#1 Deprogramming Liberalism with Nuclear Counterarguments
A Reference Library
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.~
Preface: The Nuclear Counterarguments Essay Series is written for both contemporary American liberals and contemporary American conservatives – for the liberal (or progressive) as an exit counseling process with the purpose of removing the inherent paranoia that prevents them from seeing that in their core belief they are, in fact not a liberal, and for the conservative as a strategy for dealing with liberal acquaintances. (FYI, I am a Canadian – the implications of this are explained in the Introduction and #1 Deprogramming Liberalism with Nuclear Counterarguments.)
[All citations are active number/letter codes. Code links beginning with an * indicate that the linked page has additional information for the topic at hand. Links without an * are cited for evidence of existence and reference only, as in a quotation or number or case in point. Citations validate my points so that you can trust my claims, and will often provide you with invaluable supplemental information.]
Written in first-person narrative to liberals,
but also for conservatives.
• Deprogramming Liberalism explanation
I expect you are at least a little surprised and perhaps amused to discover an essay seriously proposing that liberalism (or progressivism, if you prefer) is the result of some sort of brainwashing technique requiring cult-like deprogramming. That, however, is not exactly my contention, although I can see how someone first encountering the title, Deprogramming Liberalism might reasonably draw that conclusion. While deprogramming is technically a forced intervention, whereas a voluntary procedure like reading this Nuclear Counterarguments Essay Series falls closer to what is known as exit counseling, few would catch the meaning of an essay entitled Exit Counseling Liberalism, so I will continue using the term deprogram presuming you know what I mean.
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.ab
• Societal conditioning
Look, nobody wants to admit that they have been manipulated, but it is not like you have been fooled by some con man. There is no dastardly mastermind with some dark strategy attempting to take control of your life. Liberal programming is a form of societal conditioning that is universal to all societies. Think about it this way: If you had been born and now lived in rural Pakistan, do you think you would be a contemporary liberal? No, of course not. Soon you will begin to understand that your liberalism is based on a command structure of thinking that all who have absorbed even a small amount subconsciously follow like a ticking clockwork. You will also see that liberalism negatively impacts every aspect of your life, clandestinely operating in both your belief system and your thought process. People will generally hold onto their current manner of thinking until a demonstrably better way comes along. This is what I am offering. I have written this Nuclear Counterarguments Essay Series as a rehabilitation tool for contemporary American liberals just like you, American neighbor.ac
• Determining your core value
To illustrate your need for rehabilitation you are required to answer only one simple question that reaches down to your core values: As a principle, would you prefer others to direct your life, or would you prefer to have the freedom to direct your own life, American neighbor? So, what is your choice? What is your foundational principle of life? Please consciously answer this question to yourself before continuing. (Voluntarily choosing to join the military or other similar controlling group of service to the country is still a free choice to direct one’s own life.)ad
300-word pages of text = 46
Reference citation links = 20
Recommended-reading links = 34
Profound insights = 23
Cover photo: Cover photo: U.S. Department of Energy photograph XX-14 FIZEAU
Cover background: SQUIDFINGERS [4rol8]
Copyright 2012 Jim Autio License Note: Although free, this essay remains the copyrighted property of the author, and may not be reproduced, copied or distributed for commercial or non-commercial purposes. For fair use only.
• Ideological definition of contemporary liberalism
If your answer is that you would prefer to have the freedom to direct your own life, as any normal person would choose, then in your core values you are not a liberal, American neighbor. Yes, you read that correctly. Authentic contemporary liberals (a very rare and eccentric occurrence) shun the preferred ethic of self-reliance, but instead embrace the liberal doctrine of collective interdependence where others direct much of their life. Liberalism is not about the individual liberty that you have just chosen – it is about collective submission and dependence. The only real responsibility for the liberal is voluntary submission. Here is the definition of today’s liberalism in regard to individual liberty: Contemporary liberalism is the coerced mindset of a command-style society requiring each individual to submit to collective management of their life while believing their submission to be an act of individual liberty. Liberalism is a seductive delusion, and in this sense liberals truly are victims of their own ideology. Contemporary liberalism is the result of a societal conditioning where fear is instilled and leads to a desire to create a controlled and safe society at the expense of each person’s liberty. Fear drives liberals to give up their individual liberty for the comfort and protection of the herd (more later). Liberals voluntarily submit themselves and encourage all others to also submit, and to any who resist, demand that they too submit to collective management of their lives. This makes liberalism an anti-individual liberty ideology. But don’t try telling that to a liberal without some context – they truly do believe that coercive collective management is the actual definition of individual liberty. American neighbor, you likely just think you are a liberal because of your societal conditioning (so I will continue to address you as a liberal to keep things simple). Your life experience has been liberalism – it has programmed you into thinking like a liberal and into thinking you are a liberal, even though in your core values you are in fact not a liberal at all. This will be repeatedly confirmed to you as we penetrate through the layers of your liberal conditioning to discover your real self, American neighbor.ae
• D.L. is not about changing you
This is important: Deprogramming Liberalism is not about changing you. Did you get that, American neighbor? I am not your enemy and I am NOT attempting to change you. I am offering you a life without contradiction. We are on the same side – the choice of freedom to direct our own lives. Liberalism is a contradiction of the real you. Your conditioned liberalism fights against your choice of freedom values, instead desiring you to submit to the external control of government coercion, bureaucratic regulation, influence groups, political correctness, media herd mentality, union intimidation, and especially liberal peer group pressure. This is an essay series of self-discovery. You will be alarmed at the liberal facade that life has dumped on you, American neighbor. My purpose is to reveal to you who you really are under the layers of conditioned liberalism that have kept your true self submerged and hidden away. This will be accomplished through contrasting your programmed liberalism with the choices of freedom that you will make in response to the issues with which we will deal. However, if in the unlikelihood fear has driven you to answer that you prefer others directing your life (a type of voluntary slavery which is quite abnormal), you may be in need of more help than I can offer. Even still, there is some hope (of course you could always reconsider your answer and make things easier for both of us).af
• You are what you experience – principles of liberalism
For the most part a person is what they experience (again, think of if you had been born in rural Pakistan). A liberal model of thinking generally develops from a lifetime of repetitive suggestion reinforcement whose results can be characterized in observable rules of thought and conduct. It is these observable rules that I describe as the principles of liberalism that will allow us to accurately map out and deal with your affliction (if you had been born in rural Pakistan you would have acquired the principles of that culture). I have catalogued each of these principles and repeatedly illustrate them so that you can witness them working in society and in your own life, American neighbor.ag
• Your new persona – Mr. Spock
To help you see them objectively I suggest that while reading this N.C. Essay Series you resolutely appropriate the demeanor of Mr. Spock from Star Trek. If you are unfamiliar with this old science fiction television series, Mr. Spock was a half alien Science Officer on the starship Enterprise who had virtually no emotions and deliberated every situation solely by logic and results. This lack of emotions also allowed him to be essentially fearless. As Mr. Spock you will now resolve to decide each issue presented in the N.C. Essay Series strictly on its merits and rational deduction, and detach yourself from any preconceived notions, ideology or induction.
