, which do you think would win in their mind – their rational, intellectual agreement with you, or their irrational fear?
A Person’s Belief System Is Based On What a Person has Lived
Focus: If you were born and grew up in rural Pakistan, do you think you would have grown up to become a liberal?
Details: #5 Bouncing Around Inside a Liberal’s Head reveals that one of the most prominent characteristics that differentiate mankind from all other animals is our ability to live in a constant state of contradiction. Animal belief systems are essentially one-dimensional – they react to what they believe at the time. In other words, they do not have core principled, ideological beliefs that can be contradicted by immediate beliefs. Liberals do this all of the time.
Excerpt: ~We all play the game of life mostly on terms not determined by us, but instead dealt to us by circumstances. Few get to the point where they are able to consciously choose their world view outside of their circumstantial conditioning. This unique opportunity is what I am offering you, American neighbor. As someone who has already gone through the process, I am willing to guide you through it as well.
Every person lives their life through a combination of subliminal and conscious beliefs. Conscious beliefs are based on conscious decisions we make in response to circumstances in our lives. As a youth we consciously reject our childhood faith in the existence of Santa Claus. Later we may consciously change our world view or religion. Or we decide precisely which colors of clothes suit us best. But, by far, the more complex are subliminal beliefs. They are almost instinctual in operation, but are not innate, as are instincts. Instead they are acquired, beginning with our earliest childhood experiences. We do not choose our subliminal beliefs, rather it is more like they choose us through the fate of circumstances in each person’s life. They are accrued through childhood experiences, interaction with our parents, family and friends, through our schooling, and through television, the internet, the media, entertainment, etc. Generally, we grow into our subliminal beliefs as they grow into us. They are like an alien slowly taking over our lives from the inside out.~
Deprogramming Liberalism: A combination of covert tactical formulas with an overt exit counseling process by which the inherent paranoia of contemporary American liberalism can be removed from liberals.
Capsule: #6 Tyranny Versus Liberty addresses the issue of ideological definitions from a whole new perspective. All ideology boils down to one concept; the amount of freedom granted the individual in a society. Everything else is peripheral by comparison. It is the first and most basic measure of any ideology. All other considerations are influenced by it.
Left = More Tyranny … Right = More Liberty
Focus: Which ideology offers the most freedom and why?
Details: #6 Tyranny Versus Liberty exposes that a general misunderstanding of ideologies is one of the most pressing issues of our time. And no wonder, since so many ideologies have so much to hide. For those ideologies it is best to keep everything muddled and confused. How would it benefit communists for it to be commonly known that they desire the total eradication of individual liberty, to be replaced with a voluntary and then eventual coerced slavery to the state. Obviously communists would rather talk about equal rights for all, as if that equates to freedom for all, when in fact it means tyranny over all. Once the basics are understood about individual liberty versus tyranny, a person will have no problem positioning them self and their belief system on any ideological scale.
Excerpts: ~Let’s talk about ideologies, American neighbor. For most of the twentieth century, ideological identifications and definitions were more specifically complex than today, more philosophical, describing idealistic sets of goals such as Nazi fascism, Red communism, European socialism and democratic free market capitalism. But political strategies have evolved and few countries still hold to the proclaimed ideological goals as defined in many of the old textbooks. Conservatism and liberalism had very different meanings than they do today (remember we discussed classical liberalism in #4 Benevolent Utopia or Tyrannical Dystopia). This is why I talk about contemporary liberalism and contemporary conservatism. Ideology today is not so much about overtly grand plans for society with guiding principles. Strategies now are more covert and deceptive, reactive, and implemented by the seat of the pants. Contemporary ideologies have boiled down to a balance between two things; preservation and denial of individual liberty. Basically, contemporary ideology is a measure of societal control through the amount of liberty permitted and denied. … For a scale to be useful it must measure something. For our purposes we will build a simple linear scale. The base criteria of measurement for our ideological scale is the freedom of the individual – your liberty. On the extreme leftwing will be complete authoritarian control over the individual. On the extreme rightwing we will place virtual freedom from control for the individual. … The anarchist and the nihilist don’t believe in big government control (at least initially), but they still oppose individual liberty (more shortly).~
The following ideological dichotomies are discussed in detail: Leftwing/Rightwing, Control/Liberty, Vanity/Humility, Libertine/Moralistic, Deprecation/Exceptionalism, Arbitrary Rights/Deistic Rights, Crisis Engineering/Ordered Liberty, Command Capitalism/Demand Capitalism, Entitlement Attitude/Rugged Individualism, Government Dependency/Entrepreneurial Spirit, Constitutional Circumvention/Constitutional Adherence.
What makes a website relevant? Content. Content. Content. And purpose.
In the N.C. Essay Series the purpose is liberty for all, and the content is as overwhelming as a succession of nuclear blasts.
Capsule: #7 Finally! A Scale of Ideologies that Makes Sense offers exactly what the title implies. If all Americans understood the basic principles of ideology, individual liberty would not be under threat in America. Once the reader understands the dichotomy between the two major categories of ideologies they will naturally conclude that collectivism should be rejected as reactive and anti-freedom.
To Be Useful A Scale Must Measure Something
Focus: Which offers more personal freedom? The collectivism of contemporary liberalism, or the individual liberty of contemporary conservatism. Or, in other words, which equals a voluntary slavery to the state?
Details: #7 Finally! A Scale of Ideologies that Makes Sense measures ideological fundamentals based on liberty denied and liberty protected. This simple solution avoids the common pitfalls in other scales like grouping liberty-loving minimalists with anarchists and nihilists, contemporary liberals with classical liberals, contemporary conservatives with turn of the twentieth century conservatives, and the often deliberate misplacing of fascism and Nazism. As the title implies, after hundreds of years of debate, finally, ideological classifications are now categorized in a scale that makes intuitive, logical sense.
Why is this important to the N.C. Essay Series? It is because contemporary American liberals are convinced that their ideology stands for liberty, while everyday liberals further undermine that same liberty with their collectivism. This new scale reveals at a glance the precise relationship between liberty and all ideologies, including liberalism.
Excerpts: ~There are basically two ways to govern a society. One is to administer a society. The other is to rule a society. Can you distinguish the difference between the two, American neighbor? An administering government has as its prerequisite view to interfere as little as necessary to maintain order in what it sees as a civil society. A ruling government has as its prerequisite view to coerce a ‘proper’ order from disorder in what it sees as an uncivilized society. One administers from the right side of the center tipping point. One rules from the left side of the center tipping point. Conservatism is about administering society. Liberalism is about ruling society. Here, let me give you a metaphoric example to illustrate the difference.
Walls are a good representation of a government’s intentions. The West Bank wall in Israel was erected to keep terrorists out. This was an administrative move to preserve the civil society within Israel from attack from without. The Israelis see themselves as a civil society threatened by those who would damage that civility from the outside. This is how contemporary conservatism views the governing of a society – the enemy is without. Whereas the Berlin Wall was erected between the two Germanys shortly after the Second World War to ‘civilize’ what the government of East Germany viewed as an uncivil society within, that given its choice would leave and migrate to a free West Germany. The East German government did not trust its own citizens to make ‘proper’ choices, so it imposed its own choices on them. Anyone who disagreed and attempted to cross over to the West was shot on sight. This is how the left, which includes contemporary liberalism, views the governing of a society – the enemy is within. The contemporary liberal views his own society as uncivilized and only civilizable through coercive government action. So walls must be erected to this effect.~
The following ideological subclasses are examined: Military Rule, Despotism, Marxism, Trotskyism, Communism, Fascism/Nazism, Theocratic Rule, Slavery, Nihilism/Terrorism, Anarchism, Progressivism, Neoliberalism, Statism, Unionism, Feminism, Secularism, Environmentalism, Animal Rights, Pacifism, Centrists, Moderates, Independents, Neoconservatism, Libertarianism, Minimalism, Classical Liberalism, Neofeminism, Traditionalism.
Nuclear Counterarguments: Where liberal arguments get nuked – not even dust remains.
Capsule: #8 The Not So Surprising History of Tax Cuts finally puts to bed the economic implications of reducing or raising taxes on a national level. All of the tax cuts and hikes since WWII are examined and compared for their results, leading to obvious and unarguable conclusions.
Make Tax Cuts One of Your Best Counterarguments
Focus: Which offers more freedom? You keeping more of your hard-earned money, or the government taking more of it? Which supports more individual liberty, and which advances the voluntary slavery of collectivism?
Details: #8 The Not So Surprising History of Tax Cuts is as much an examination of history as it is of numbers. The historic record provides clear evidence of the consequences of national tax hikes and tax cuts in America. One need not be an economist to decipher these results. Twelve easy to understand graphs and tables assembled from publicly available data are presented illustrating such effects as GDP, employment, government revenues, deficits and debt. President Bill Clinton’s tax increases are carefully examined, along with President George W. Bush’s tax decreases. Each of the major tax cuts and hikes of the past sixty years are directly compared by subsequent government revenue growth rates, with shocking results (well, for liberals, anyway).
As a bonus, the debate over the end of the Great Depression is finally closed with a step by step examination of its final years. Again, the policies that finally ended the greatest economic calamity in American history will shock liberals (and perhaps some conservatives). No, it was not the spending on the war (it prolonged the G.D.), and it was not FDR’s supposed brilliance (without his timely death, the G.D. would have turned into the Depression that Swallowed the World).
Excerpts: ~There have been three major tax increases and six major tax cuts over the last sixty years. Tell me, American neighbor, do you think the tax increases produced higher annual average government revenues, or did the tax cuts? Here’s another question: Can you name a period in American history where raising taxes caused the national debt to go down? How about a period where cutting taxes correlated with a reduction in national debt? And then there is this question: Which do you think adds more liberty for Americans to direct their own lives, tax cuts or tax hikes?~
Do you have a liberal friend or family member that you just can’t get through to?
Watch for a new Project providing pragmatic tactics for dealing with liberals in 2014.
Capsule: #9 Liberals Are the Compassionate Ones – Really? in one word asks a question that goes to the heart of the legitimacy of contemporary American liberalism. If there is one thing that liberals love to define themselves as, it is compassionate for those in need. But is it true? Does the empirical evidence support this contention? We’ll see…
By Their Own Definition Liberals Owe America a Lot of Money
Focus: Liberals believe that a tax cut for the rich is stealing from the poor. So when will rich liberals, who are thieves in their own minds, going to pay back the Reagan, Contract With America, and Bush tax cuts?
Details: #9 Liberals Are the Compassionate Ones – Really? answers the question in the title with a multitude of evidence. Liberals are not really compassionate. They are populists. A populist is a political manipulator who uses the us-versus-them strategy to ingratiate themselves to one group of people by demonizing another group of people. Thus, we have liberals pitting the poor against the rich to gain popularity with the masses by pretending to be compassionate for their cause by attacking the ‘evil rich’. Of course, usually it all boils down to penalizing the rich with more taxes and regulations, while little changes for the poor. This, liberals define as compassion.
Not only do liberals believe that they are compassionate, but they also believe that conservatives are not – to a liberal, conservatives are simply greedy. For instance, conservatives only want tax cuts for the rich in order to steal from the poor. In fact, this creates a delicious conundrum which results in the liberal reader needing to personally repudiate this myth of liberal compassion just to avoid having to send thousands of dollars to the federal government to sooth his own conscience. (Oh – to be a fly on the wall when liberals read this!)