I realize that this is asking you to go against your natural inclinations of argumentation. Humans, for the most part, are seldom purely objective. In fact, pure objectivity is a very difficult thing, and may well be impossible except with mathematical problems or with new problems completely outside our prior knowledge base. Human thinking is virtually always based on premises and assumptions – often resulting from or influenced by societal programming. 100% objectivity complicates life by demanding a re-think of every issue with each new piece of information. To simplify life we instead search to justify our prior conclusions, otherwise our every minute would consumed with re-organizing our conclusions based on each bit of new information that we receive. If you presume that you are an exception, you just proved that you are wrong. [wink] Because of this natural inclination to defend our prior judgments against new information you will need a new cognitive mechanism to help you think objectively and reject your acquired and induced premises and presumptions on a continuing basis while reading this essay series. I will provide that mechanism.ah
• Third person analysis
To enable you to sustainably implement this unnatural type of objective information processing we will incorporate something similar to what is known in the psychotherapy world as third ear listening. In effect there will be three of us proceeding through the N.C. Essay Series. Of course there will be me your deprogrammer, teaching and guiding you through your deprogramming, and of course there will be you, a subject of societal programming, reading and responding within your liberal mind-frame to my presentations. Your Mr. Spock demeanor completes our trilogy utilizing third person analysis to enable you to step back from your liberal self to objectively analyze your own reactions to issues and scenarios that I present. To facilitate this I will address you apart from your liberalism, based on your Mr. Spock demeanor. Together we (your Mr. Spock demeanor and I) will examine liberals and the ideology of liberalism from the outside looking in.
You will focus on two things. One, of course, will be the issues we discuss. Your Mr. Spock demeanor will objectively assess what I present, and draw conclusions based on unbiased reason and evidence. Your Mr. Spock demeanor’s second focus will be on yourself – your liberal self, which from now on will be someone foreign to the person reading this essay, allowing you to facilitate third person analysis of your liberal self, American neighbor. Think of yourself as an archeologist, objectively and dispassionately examining an alien world. Or as a member of a jury. Put aside your current personal opinions and consider only the evidence. Even in the rare instances when I speak to you directly as a liberal you should be stepping outside of your liberal self to analyze the situation. You will then be able to see the principles of liberalism working in your life as we discuss them and the issues I use to illustrate them. With this fearless new attitude, and along with the revelatory new knowledge contained herein, I will offer you the tools necessary to overcome your liberal conditioning and reclaim your freedom of thought through your own self-re-education. Although you probably did not come to this essay fully convinced that you are in need of rehabilitation, your conviction will soon grow. In fact, let’s begin right now.ai
• 800 pound gorillas
Do you know what an 800 pound gorilla is, American neighbor? According to Wiktionary it is:
~Something dangerous or menacing or spooky that is obvious but not addressed.~
This definition is not the original, but seems to have developed as a mixed metaphor with the idiom “the elephant in the room” – an obviously inconvenient fact or question which is deliberately ignored as if it does not exist. It is also similar to “whistling past the graveyard”. For our purposes we will use the 800 pound gorilla as an idiom for the fearful implications of a deliberately ignored fact or question whose obvious answer invalidates liberal thinking. The fear of the 800 pound gorilla induces a defensive response intended to preserve the belief that you are a contemporary liberal even though fundamentally you likely do not believe that in principle your life should be directed by others. This defense response is necessary, because 800 pound gorillas incrementally make self-apparent the flaw in your thinking of yourself as a liberal.aj
• Principle – playing stupid 1
The 800 pound gorilla dilemma will be the key for your doorway to reality, American neighbor. In fact, this is our first revealed principle of liberalism: Contemporary liberalism requires a strict adherence to playing stupid. Playing stupid is a type of self-deception producing a thought process similar to what is known in clinical psychology as magical thinking. While magical thinking is an irrational correlation of thoughts connecting two unrelated things (like equating a magic trick with a belief in real magic), playing stupid is irrationally disconnecting two obviously correlated things. To preserve their liberalism the contemporary liberal must ignore obvious contradictions to its legitimacy – 800 pound gorillas. I use the term playing stupid because self-deception doesn’t go far enough to include the determined willful ignorance to systematically reject self-evident contradicting truths, and magical thinking conveys an inverse of correlation, and the idea of someone inadvertently lost in la la land, which is imprecise as a description of (most) liberals.ak
Answer these statements on a seven-point scale, with 1 being ‘not true’, 4 being ‘somewhat true’, and 7 being ‘very true’:
1. My first impressions are always right.
2. I don’t care to know what other people really think of me.
3. Once I’ve made up my mind, other people can seldom change my opinion.
4. I am fully in control of my own fate.
5. I never regret my decisions.
6. I am a completely rational person.
7. I am very confident of my judgments.
Now total your numbers. In the test I scored a no self-deception total of 9. (This is unsurprising, since this directly relates to my research into the workings of liberalism, so I was actually analyzing the test when doing it more than it was analyzing me.) Statements 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 are absolutes. If you didn’t rate them as a low number, you were playing stupid with yourself at least to some extent, and maybe a lot. The words “seldom” and “very” in statements 3 and 7 are qualifying and open to interpretation, and so allow for some leeway. The higher your final number total, the more self-deceptive you are. How’d you score, American neighbor? (I expect even conservatives reading this will be surprised at their amount of self-deception.)