Excerpts: ~Wealth adds benefit to liberty. A person is free to travel pretty much as they choose and purchase whatever luxuries they desire, with the one main restriction being affordability. Liberals resent that some people can afford to enjoy their liberty more than others. Their answer is to supposedly level the playing field with collectivism. … Liberals resent those who embrace liberty, and they resent even more those who enjoy liberty. Money enables one to enjoy one’s liberty. So the liberal thinks, “The rich individualist is an evil monster that crawled out from under that there rock.”~
Liberals or conservatives? Who gives more money to charities? Who gives more money to elite charities like operas, art galleries, etc.? Who gives more money to charities for the needy? Who donates more blood? Who donates more time as volunteers? Who is more likely to keep excess change? Who is more likely to help a homeless person? Who buys “green” and then are more likely to smugly lie, cheat and steal? Who prefers to be generous with other people’s money? Once all of these questions are answered we will know if liberals really are the compassionate ones.
I love conundrums that leave liberals sleepless and screaming at the night (or at least tossing and turning).
Capsule: #10 Regulamageddon – The 2008 Financial Crisis dissects what should have been a short, sharp recession that has instead evolved into the Obama Malaise. Learn about all of the contributing factors that amounted to a single cause for the housing bubble crash and financial meltdown.
Liberals Insist Over 600 Regulatory Agencies Aren’t Enough?!?
Focus: Are California, New York, Michigan, New Jersey, Illinois, Greece, Portugal, Italy and Spain broke because they are too liberal, or not liberal enough? Does being broke provide more individual liberty or less?
Details: #10 Regulamageddon – The 2008 Financial Crisis is about the ultimate unintended consequence. Liberals thought they could regulate America into a utopian prosperity where everyone owns a house, two cars, big screen TVs, with lots of vacation time. Unfortunately, America has ended up with the Obama Malaise instead. Liberals blame President George W. Bush with his tax cuts, trickle down economics and supposed deregulation, but that is all they do, is blame. I have read dozens of articles and reports about the housing bubble and financial crisis, but have never read one that lays out in detail the actual mechanics of why President Bush is to blame. In fact, there were a dozen factors involved in creating the crisis, and none of them include tax cuts, trickle down economics or deregulation (no, the repeal of Glass-Steagal was insignificant, and was done by the Clinton administration anyway). Regulamageddon lays it all out in layman’s terms (mostly).
Excerpts: ~Many economists and financial types think the economy can be calculated – that given enough data and smart enough mathematics the marketplace can be understood and explained. This is simply untrue. To be sure, elements of the marketplace can be calculated, but not the overall macro economy. The marketplace runs on mass emotions. Every financial decision, large and small is susceptible to the emotional elements of fear and greed, and desire and revulsion, which often override rational mathematical calculations. That is why advertising works. That is why the marketplace does what seems to be irrational things. That is why the marketplace is so hard to predict. That also is why when the American markets react to some economic news or calamity, markets around the world often immediately follow. And that is how market bubbles inflate with little notice until too late. … More than anything the economy needs to be psychoanalyzed to be understood (if it can be). If the economy could be calculated, every boom and bust could be avoided and we would have continuous smooth sailing. Anybody see that anywhere? So when someone comes along and claims that they have the math and the graphs to explain what the economy has done or is doing or will do, laugh and move on, American neighbor. We instead, will do a little psychoanalysis.~
The N.C. Essay Series is not simply about truth – unverified assertions.
It is about verified assertions – truisms.
The N.C. Series has its own surgical ops team of 800 pound gorillas.
Capsule: #11 Austerity Versus Stimulus – What Is the History? definitively illustrates the results of austerity policies and stimulus policies in a direct comparison. Austerity is when government gets out of the way of the free market and allows it to work itself out. Stimulus is where fascism is added to progressivism to manipulate the marketplace, resulting in progressive-fascism.
You Choose – Regaling Prosperity or Grinding Poverty
Focus: If it was possible to magically start another decade right this moment that could mirror either the Roaring Twenties or the Dirty Thirties, which one would you choose?
Details: #11 Austerity Versus Stimulus – What Is the History? examines two prime examples of austerity and stimulus policy. To hear liberals describe it, Keynesianism has a long history of success. In fact, Keynesianism has never even once been implemented by an American government. In a recession Keynes prescribed stimulus of private sector investment, not government sector employment and infrastructure, as has been the norm. He also prescribed surplus budgeting during prosperity and a plan to surplus away any recession deficit spending after the recession. What is mistaken for Keynesianism is actually a hybrid of the progressivism of Woodrow Wilson and the Euro-fascism of the 1920s and 30s. Unfortunately, this progressive-fascism has a long history of failure, a factor which has led to today’s Obama Malaise. It is austerity that actually has a history of success.
Excerpts: ~In the marketplace, need and demand are not at all equivalent. Demand is a result of affordability. Without excess money to buy new goods or services there is only need, but no demand. Need is an excess of debt and/or a lack of necessities. Affordability is having financial wealth in excess of need, whether as cash, manageable credit or some other valuable commodity. Demand can only come from existing wealth that exceeds need. If need exceeds wealth, then any additional money acquired goes to paying down need and no new demand is created. To create new demand, existing wealth in excess of need must first exist, and second, be enticed into the marketplace as demand. If consumers that possess excess wealth have no confidence in the success of the marketplace returning that excess wealth, they will hold onto it and there will be no new demand even though the excess wealth exists that might otherwise produce new demand. So, to generate new demand one must have a marketplace that produces confidence in consumers that their excess wealth spent on demand will be at least replaced, or preferably multiplied as a return in the future. … When need overwhelms demand one has a depression, recession or malaise, depending on the extent of the imbalance. To produce a prosperous economy one must have demand in excess of need, as in the mid to late 1980s, the mid to late 1990s and the mid 2000s. Just as FDRHoover’s policies produced a prolonged malaise called the Great Depression, President Obama’s policies of government stimulus spending, subsidies and bailouts have predictably produced the prolonged Obama Malaise.~
A dedicated reader will be invincible in political discussions. The Nuclear Counterarguments Essay Series is Armageddon for contemporary American liberalism.