Here is the thing. If you want to be honest with yourself, you must first have an attitude of honesty, which means humbly accepting your limitations. Then you must combine that humility with a determination to honestly think within those limitations. The first step in stopping playing stupid with yourself is to admit that you play stupid with yourself. If you think you are somehow an exception, you are playing stupid with yourself.al
• Lying to oneself
Here is George Orwell’s thought on this:
~…we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.~ – George Orwell (the pen name of Eric Arthur Blair) from the essay, In Front of Your Nose
As a principle, would you prefer others to direct your life, or would you prefer to have the freedom to direct your own life?
Liberals live a life of contradiction.
Whether you can now admit it or not, you have been conditioned to think like this, American neighbor – playing stupid. It is a rare person that is completely honest with himself. Unless you have gone through a conscious process of deconditioning yourself out of your self-deceptive traits, it is very unlikely that you are completely honest with yourself. Because lying to oneself is how liberalism works, it is imperative that you determinedly change your attitude so as to stop lying to yourself. This attitude change will facilitate your ability to see that the world is not really as it seems to you right now. You as a liberal have been viewing the world through the rose-tinted glasses of your liberal societal conditioning. They filter out 800 pound gorillas by allowing you to play stupid about inconvenient facts and questions. Here is an example:am
• Terrorists & due process 1
Liberals believe they stand on the moral high ground in regard to human rights issues. They see the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility as symbolic of their defense of human rights. Their argument is that former President Bush illegally, or at least unethically held foreign prisoners captured in the Middle East for indefinite periods without due process and trials. Liberals strongly condemned the Bush administration for what some consider war crimes or crimes against humanity. Liberals like to equate these terrorism suspects with common domestic criminals and demand the same rights for them.
So here is the first 800 pound question for you, American neighbor. Since liberalism demands due process through domestic, civilian trials for foreign terror suspects as a basis for objecting to the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, why is it OK in the Middle East for President Obama to execute foreign terror suspects in their homes along with their families and neighbors’ families with Predator drone missiles without due process or trials on U.S. soil? [*akp6ed, *bzszcy]
All citations are active number/letter codes. Code links beginning with an * indicate that the linked page has additional information for the topic at hand. Links without an * are cited for evidence of existence and reference only, as in a quotation or number or case in point. Citations validate my points so that you can trust my claims, and will often provide you with invaluable supplemental information.
One other technical note: I utilize what is known as logical punctuation in regard to quotations rather than the common mandates of the Chicago Manual of Style. [nhqbx] Logical punctuation allows for a faithful quotation without introducing foreign punctuation within the quote that may erode its accuracy. It is all about trust – I want you to be confident in what I present, American neighbor.
Can you see the double standard, American neighbor? The same is true of both instances. In Guantanamo Bay are alleged terrorists. In those bombed Pakistani houses were alleged terrorists. Both instances are about eliminating terrorist threats. Neither have been granted due process or trials. In the first instance liberals condemned former President Bush for providing them with full prison amenities like exercise, recreation, special meals to meet their religious requirements, prayer times, etc. Oh – and of course they are also granted their lives. In the second instance liberals give a pass to President Obama for condemning suspected terrorists to a death sentence and in some instances along with their families and their neighbors’ families, with no lawyers, no trial, no judge and no jury. (There are a few liberals who are objecting, but notice they are targeting the “policy”, not calling for President Obama to be charged with war crimes as liberals have with Bush. The vast majority of liberals are simply producing a collective yawn toward Obama’s drone strikes. [*yhob9re])
About these drone missile strikes a former CIA counterterrorism official has said:
The “collateral damage” refers to the unfortunate neighbors. Literally hundreds and maybe thousands of Pakistanis have been killed as collateral damage. So are liberal demands for due process for Guantanamo detainees an example of upholding human rights? No, human rights are simply an excuse to condemn a disdained political rival in former President Bush. If it were about human rights liberals would be demanding that the suspected terrorists in Pakistan be at the least arrested and brought to trial. This is an example of liberal double standards. Condemning former President Bush for holding terrorism suspects indefinitely without due process or trials is political demagoguery and has nothing to do with human rights, otherwise liberals would also condemn President Obama for executing them along with their families and their neighbors with missile attacks in Pakistan without due process and trials. After all, we don’t send police out to execute suspected bank robbers, muggers or even murderers, and most liberals don’t believe in the death penalty for any reason, anyway.
(Incidentally, this same argument applies to so-called torture. Why should former President Bush be condemned for supposedly torturing inmates that have been granted their lives, when President Obama is given a pass for his drone program that does not even allow for them to live. Which is worse treatment of a terrorism suspect, American neighbor? A little water boarding and then incarceration with all of the amenities that a Republican administration whipped into submission by political correctness can provide? Or being condemned to death by being blown into pieces by some drone along with their family and their neighbors’ families?)
Now two years after Obama as President promised to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, he has instead flipped on the idea of indefinite detention without trials of any kind for Guantanamo inmates. [34zkzss] Do you think there will be protests where liberals demand charges be laid against President Obama for denying those prisoners their supposed rights, American neighbor? No, I doubt there will be either.an
• Principle – double standards
So after only a couple of dozen paragraphs I already sense anxiety in you, American neighbor. Are you not even now scrambling to think of some way out of this conundrum? Perhaps you are thinking that former President Bush also executed suspected terrorists with missiles, but if former President Bush is to be condemned for war crimes or crimes against humanity at Guantanamo Bay, then he is no less to be condemned for his missile attacks for the same reasons. How does this excuse President Obama? It doesn’t, and your logical Mr. Spock mind knows it, American neighbor. You have now learned a second principle in understanding liberalism: Without irrational double standards contemporary liberalism cannot exist. Commit this to memory, American neighbor. You will see it displayed over and over as we proceed.
Here are a couple of D.L. posts that are prime examples regarding this double standard between Bush and Obama:
• Principle – playing stupid 2
Holding to double standards is irrational thinking that casually accepts lying to oneself – playing stupid. (Remember our first principle of liberalism is: Contemporary liberalism requires a strict adherence to playing stupid.) It means one of two possibilities. Either liberals have some sort of inherent mental deficiency, or they have been conditioned to think this way. While some contend that liberals do indeed suffer from some mental defect, I prefer to see liberalism as a foreign affliction that is thoroughly treatable and reversible. There is good news and bad news and more good news in this for you, American neighbor. The good news is that as a liberal you are probably not mentally damaged even though you exhibit symptoms of what could be mental instability. The bad news is that you probably have been programmed to think irrationally, thus exhibiting these symptoms, but even more good news is that I can definitely help you with this lamentable condition – as long as you are willing to extend your cooperation. Again, it is your choice. Choose well.ao
• Deprogramming Liberalism = you get to choose
Congratulations, American neighbor! If you are truly a critical thinker instead of a liberal scoffer you will have just taken your first small step toward self-deprogramming. You have now learned the first two of many irrational principles that make up the foundation of your programmed liberalism:
Contemporary liberalism requires a strict adherence to playing stupid.
Without irrational double standards contemporary liberalism cannot exist.
I want you to know that it is OK for you to admit that you have been implanted with a lifetime’s worth of societal conditioning (we all have to some extent). You weren’t given a choice. Neither was I. Neither has anyone. The unfortunate result has been that, through little fault of your own, you have been unwittingly instilled with a contemporary liberal mindset. Again, you were not given a choice. It was chosen for you through the luck of the draw. The Nuclear Counterarguments Essay Series will provide you with an opportunity you have never had – it will be your turn to make your own conscious and informed decisions.ap
• Analytical choice – not ideological choice
I don’t want you to think of the N.C. Essay Series as an ideological battle, American neighbor. It is not your job in reading this essay series to make ideological judgments on the issues presented. The reason I say this is because, being a liberal you will naturally jump to the left side of each issue if you make ideological judgments. That is what you have been conditioned to do, and that would be counterproductive. To avert this I want you to see your job as judging each issue on its merits of reasoned analysis (remember, you are not reading this essay as your liberal self, but as your Mr. Spock demeanor). The above example of what to do with terrorism suspects is not an ideological choice. It is an analytical choice. Once the analysis is exposed it becomes obvious that to hold Bush in contempt for supposed human rights issues over Guantanamo Bay is an irrational double standard unless one also condemns Obama for the missile strikes. Demanding one be brought up on charges of illegality means bringing both up on charges of illegality, and conversely, finding one innocent extends to the other. Follow the reasoning, not the ideology. Remember Mr. Spock. Remember to utilize third person analysis. More later.
~ “An unflinching determination to take the whole evidence into account is the only method of preservation against the fluctuating extremes of fashionable opinion.”~ – Alfred North Whitehead
• Your deprogrammer 1
Holding to double standards is irrational thinking that casually accepts lying to oneself – playing stupid.
Liberal principle: Contemporary liberalism requires a strict adherence to playing stupid.
Allow me to introduce myself, American neighbor. My motto is, to boldly think where no man has thought before, and in my most elevated moments I fancy myself as a ‘liberal deprogrammer’. However, when I come back down from the interstellar clouds I find that I am little more than a research-junky/polemist who specializes in the liberal/conservative dichotomy. I am sort of a freelancing one man think tank devoted to understanding and remedying the affliction of conditioned liberalism in American society. You however may at first see me as a bully attempting to intimidate you with beliefs contrary to your own, but I am not a bully, American neighbor, and again, I am not your enemy. I am very patient, I won’t swear at you, I am not given to throwing around derogatory names, and I will do my best not to appear condescending to you (except sort-of in one essay, which is actually a test). Indeed, I will attempt to engage you with one of your own most precious perceived virtues – compassion. I sincerely wish to help you understand how programmed liberalism hampers your life, and America’s. I will presume you are at least somewhat aware of most current and historic political and societal issues. I will appeal to you as a critical thinker. As such, I will presume you are intellectually capable of following reasoned arguments. I will also presume you are not a scoffer who simply waves off counterarguments with no analytical assessment. Basically a scoffer is a know-it-all who thinks he has nothing to learn – sort of like a rebellious fourteen-year-old who can’t be told anything. I am afraid I have nothing to offer liberal scoffers and feel sorry for them. Unfortunately, as is true with dogmatic scoffers of any kind, without an attitude adjustment, both rebellious fourteen-year-olds and liberal scoffers are beyond reason or help.
As a passionate observer of American society, which I view mostly through the internet media from Canada where I live, my menu of media links run through the whole mainstream political spectrum from the far right of conservatism, through to full blown progressivism and liberalism on the far left. I am a mainstream, contemporary conservative. (When I refer to contemporary liberals and contemporary conservatives it is not with the old pre-sixties definitions of liberal and conservative. Those are different ideologies from different eras. This will all be explained in due time.)