Capsule: #12 Can Governance Indicators Tell You Who Governs Best? Absolutely! answers the question in the title with ten governance indicators that are easily calculable for a senior high school student. These indicators objectively measure the results of Democratic Party stewardship of America versus Republican Party stewardship with purely mathematical calculations of numbers covering the last four decades (plus a historical bonus indicator).
I Would Call a Score of 10 to 0 a “Shellacking”
Focus: What if we could measure government spending, revenues, GDP, DOW returns, inflation, mortgage rates, auto sales, the homicide rate, job creation, and income growth for the poor, under Democrats and under Republicans?
Details: #12 Can Governance Indicators Tell You Who Governs Best? Absolutely! is a challenge to the honesty of liberal readers. If I asked you whether you want the best for America regardless of ideology, you would almost assuredly say yes, being completely confident that your liberalism provides America with the best governance. Well, we will see if your answer is honest – and if you can be honest with yourself.
Excerpts: ~Liberals engage in a playing stupid game where they imagine Presidents are elected as absolute dictators every four years and anything that happens during that period of time is naturally to their credit or fault … This is known as The Cult of the Presidency. They pretend that as a dictator the President can spend on whatever he wants and nobody else has the slightest influence on his choices … This pretend world allows liberals to say that Bill Clinton was a genius and Republican Presidents were reckless spenders. But the President is not a dictator when it comes to government spending or other economic policies. … It is actually the House that draws up the budget each year after receiving a proposal from the President. And, of course, the budget must pass through the Senate as well. Only then does it go to the President for his signature. This is also true for any federal legislation. There are actually three responsible parties for every federal budget or legislative bill – the House, the Senate and the President … If we were to determine a fair and objective approach based on ten prominent economic and societal indicators that conclusively illustrated which party has been a better steward of the economy and society, would that influence the way you vote? What if we found that under the Republican Party government spending was historically much less than Democrat spending? What if government revenues were much higher under Republican governance? What if GDP growth was much higher when Republicans were in power? What if stock market returns were much higher with Republicans? And what if inflation was much lower? What if affording the purchase of a house was more economical with Republicans? What if many more automobiles were sold under Republicans indicating a more robust economy? What if there was more law and order when Republicans were in charge? What if total job creation under Republican governance was also higher, and especially, if the wages of the poor increased significantly more under the Republicans? Would you consider voting for them?~
A Story of Lunch
“Welcome to my ideology,” cheerily greeted the spider to the fly.
“You are just in time for lunch.”
To be continued…
Capsule: #13 Government Healthcare – One Giant Death Panel illustrates how the individual liberty of every American is being reduced by government meddling in the healthcare system. This government interference is also hugely and needlessly expensive in terms of money and patient wellness. Now you will understand the true costs of government running healthcare in America.
Liberals Insist that a 3.3% Profit Margin Is Gouging
Focus: Name the two scoundrels of healthcare. 1) Insurance companies with an average 3.3% profit of $8B? 2) Trial lawyers who sue doctors for a 14% average profit? 3) Government Medicare fleeced for $60B of fraud?
Details: #13 Government Healthcare – One Giant Death Panel reveals that almost everything liberals believe about the American healthcare system is myth. Even previous to Obamacare it was not a purely free market system. Virtually every deficiency is a result of government meddling in the free market. Liberals want ‘universal healthcare’ where the government runs and pays for everything (utopia). As someone who lives with ‘universal healthcare’ in Canada, I can assure you that you will be shocked to learn how much more Canadians are dissatisfied with their healthcare system than are Americans (before Obamacare). You will also be shocked to learn that ‘universal healthcare’ is hardly universal, and actually costs much more than American healthcare previous to Obamacare. Here is another shocker: Virtually every ‘expert’ President Obama relies on to advise him on healthcare has advocated for the necessity of ‘death panels’. One word describes the impact of this essay for the reader – shocked!
Excerpts: ~Think Dentistry. It is not covered by Canada’s “universal” healthcare system, so consumers are left to fend for themselves in the free market. So they either purchase private insurance coverage or pay out-of-pocket. In Edmonton where I live, there are 43 Yellow pages devoted to Dentists and Denturists in a metropolitan area of only 800,000 population! Lots of competition – lots of choice for consumers. People seem to have pretty nice teeth in Edmonton. How can that be possible without government involvement? [/sarcasm] Think about this: How often is the “high cost” of going to the dentist in the news? Never. How often are there news stories about people “falling through” the dental market cracks. Never. How often does one read about dental care “rationing”? Never. That’s the free market at work. Dentistry is the most reliable, timely and cost-effective healthcare there is – all without the government. Actually, because the government stays out of it.~
Prior to contemporary liberalism progressives dreamed of a bottom-up, Trotsky-like utopia with little government interference necessary. Liberalism turned their vision into a top-down Stalin-like utopia where big-mommy government manages everyone’s lives.
Capsule: #14 Liberal Demagoguery, Hate and Violence – A Compendium looks into the dark side of liberalism’s Jekyll and Hyde activism in America. The Dr. Jekyll persona publicly assures that liberals are tolerant and compassionate, but the Mr. Hyde persona exposes liberalism as a malevolently reactive disposition with ugly consequences.
So, Let’s Get This Straight: Tea Partiers Are Domestic Terrorists,
But the Benghazie Attack was a Spontaneous Protest
Focus: Who throws rocks at police? Conservatives or liberals? Who riots at political conventions? Conservatives or liberals? Which president refers to Tea Partiers as domestic terrorists? Conservative or liberal?