Something I pride myself on is that as a conservative I do not insulate myself from liberal views. I keep abreast of liberal opinion not only by reading liberal articles, columns and forums on the web (I surf news and blog aggregate sites including the Huffington Post and Daily Kos), but every day I also listen to a half hour of liberal radio news on the The World at Six on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (think of the CBC as a liberal Canadian cousin of NPR). Additionally, I occasionally listen to up to another hour and a half of As It Happens, another liberal news program on CBC radio (and other liberal programs during the week). I even occasionally tune in to MSNBC and CNN. I am a rare bird as a conservative who spends hours every day absorbing liberal opinion. Few conservatives have the time or the patience to endure so much liberalism, and even fewer liberals spend time immersed in conservative opinion either, so one last presumption I will make is that it is quite likely that you as a liberal are generally uninformed about conservative positions other than what you have learned through liberal criticism of conservatism or sound bites on TV (usually the same thing). [*quwojp, *cncnwk]ar
• Insular delusion
Please do not think you get an informed view of conservatism from your ‘great’ liberal thinkers. Liberals think that they are informed about conservatism, but virtually all of their information is generated from other liberals as caricatures of conservatism. The self-identified liberal columnist from the NY Times, Paul Krugman was kind enough to volunteer as an icon of this insular delusion. In a recent interview he claimed, “A liberal can talk coherently about what the conservative view is because people like me actually do listen.” [3gmarmq] I believe Krugman actually does believe this about himself – it fits right in with the playing stupid delusion. Only a few months earlier he had candidly admitted that he does not invest any time into what conservatives are saying and that he has little clue of what the right thinks about the issues of the day, dismissing devoting any attention to them with a flippant, “life is short”. By his own admission, if you read a Paul Krugman column you’ll get a singularly insular liberal view that is completely devoid of any researched knowledge of the current conservative counterarguments (but he thinks he is informed because he listens to what other liberals say about conservative arguments, who themselves have listened to other liberals, and so on). [*4tasnth] Judging from the uninformed straw men arguments that many liberal media and bloggers battle everyday, it seems pretty obvious that few are more venturous than Paul Krugman. In fact, many surveys and studies confirm that liberals are considerably more insular than conservatives:
~The Pew survey adds to a wave of surveys and studies showing that GOP-sympathizers are better informed, more intellectually consistent, more open-minded, more empathetic and more receptive to criticism than their fellow Americans who support the Democratic Party.~ [*73tf7hc]
~A March 12 Pew study showed that Democrats are far more likely that [sic - 'than'] conservatives to disconnect from people who disagree with them.~ [*73tf7hc]
It is OK for you to admit that you have been implanted with a lifetime’s worth of societal conditioning.
Many of your beliefs are not your own.
In other words, American neighbor, I doubt that you have had much direct experience with truly original conservative views, and as you will soon see, none are more original than mine. Believe me, American neighbor, no matter how informed you think you are, you will be greatly surprised and amazed at what you discover in the Nuclear Counterarguments Essay Series. (There will be plenty of illuminating eureka moments for conservative readers as well.)as
• Canadian advantage
You might wish to question my ability to comprehend American society from Canada. On the surface, a valid objection, I admit, but as is true with many topics of research, one need not live on the moon to learn about the moon (especially now that all the world is but a few clicks away). In fact I have an innate advantage – America has been evolving ideologically left, and I live in a country just next door that is thoroughly integrated with American culture and yet is mostly two liberal steps ahead of where America is headed on many issues. American liberals are only now dreaming about a society that I live in many ways as a nightmare everyday. I would say this makes me uniquely qualified to understand contemporary American liberalism. America is as much of interest to Canadians as Canada itself is, and to me much more so. The Canadian news programs I listen to are filled with American stories and have their own following south of the border.
You need not doubt me when I claim to be informed about American political and societal issues from both the right and left side of the spectrum, American neighbor. You will not find the N.C. Essay Series just a simple regurgitation of other conservative authors and talking heads. Indeed, even they will often fail to see my counterarguments coming and will be as astonished as you, American neighbor.
Maybe it is that to be an American is to climb the mountain that is America, and it may be that American commentators are too close to be able to see the many aspects of their own mountain that someone like me can observe from the mountain across the valley. I gaze at your mountain everyday using 3D imaging, satellite radar mapping, and powerful field glasses, examining every nook and cranny. The internet and the radio are my predominant windows into your liberal world. It is likely that it is because I am an informed outsider looking in that I am able to generate my unique assessments of America. I do not have to worry about opinion polls, nor do I have a television audience to satisfy, nor a talk radio audience, and nor do I have to come up with clever insights each week to satisfy some editor. Neither is the Nuclear Counterarguments Essay Series a production of a committee of researchers and assistants as are many political books. It is just you and me, American neighbor. My sole focus in writing the N.C. Essay Series is you.
~ “The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it.”~ – Samuel Johnson
(But this isn’t a peeing contest, so enough of that.) I shade toward the minimalist end of conservatism with slight ideological conflicts with neoconservatives on the near left, as well as increasingly strong disagreements with neoliberalism and progressivism respectively (I will explain all of the contemporary ideologies later). I have aimed the N.C. Essay Series at liberals of all stripes (progressive, neoliberal, socialist, etc.), and although it is necessarily about what liberals think, it is more importantly about how liberals think. The first five essays of the Nuclear Counterarguments Essay Series are a primer focusing mostly on the sociology and psychology of liberalism. The following essays are mostly ideology and issue oriented, where liberal arguments are nuked with counterarguments developed through critical analysis and contextual investigation. (The N.C. Essay Series is presented in a numbered order – it is best to read them in that order.) Together we are going to build a profile of the typical attitude of the contemporary American liberal. If a person’s attitude is in sync with their world, their world view will more likely be in sync with their world. The problem I have found with liberalism is that it necessitates an attitude that unwittingly restricts a person’s ability to accurately discern and interact with the world around them. It is like liberals are caught in a deep crevice on the mountain that is America, and can’t find their way out. From my vantage point across the valley I can see the path that is hidden from your view and will direct your successful ascent of the mountain. Hopefully, American neighbor, I can convey this message to you in an unthreatening manner that will greatly benefit your life. Here is another example (remember, your job is to follow the reasoning and ignore the ideology).at
• Wars, lies & double standards
Liberals believe that former President Bush lied to the American people to get support for invading Iraq (this erroneous belief will be completely debunked in #22 The Quiet Funeral of “Bush Lied – Thousands Died!”). They called it an “illegal war”. For this reason many liberals have wanted the former President to be somehow held accountable. During his Presidency they wanted him impeached and many have called for jail time. But where was their outrage when former President Clinton lied to the American people to get their support for a war with Serbia? [*aoxunnp] President Clinton attacked Serbia with no U.S. interest in Serbia or Kosovo, no threat to America, no congressional approval, and without even bothering to consult the United Nations or formally inform them of his intentions. Providing very dubious evidence, his administration claimed “500,000″ ethnic Kosovars had disappeared as a result of “ethnic cleansing” by the Serbs, and on television he compared it to the “Holocaust” of World War Two when six million Jews were exterminated by Hitler’s Nazis, but the only legitimate comparison to the Nazis was Clinton’s flagrant use of propaganda to sell his war. It all turned out to be a complete fabrication. Even the most inflated casualty numbers from questionable post-war survey estimates topped out at 12,000. Actual body counts range up to only a few thousand. [6yds64e] Many of those deaths were ethnic Serbs killed by American bombs and the Kosovar KLA Muslim terrorists that precipitated the Serb military action in Kosovo in the first place (incidentally, the KLA were recognized as Islamic terrorists by the U.S. government at the time): [*282hm8, *7d39eku]
~United Nations forensics experts are exhuming bodies presumed to be Serbs from a mass grave in the Kosovo town of Malisevo, the second such find in a month, officials said on Saturday.~
~According to this report, both Serbs and Albanians from Kosovo were abducted and held captive in secret prisons in northern Albania run by the Drenica Group [an offshoot of the KLA]. The report alleges that members of this group also operated a network of makeshift clinics where organs were removed from prisoners to be taken abroad for transplant.~
President Clinton actually aligned America with a recognized Islamic terrorist group that essentially were domestic terrorists in Serbia. Did liberals demand rock-solid evidence before the war began? No. Did liberals demand a UN resolution before entering the war? No. So here is our next 800 pound gorilla. Where were liberals demanding impeachment and jail time for former President Clinton for conducting an “illegal war” based on outrageous administration fabrications of propaganda? Where are their parallel demands for Clinton to be tried for the same supposed crimes as Bush?