Details: #14 Liberal Demagoguery, Hate and Violence – A Compendium is one surprise after another. Did you know that Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma city bomber was a secularist whom iconic liberal, Gore Vidal, called a “true patriot”? Would you be surprised to discover that religion did not produce the tyrants who were the worst mass murderers in history? Secularism did – virtually every one of them. Shock revelation: Fred Phelps, the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church that is well-known for desecrating the American flag and protesting at military funerals is a Democrat. Liberal talk radio hosts make Rush Limbaugh look like Miss Manners. Unions have a massive history of hate, intimidation and violence. Virtually every documented, violent hate group in the United States has a liberal ideology. These are just a small sample of the multitude of examples in this essay of liberal demagoguery, hate and violence in America.
Excerpts: ~Over at the extremely liberal and paranoid Daily Kos discussion forum they ran a poll on whom members thought the Times Square bomber would turn out to be. The closest they got to offering a choice for “liberal” was a “A war protester”. Out of 645 votes it got less than 1% of the vote. … But conservative options under “A militia wackjob” and “A teapartier” and “A religious wackjob (did this in the center of media world, some anti-abortion statement?)” received a full 62% of the vote. Liberals think conservatives are violent. Whereas, the most likely profile any normal person would think of would be an Islamic terrorist – duh! But that got only 22% of the vote. As you will see with the multitudinous examples I offer below, if the Times Square car bomber was not an Islamic terrorist he would much more likely have turned out to be an angry liberal. In fact the bomber, Faisal Shahzad was actually a registered Democrat who was anti-Bush and objected to the Iraq War. Except for his name, he sounds just like a typical anti-war liberal – you know – the option that got less than 1% of the Daily Kos vote. [rolls eyes] It is a paranoid liberal mantra that conservatives are just angry and bitter citizens. So what do these supposedly angry conservatives do with their anger? They form Tea Parties to engage in the political process. But what do angry liberals do? They express real hate and get violent. See for yourself, American neighbor.~
The Continuing Story of Lunch
“But I have a fear of spiders,” said the visibly shaking fly.
“That’s OK,” soothingly replied the spider. “You won’t after we have had lunch.”
To be continued…
Capsule: #15 A Liberal Love Letter to Conservatives is a response to a sort of written, detailed confession that in liberal minds the world is full of evil monsters hiding beneath every rock. The imaginary straw man armies that liberals battle are vast, and the conundrums liberals create for themselves through their inherent paranoia are simply bizarre. Let the fun begin…
By Their Own Definition Liberals Should
All be Living Under Bridges
Focus: If liberals agree that conservatives should not use government healthcare if they oppose it as a policy, shouldn’t liberals move to Cuba if they object to the free market as a policy?
Details: #15 A Liberal Love Letter to Conservatives illustrates that liberals are at war with a vast army of scare crows. Dealt with are a litany of dozens and dozens of straw man zombie arguments that liberals imagine are conservative positions, but are actually creations of the inherent paranoia endemic to liberalism. Liberal reasoning, if one can call it that, is funny too, where they repeatedly back themselves into conundrums that require bizarre solutions to assuage their own guilt. Although definitely informative, ‘A Liberal Love Letter to Conservatives’ is more entertaining than anything. Bring popcorn.
Excerpts: ~In March of 2010 a list of compulsively paranoid grievances about conservatives and Republicans went viral throughout the liberal blog and message board community on the internet. … This blog entry is literally a gold mine of liberal talking points (demagogic sophistry liberally mixed with noble lies), ideal for illustrating the superficiality of the collaborative groupthink of an alpha liberal and his alpha and beta liberal followers (see the following comments). … Hello [RK]. In advance I would like to thank you for your wonderful example of liberal sophistry and demagoguery mixed with your own personal disingenuousness. It is like you wrote this letter just for my essay series! I feel like I should get a sworn affidavit from you so that my readers don’t think I invented this as a put-up job. I thoroughly enjoyed critiquing your letter and expect this essay will be eye-opening for my readers – and you.~
Contemporary liberals project what they loath most about themselves.
Capsule: #16 Palinoia and the Dumbest Politician of Oll is the comic relief section of the N.C Essay Series, pitting Sarah Palin as our reality benchmark against a slew of cartoonish liberal clowns. Above all, the liberal principle, “Liberalism is absurd” is the theme of this essay. And liberals are funny. Join me for a laugh…
Your Liberal Icon Versus My Conservative Icon – Dare Ya…
Focus: A challenge for liberals to compare Barack Obama straight up against Sarah Palin. No gaffes, colloquialisms or unsubstantiated smears allowed. Just substance. You make your case – I’ll make mine. Dare ya.
Details: #16 Palinoia and the Dumbest Politician of Oll is about America finally getting everything they would generically want in an ideal politician – and then liberals attack her like she is some monster crawling out from under a rock. Sarah Palin has fought and resigned from positions to fight corruption, even in her own party. She rose not through the party machine, not with a sugar daddy, not through family lineage, and not on her skin color, but by climbing the ladder from small business operator, to the PTA, to city councillor, to mayor, to energy agency head, to governor, to vice-presidential candidate, to national movement leader. She refused a pay raise as governor, sold the state jet, refused the services of the state supplied chef, and balanced the state budget. Who do liberals champion? A guy who was pushed up the ladder his whole life, never earning anything. Some sugar daddy certainly paid for his expensive education. He used Chicago machine politics to climb politically. He played on his family history to make a name for himself. With an attitude of royalty he demands every gratuity he can get his hands on. He gets elected President because of the color of his skin. He is the exact opposite of everything good about Sarah Palin.
Even the most devoted Sarah Palin fans will find new things to admire about her in #16 Palinoia and the Dumbest Politician of Oll. And it is fun! It is certainly the most humorous and fun of all of the Nuclear Counterarguments essays. Enjoy…
Excerpts: ~Here’s the test. … I’ll put up this supposed hick from the sticks, Sarah Palin against your supposed intellectual giant, Barack Obama. … You write out your arguments in favor of your guy (and against my gal), and I’ll write out mine in favor of Sarah Palin and against your titan of intelligence – then we’ll compare notes. No gaffes are allowed, no colloquialisms, and no unsubstantiated smears supposedly from anonymous sources … You tell me what’s so great about your guy and what’s so terrible about my girl, and I’ll do the reverse. Take your time. Use Google. … When you finish writing your lists you can begin reading and comparing yours with mine. … So how are you doing comparing your lists about President Obama and Sarah Palin with my lists? … So far I’ve got the smart/dumb score in my lists at about 160 combined smarts for Sarah Palin and dumbs for Barack Obama, and one smart (his deadpan delivery) for Obama, and one dumb for Sarah Palin – not playing Washington gotcha-politics very well. How’s your score doin’?~
The Further, Continuing Story of Lunch
“I am delighted that you are supplying lunch,” said the spider with a twinkle in his many eyes.
“Uh – you’re welcome, I think,” nervously responded the fly.
To be continued…
Capsule: #17 Slavery In America – Past and Present explores the plight of those seen by a certain segment of society as not quite human – subhuman. To this segment of society subhumans are not entitled to the same human rights as those seen as fully human. In the past it was Democrats in America that saw blacks as subhuman. Today it is still Democrats that see subhumans in society. They were slavers of old, and are still the slavers of today.
What Are Slaves Considered by Defintion? Subhuman. Hmmm…
Focus: Which is the political party of slavery, Jim Crow segregation, the KKK, ghetto segregation, no school choice, labor trafficking, under-age prostitution, and the execution of subhumans for past 200 years?
Details: #17 Slavery In America – Past and Present is an eye-popping examination of slavery, segregation and racism in America and their relationship with individual liberty. There is only one thing a person needs to know to understand the Democratic Party. They attract ideologues who categorize all people in either of two categories – human or subhuman. This has been the case for over 200 years. The justification Democratic Party slavers gave in early America is the same justification that Democratic Party liberals use to delegitimize those they see as subhuman today. The incredible irony is that they also believe that they are on the side of human and civil rights, and individual liberty. But the truth of it is that the Democratic Party slavers of old at least saw some value in their subhumans. Today’s Democratic Party liberals see no value whatsoever in those they judge to be subhuman.
Excerpts: ~This topic of discussion is probably the most difficult and contentious in this essay series, American neighbor, because it is also the most difficult and contentious issue in American society as well. As a Canadian outsider I have no horse in this race and no axe to grind, so I can give you my unvarnished observations about racism in America. But let me warn you, American neighbor, as a liberal you will not like my observations at all. Your Attorney General suggested that America is “nation of cowards” for not addressing the issue of racism according to his standards. Well, here in this essay we will address the issue of racism in America head-on. I am neither an American nor a coward. And you are going to have to prove you are no coward either, American neighbor. I am going to challenge the imaginary world constructed by liberals in regard to racism in America as it never has been challenged before. Just as with every other issue in this essay series, I will use contextual investigation and critical analysis – activities that are especially abhorrent to liberals when discussing racism, who prefer to stick to their safer ground of stereotyping, political correctness and demagoguery (and of course prejudice). So let’s see who the real cowards are…~
The Democratic Party has a long history of always classifying some people as subhumans.
Capsule: #18 Neoracism – Liberalism’s New Bigotry exposes liberalism as the ideology of the bully. Liberals use the accusation of racism to demagogically bully their opposition in the same way the slavers of old put down African Americans as subhuman. This is the new bigotry of an old attitude.
Liberalism’s New Bigotry Is the Accusation of Bigotry
Focus: A racist is defined as prejudiced – pre-judging someone as inferior based on the color of their skin. What should we call pre-judging someone as a racist based on their political party or ideology?
Details: #18 Neoracism – Liberalism’s New Bigotry is about a new societal prejudice that has infected America. Plain old racism as a predominant fixture in American society is over. It has been over for about three decades. Its predominance has been replaced with a new type of racism – neoracism. Neoracism is overt, blatant and unashamed. It can be witnessed almost everyday on TV. Liberal politicians and operatives spray it around like Al Capone gangsters with machine guns. They hope to bloody everyone within their range of fire.
Excerpts: ~In the late sixties black civil rights leaders were wooed into the Democratic Party with promises of political influence and financial support. Many of these leaders abandoned the moral code of Martin Luther King and allowed themselves to be bought off. In doing so they sold out the black community whom they purported to represent, to a new kind of slavery – slavery to the state and a new attitude of bigotry. Liberal white Democrats and the new mob boss, black civil rights leaders (post Martin Luther King) became the ‘new’ racists. The old white Democrat racism of negative discrimination based on race became a new kind of racism where race would be used as a political weapon. The prefix for new is ‘neo’, so here we are birthing a new term to encapsulate this new strategy of the old, white Democratic Party – ‘neoracism’. Neoracism is ideological – a vile, hateful bigotry every bit as much as racism is. … Neoracism is more of an umbrella term than plain old racism. First of all, it is reverse discrimination. It is a justification for using race to discriminate against whites as a type of revenge for past wrongs, or a promotion of a minority without accompanying merit – affirmative action. … Second, just as original racism was maliciousness directed against innocent blacks, neoracism is also a maliciousness directed against innocent whites where they are accused of racism minus any evidence, simply to tarnish their reputation. Third, it is about keeping the African American community on the reservation, the reservation being a protection racket erected by the Democratic Party. Who are they protecting African Americans from? Why of course, evil, racist Republicans. How convenient.~
The Once Again, Further, Continuing Story of Lunch
“My friends will think I am a fool for going to lunch with a spider,” timidly offered the fly.