The Nuclear Counterarguments Essay Series will provide you with an opportunity you have never had: Your turn to make your own conscious and informed decisions.
Deprogramming Liberalism = Having an opportunity to make your own choices
One can attempt to argue that there were extenuating circumstances with the Iraq invasion that singles it out from the Serbia attack, but that would only be making my point for me. For instance one might claim that very few American troops died in the Serbia war, but that changes nothing in the basic argument, because all that is saying is that at the beginning of the Iraq War before many American troops had died, the war was in effect justified, only to lose its justification after a certain undefined amount of casualties. That hardly makes sense. At least Bush jumped through all of the right hoops, getting UN resolutions, congressional support, providing time for inspections and at least attempting to validate his reasons for the Iraq War. Another argument might be that innocent civilians died in the Iraq War. This was true in the war with Serbia as well. Here is a video of the bombing of a civilian train by an American jet that resulted in 27 civilian deaths: [*67x2yj5] And here is that story along with another about the killing of 60 Albanian refugees: [*5scyjta]
I’ve never heard a liberal justify their condemnation of Bush on the extenuating circumstances, but only on the basic premise that Bush supposedly lied. In fact that was and still is the liberal mantra: “Bush lied – thousands died!” That issue will be dealt with later, but for now we definitely know that Bill Clinton did not tell the truth about his administration’s reasons for going to war against Serbia. There is no debate on that. His claim of supposedly “500,000″ ethnic Kosovars being “ethnically cleansed” and comparing it to the “Holocaust” was a flat out fabrication specifically designed to deceive the American public. (As a side note, this is not the first war entered based on a fabrication by a Democratic President. It has since been discovered and released in 2005 by the National Security Agency that the congressional Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which basically authorized the Vietnam War was also based on an invented incident by Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration. [*2tcalk] Where is that liberal mantra: “Johnson lied – 58,000 American soldiers died!”?)
What about you, American neighbor? Were you a liberal who conveniently excused former President Clinton’s gross vilification of the Serbs and the subsequent war? Did you even know that the Serbs were responding to a domestic terrorist insurgency within their own country? Maybe you didn’t even know that the Serb war was based on a gigantic fraud. Of course that would not be entirely surprising since the orthodox media filter didn’t exactly report that part of it, but there were liberals that knew. There were big name liberals in the Democratic Party that knew. The orthodox liberal media knew. They could have made it common public knowledge if they had chosen to do so, but they didn’t. After all, Bill Clinton was one of theirs. But former President Bush? He was the political opposition. They preferred to keep you ignorant, knowing little or nothing of Clinton’s deception and instead hypocritically demanding so-called justice for Bush. You were played like a fiddle on these two wars, American neighbor (and much more than you yet know – later).
Here we have our second example of our first principle of liberalism: Contemporary liberalism requires a strict adherence to playing stupid. The fact that Clinton fits the exact accusation liberals use on Bush should set off alarms bells for you, American neighbor. Do you see the double standard? Like I mentioned earlier, our second liberal principle is: Without irrational double standards contemporary liberalism cannot exist. American neighbor, can you see that without a double standard there is no liberal argument for prosecuting former President Bush without also prosecuting former President Clinton?
So how are you doing ignoring the ideology of this issue, American neighbor? Were you able to ignore your conditioned disdain for former President Bush and your inherent sympathy for former President Clinton, and instead concentrate on the rational arguments of the issue? Kudos if you could.au
• Your deprogrammer 2
But more about me. I pledge that I will be completely honest with you, American neighbor. I know I won’t be preaching to the choir and I don’t expect you to give me the benefit of any doubt. I realize that for the N.C. Essay Series to be taken seriously by liberals like you I cannot take the political route of fudging and spinning the facts to support my arguments. There are many liberal websites that deal with the issues that I will present in the N.C. Essay Series. The only way for me to win over your confidence is to prove that I am right and they are wrong through critical analysis, so I will be on my best behavior and will diligently search out self-evident truth for you, American neighbor. I only ask for one thing in return; that you reciprocate by being as honest as you can in digesting what I have to present to you. I don’t ask you to trust me. I invite your scrutiny and honest appraisal, American neighbor. Just leave your ideology out on the porch before you enter my parlor.av
It is just you and me, American neighbor. My sole focus in writing the N.C. Essay Series is you.
As a former liberal I have a compassion for the plight of liberals.
• Own each issue
Although I have hopefully written the N.C. Essay Series as an easy read, it will not be a quick read if you are serious about its purpose and your role in it. I expect you to reason through what I say and reference my internet citations when you have questions. The best way to own an issue is for you to research it for yourself. You will do this here. Create your own links library on your computer. Take quotes. Make notes. I want you as focused as possible on every issue I present. It is my position that I have the facts and the reasoning, and to the extent that you search them out will be the extent that you will own each issue. The more proactively engaged you are, the more likely your deprogramming will be successful. Laziness may result in a waste of your time – and subsequently your life (so sad…). (And if you have come here in some self-aggrandized, noble quest to prove me wrong and your liberalism right, good luck! I have no doubt you will be able to lie to yourself right through the N.C. Essay Series. After all, that is what liberals do well, play stupid – especially with themselves.)
So you see, American neighbor, the N.C. Essay Series is not simply a defense of conservatism or an assault on liberalism. It is an examination of and continuous exercise in critical thinking. We are going to examine dozens and dozens of political and ideological issues, but you must not view them as ideological arguments. Instead you should view them as exercises in contextual investigation combined with critical analysis.aw
• Terrorists & due process 2
Take the first example I gave above about President Obama approving missile strikes in Pakistan. If you were to do an internet search for >Obama missile strikes< you would soon find a media report about President Obama approving of the mission referred to above before it was executed. You also might find his campaign pledge to take action in Pakistan to engage the Taliban and al Qaeda even if the President of Pakistan refused. [3dx87gb] Think about this, American neighbor. Candidate Obama was willing to make war in a supposed ally’s territory and risk turning them into an enemy. Is this a liberal position? Sheesh! Most liberals didn’t even agree with invading a sworn enemy’s country as with Saddam Hussein in Iraq! Even former President Bush was never so reckless as to make such a threat against Pakistan. And thanks to the chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D), it has been confirmed through her verbal slipup that Pakistan had already been cooperating with the American military, by allowing the Predator drones that killed those terrorists and their neighbors to fly from one of their own bases. [y8a9to6] But then candidate Obama was willing to jeopardize America’s relationship with a valued ally in the war against the Taliban and terrorism just to sound tough for votes. Of course being a liberal and appealing to liberals, Obama knew he could get away with presenting a double standard, knowing full well as President he would never send American troops to invade Pakistan based on the then current conditions.
You can see from my first two examples of liberal double standards that it is not my conservative ideology that leads my position on issues. Yes I am a conservative, but I am not a conservative simply because I have chosen this side of the argument. It is because reason drives me to it, American neighbor. Reason tells me that there is more than one human rights issue here. First there are the human rights of the innocents killed by the missile strikes, and then there are also the human rights of the innocents that will be murdered by these terrorists if they are not stopped. There is a choice to be made. I choose to agree with President Obama and support killing the terrorists, and if need be their innocent neighbors, over allowing the terrorists to directly or indirectly kill me or my innocent neighbors at some time in the future. The human rights of my neighbors are paramount to the human rights of their neighbors. Do you agree with me, American neighbor – and President Obama? Or do you still hold to a double standard liberal view that you can have your cake and eat it too? Somebody’s neighbors are going to die. Which do you prefer, American neighbor – theirs or ours? So why do you then hold against Bush what you will not hold against Obama?
And if it is OK for both Bush and Obama to execute suspected terrorists in their homes along with their neighbors without due process, then why is it not OK to hold suspected terrorists indefinitely without due process in the Guamtanamo Bay detention facility, which is arguably a much lesser sentence than execution by drone? Ask yourself this: Is the quandary under your liberalism in this matter a result of mental instability or the result of a conditioned response? Hopefully you find it is the latter, American neighbor. Rationally there are no other choices. If this is true, it is also true for virtually all of your liberal positions. They are all conditioned responses. So maybe you would like to reconsider your position and choose the one resulting from contextual investigation and critical analysis – the conservative position.
Liberals argue that the detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility are being denied their human rights. That may or may not be the case depending on one’s definition of human rights and who are entitled to them in what circumstances. But again, it is about the same choice. Do I object to holding terrorists indefinitely in the Guantanamo Bay detention facility even though some may be unknown innocents inadvertently caught up in a war they wanted nothing to do with? No, I do not object. It is no less justifiable than if they would have been killed by a Predator missile directly ordered by President Obama. If there are unknown innocents in the Guantanamo Bay detention facility they are no more unfortunate casualties than the dead neighbors of those terrorists in Pakistan – indeed, they are much better off. They are the price war extracts from civilians of one side of the battle to protect civilians on the other side of the battle. I am willing to take the chance of incarcerating some of their innocents to prevent deaths of our innocents.
So you see, the argument is less about human rights as an absolute, than it is about whose human rights under what circumstances take precedence. Former President Bush chose the human rights of my neighbors over the human rights of the terrorists. President Obama agreed with the former President in regard to the terrorists in Pakistan, but sets up his own double standard when dealing with the terrorists in the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Given the choice I would prefer that those detainees had been killed by missile strikes in Pakistan rather than being released from Guantanamo Bay by some civilian court because the soldiers and CIA operatives that apprehended them were not schooled as police officers to uphold civilian legal charges against them. Former President Bush capitulated and released many detainees hoping that they were truly innocents or that they would uphold their pledge to not return to terrorism, and yet many did return to radical Islam and the former President may yet end up with the blood of my innocent neighbors on his hands because of those erroneous capitulations to political correctness. [*cuu7pds, *yd39247, *d3op5h, *2czcaka, *25yk528, *pm82epo] (President Obama has released at least 66 detainees. If any of them go to Pakistan or Yemen, do you think, given the chance that he won’t kill them with drone missiles if they again affiliate with al Qaeda? Of course he will.) If President Obama yields to the demands of his liberal supporters and some of the remaining terrorists are released by a civilian court for lack of legal evidence to convict them or because of legal technicalities, the President and those liberals supporting him will have on their hands the blood of the innocents those terrorists kill sometime in the future. You see, American neighbor, the double standard has a consequence to it. No matter what the outcome, innocents will suffer. Would you rather it be their innocents or ours? Will you be one of those liberals with the blood of your own neighbors on your hands, American neighbor?ax
• Illegal enemy combatants vs. POWs
Update: President Obama’s great new plan is to release captured terrorists and pay them not to go back to being terrorists. [*lb6n6hk] This can only end with more dead Americans. [groan]
Think about this, American neighbor. The liberal position of granting rights to civilian trials for the Guantanamo detainees actually grants more rights to these terrorists than World War Two prisoners of war had.
~Captor states hold captured combatants and non-combatants in continuing custody for a range of legitimate and illegitimate reasons. They are held to isolate them from combatants still in the field, to release and repatriate them in an orderly manner after hostilities~ [*rsqx5]
Deprogramming Liberalism is not about changing you. We are on the same side:
I am not your enemy.