“Not to worry,” the spider responded. “Someday they too will lunch with me.”
To be continued…
Capsule: #19 Disproving Anthropogenic Global Warming is more than just about discarding a theory (which is the easy part). It is about illustrating how science has been hijacked by an ideology based on paranoia. We’ll define honest and sound science, and then compare that definition with climate science. (Hint: It’s an ugly comparison.)
1990 & 2012 = Same Global Annual Median Temperature
What does it mean?
Focus: Flux adjustment: The climate scientist’s equivalent to a magician’s abracadbra.
Details: #19 Disproving Anthropogenic Global Warming reveals that anthropogenic global warming theory is nothing more than a replay of Piltdown Man (more below). Imagine if in 1990 your stock broker had had you purchase stock in Global Warming Inc., promising huge returns by 2012. You’d be rich beyond your wildest dreams! But it is now 2012 and Global Warming Inc. is worth exactly the same amount that you paid for it in 1990 – you didn’t make one thin dime! When your broker now comes to you and insists that you stick with Global Warming Inc., because he is sure that it is bound to rise through the stratosphere, wouldn’t you be more likely to tell him to go fly a kite?
Excerpts: ~There is probably not a single subject that so epitomizes contemporary liberalism as the topic of global warming. This, American neighbor, is because the issue of global warming encompasses everything noble about liberalism (their supposed intentions), and the method liberals use to determine the issues they support (their emotions), and everything that is wrong with liberalism (their erroneous results). They have set themselves up as white knights, at the same time advocating and implementing big government solutions to ‘save the planet’, while fighting back evil conservatives (“deniers”) who want to impose disaster on the world because of their selfishness and greed. After all, global warming is an attack on utopia. If it is not stopped utopia cannot be achieved, and what better way to achieve utopia than by saving the world. This is truly a global chaos strategy – and delusional paranoia on a grand scale. This is the cult of envirotheists.
Are you familiar with the scientific scandal known as Piltdown Man, American neighbor? It is the story of one of the most famous frauds in the history of science. A human skull was cleverly matched with the lower jawbone of an orangutan and presented to the world as the missing link in the evolution from ape to man. From the Wikipedia article:
~As early as 1915, French paleontologist Marcellin Boule concluded the jaw was from an ape. Similarly, American zoologist Gerrit Smith Miller concluded Piltdown’s jaw came from a fossil ape. In 1923, Franz Weidenreich examined the remains and correctly reported that they consisted of a modern human cranium and an orangutan jaw with filed-down teeth. Weidenreich, being an anatomist, had easily exposed the hoax for what it was. However, it took thirty years for the scientific community to concede that Weidenreich was correct.~~
For the paranoid contemporary liberal there is always an apocalypse just around the corner.
Capsule: #20 Global Warming – Just Another Liberal Apocalypse Scenario (yawn) is about politicized science. Actually, it may be more accurate to describe it as religicized science. Then again, maybe it would be better to describe it as cultified science – sort of like Scientology meets Gaia worship. We’ll call it envirotheism.
So Who is the Modern-day Inquisition that Insists that
They have an Unchallengable Consensus?
Focus: We’ve all seen a caricature of a long-haired, bearded, crazy guy on a street corner with a sandwich board saying ‘The end is here! Repent!’ Which ideology does this represent – conservatism or liberalism?
Details: #20 Global Warming – Just Another Liberal Apocalypse Scenario (yawn) is about the natural outcome of the cult of envirotheism – the worship of nature. Virtually every religion has an Armageddon story for the end of the world somewhere in the future, but cults are religions-in-a-hurry. They need Armageddon to be today. Liberalism has produced a long list of apocalypse scenarios (all failures), with the most predominant being global warming (its predominance means it is just a bigger failure than the others). Don’t believe me? I will prove to you without a doubt that the global median temperature of 1990 was the same as 2012 – using envirotheism’s very own temperature recordings. With this essay the apocalypse theory of anthropogenic global warming due to the greenhouse effect is over.
Excerpts: ~So, who is it today that really parallels the Inquisition who insisted that the consensus science of their day had conclusively established that the sun revolved around the earth, American neighbor? It was the inquisition geocentrists of the Roman Church that insisted that they had the consensus. It was the inquisition geocentrists who were the consensus establishment of their day – running the universities, the governments and the religious orders, etc. It was the inquisition geocentrists who demanded that their beliefs be taught without challenge. … But it was skeptics like Copernicus and Galileo who boldly stood up to the status quo of the Roman consensus establishment. The consensus science of that era promoted the agenda of the church, and geocentrism was considered unchallengeable. Today, it is inquisition liberals who are the consensus establishment. Today, it is inquisition envirotheists who refuse legitimate debate. Today, it is inquisition liberals who demand that skeptics, who are called deniers (today’s equivalent of heretics), should just shut up. Today, it is anthropogenic global warming theory that is considered unchallengeable. Today, it is inquisition envirotheists who want skeptics’ credentials stripped from them. Today, it is inquisition liberals that want skeptics arrested. … Today, it is inquisition envirotheists who propose putting democracy on hold to fight their phantom global warming. Today, it is inquisition liberals who will believe pretty much anything proclaimed by a so-called scientist that agrees with their liberal agenda, and will scoffingly dismiss all evidence that challenges their march toward utopia.~
The Once Again, Further, and Almost Done Story of Lunch
“I do hope you are enjoying lunch,” said the spider to the fly.
But the fly was too intent on lunch to catch the spider’s query.
To be continued…
Capsule: #21 Unethical Liberalism Versus Ethical Oil is a decisive defense of oil – more precisely, Alberta oilsands petroleum products. If America has to import oil – and it does – when all of the evidence is examined, synthetic crude from Alberta’s oilsands is by far the most ethical and logical choice.
In Reality You Can’t get Cleaner than Oilsands Oil
Focus: In primitive times superstition had it that draining a patient’s blood would help cure him. Why would liberals think draining the world economy of its lifeblood of oil is some sort of cure-all solution?
Details: #21 Unethical Liberalism Versus Ethical Oil illustrates the capacity of liberals to mess up America’s priorities. Contrary to liberalism’s paranoid hysteria, when compared to other sources of petroleum, synthetic crude from Alberta’s oilsands is from a reliable source, ethical neighbor and friend that is environmentally safe in its extraction and delivery, and a great investment for pension funds. Nowhere else in the world can oil be had for America’s consumers that meets all of these criteria. ‘Unethical Liberalism Versus Ethical Oil’ slays all of liberalism’s scary monsters that are imagined about the Alberta oilsands, from CO2 emissions, to water usage, to forest depletion, to pipeline fears. America’s energy security is right in your backyard – Alberta.
Excerpts: ~If liberals were really concerned about the environment and a reliable and secure economy not susceptible to the petro-politics of the Middle East, they would embrace the Alberta oilsands as the ticket to American energy independence. But of course this is supposedly “dirty oil”. However, this fallaciously labeled “dirty oil” means that the U.S. is less dependent on “drug cartel/mass murder oil” from Mexico, and “exporting extreme Sunni Wahhabism oil” from Saudi Arabia, and “socialist takeover oil” from Venezuela, and “forced female genital mutilation oil” from Nigeria, “Gulf of Mexico blowouts oil”, and “Exxon Valdez tanker spill oil” that pollutes American coastlines. And let’s not forget sources for other oil importing countries of the world like “funding Islamic terrorism oil” from Iran, and “aspiring a return to Soviet imperialism oil” from Russia, and “religious restriction and virtually no democracy oil” from most Arab oil producing nations. Of course, silly me, none of these issues are in any way as important as phantom “carbon footprints”. [/sarcasm]~
The lesson of Vietnam, Kosovo, Rwanda, Iraq and Afghanistan is that the only killing liberals really hate is done by American soldiers.
Capsule: #22 The Quiet Funeral of “Bush Lied – Thousands Died!” presents all of the evidence and reasoning behind the decision to invade Iraq. Once a person is made aware of this, they will understand that for President Bush to have ignored it all and decided to not invade Iraq would have been a dereliction of duty.
A Zombie Gets Shot In the Head and Buried for Good
Focus: How many nails in the coffin would it take to bury a liberal zombie argument once and for all? In this case, sixteen.
Details: #22 The Quiet Funeral of “Bush Lied – Thousands Died!” maps out in numbered detail virtually every piece of evidence that justified the decision to invade Iraq. Liberals hate Republican Presidents. They especially hate George W. Bush, so it is quite natural that they would take one of his greatest accomplishments – the deposing of Saddam Hussein – and attempt to reframe it as one of his greatest failures. ‘The Quiet Funeral of “Bush Lied – Thousands Died!”‘ buries this argument in the ground for good.
Excerpts: ~Perhaps no other issue heats a liberal’s pot up to boil more than the Iraq War. “Bush lied – thousands died!” That has been the liberal groupthink mantra. No matter how successful the war has ultimately turned out, no liberal will ever accept that it has been worth the blood, money and loss of reputation to America – at least until they read this essay. I realize, American neighbor, that you have been led to believe that the Bush administration lied about the prewar intelligence to encourage the American public’s support for the invasion of Iraq. The orthodox media, Democrat politicians and the liberal blogosphere have hammered home this assertion for years. But what evidence have they ever presented that supports their case? Simply repeating the same assertions over and over is not evidence. Get this, American neighbor: It is a simple fact that the conclusions of multiple bipartisan government oversight reports, as well as considerable other evidence does not support the liberal groupthink mantra. The rationalization behind the derogatory “Bush lied – thousands died!” is just another liberalism. President Bush, in his recent book, stated that he felt it would take “several decades” to draw any final conclusions about his presidency, but we have already established clear conclusions on the benefits of his tax cuts and his little fault regarding the housing bubble bust and 2008 financial crisis. Now we will clear up this issue once and for all – welcome to the lonely funeral of the liberal mantra, “Bush lied – thousands died!”~
The Story of Lunch Ends
“Do you still have a phobia of spiders?” inquired the spider of the fly.
“Not now that we have shared lunch,” confidently replied the fly.
“That’s what a good lunch will do,” said the spider. “There is nothing quite so remedial as lunching on one’s own deficiencies.”
Who I Am: Conservative by choice. Researcher by passion. Compassionate to help American liberals deal with their affliction, and educate every interested American about liberty.
Who I’m Not: Racist, sexist, homophobe, greedy, selfish, hateful, yada, yada… all of those straw men that programmed liberal paranoia erects about conservatives.
Why I Do It: I love America. I love what America stands for – freedom. But it is more than just that I love freedom. Freedom is being overwhelmed. It is under attack from without and being weakened from within. I choose to fight the battle within – the battle of ideologies. Programmed paranoia drives American liberals to create a safe utopia based on a reactive collectivism. Everyday in America individual liberty dies a bit more by the death of a thousand collectivist cuts. As individual liberty withers in America it is lost more so for the rest of the world, because without a free America there will never be a prosperous, peaceful and free world. That is why even though I am a Canadian I fight so passionately for liberty in America.
Do I really know more about liberalism than Rush Limbaugh? In a way, a lot more. On a day-to-day basis no one that I know of dissects liberalism more profoundly than Rush. However, this no doubt limits the time that he can devote to researching the specific foundational issues of liberalism, like its origin, its psychology, etc. I am not limited in that way and have been able to devote great energy to plumbing the depths of contemporary American liberalism.
After producing 22 essays on the liberal/conservative divide in America I have a conclusion:
Most conservatives are like horses in the desert – you can lead them to water, but you can’t make them drink.