WWII soldiers caught by either side were not granted trials of any kind. Under the subsequent Geneva Conventions POWs can be legally kept incarcerated until the war ends. Has the war ended against the terrorists? Well obviously President Obama does not think so, otherwise he would not be approving of Predator drone missile strikes in Pakistan and Yemen. Did he not also declare that the fight against terrorism not be considered a war? Then how can these detainees be considered prisoners of war if there is no war? In fact, the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay are not actually legitimate prisoners of war under the laws of war because they were not wearing recognizable uniforms or insignia identifying themselves as soldiers on the battlefield. Because terrorists attempt to blend in as civilians they are not considered prisoners of war, but rather illegal enemy combatants. They are more like guerilla combatants in a civil war or spies in an international war. They are not covered by the Geneva Conventions as legitimate prisoners of war and need not be granted rights as such. Indeed it has not been uncommon throughout history that similar type illegal enemy combatants have been legitimately executed on the spot when captured. Of course intelligence gathering is also important – a dead terrorist can provide no intelligence, so for strategic reasons it might be better to incarcerate them for interrogation. Indeed many other terrorists have been captured based on Guantnaamo detainee interrogations, saving dozens or maybe hundreds or even thousands of my and your neighbors’ lives. [*csttvfv] And a lot of other valuable intelligence was gathered from interrogating Guantanamo detainees. [*4kdrr7z]
This is really a zombie argument. In case you are unfamiliar with a zombie argument, it is an assertion that has been repeatedly proven invalid, but is continually raised from the dead as though it is still credible. Liberals insist that terrorist captives deserve coverage of the Geneva Conventions despite it having been repeatedly illustrated that illegal enemy combatants fall outside the jurisdiction of the Geneva Conventions.
Indeed, President Obama’s choice for Attorney General has also expressed his opinion that the Guantanamo detainees are not covered by the Geneva Conventions.
~”Seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention – they are not prisoners of war.”~ Eric Holder, 2002 [6kjmrt]
President Obama complicated matters even more by differentiating prisoners held in Afghanistan from those held at Guantanamo Bay, declaring that the Afghan prisoners are not entitled to the same supposed rights. [*ygreg8l] (Indeed, it is alleged that torture is still in play there: [*5uz3y2y])
Yet liberals desire that foreign terrorists be tried in NYC. (800 pound gorilla alert!) So why do you think that WWII German and Japanese soldiers who fought according to the rules of war were not granted trials in NYC? Were they less worthy of rights to trials than terrorists who do not fight according to the rules of war? Can you not see that liberals have this whole situation turned backwards, American neighbor? Terrorists deserve less rights than legitimate prisoners of war, not more.
In another huge example of liberal double standards Barack Obama authorized the assassination of an American citizen turned terrorist with drone missile strikes in a country that has not been declared or even considered a war zone. [*23pbzwl] Now over a year later authorities have claimed that they have indeed executed Anwar al-Awlaki with a drone missile attack. [5rr4gwo] If this had been under Bush you know liberals would be demonstrating in the streets, American neighbor. Under Obama? No big deal, but to the conservative this is not just an American citizen. He is a dangerous traitor who is a current threat to the lives of innocent Americans, justifying his preemptive assassination by drone as a defensive act of war against a known terrorist.
You see, American neighbor, it is not just that I automatically support the conservative side of the detainee rights argument because I am a conservative. I support the conservative argument that the detainees do not deserve civilian trials or trials of any kind because reason leads me to this conclusion. What leads you to yours, American neighbor?ay
• Obama vindicates Bush
Now, American neighbor, let’s examine where all of this can lead. Liberals were quick to credit cowboy President Obama for a targeted assassination of an unarmed Osama bin Laden without arresting and Mirandizing him, without due process, using Dick Cheney’s death squad, which until then was defending itself from giving a terrorist a fat lip in Iraq, while ignoring the collateral damage of a firefight, flying from a still occupied Afghanistan, in a unilateral fashion, without congressional approval, without UN approval, under the banner of the War On Terror, in a country America was not at war with, under a deal agreed upon by Presidents Bush and Musharraf, where the intelligence originated in both the Guantanamo Bay gulag, and through the use of abduction and extraordinary rendition and enhanced interrogation by agents being prosecuted by Obama’s Justice Department, with extensive additional information from wiretapping. What’s wrong with this picture, American neighbor? According to liberals just about everything (all 21 italicized items in the above sentence). There is a poster online that sums this up nicely. It’s a macho photo of George W. Bush in a cowboy hat with the following caption: “VINDICATION – When the loudest critic of your policies achieves his greatest success because of them.” [*cu6gw87]
In fact most of the credit goes to Guantanamo Bay’s and other interrogators who extracted key information about a bin Laden courier from detainees that eventually led to the finding of bin Laden’s Abbotabad compound. [*64qwmjd, 44dhzbn, bua3v4o, 5u8qelz] It was 9/11 mastermnind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed after rendition and enhanced interrogation who offered up information leading to the courier who has been described as a former protégé of his. But here is the real issue for liberals. Why do you think that when Osama bin Laden was located in Pakistan that a Dick Cheney black ops assassination team was directly ordered by President Obama to summarily execute bin Laden instead of capture and Mirandize him, and bring him to America to stand trial in New York City? [3wwz6dz, 4xpgcmb, 3kez22v] What about bin Laden’s supposed human and constitutional rights and due process, American neighbor? Where was the always necessary (according to liberals) coalition? Even Pakistan was kept out of the loop. Will liberals who condemned President Bush now condemn President Obama for war crimes or crimes against humanity? Is executing Osama bin Laden not the utmost in hypocrisy for a liberal President who has condemned his predecessor for not providing terror suspects due process and trials? What about you, American neighbor? Did you cheer bin Laden’s execution or denounce the supposed lack of due process?az
• Capturing Osama bin Laden
What was the alternative, American neighbor? What if President Obama had captured Osama bin Laden? Isn’t this what America had yearned for since 9/11? The problem is that liberals had turned this into a nightmare scenario. Instead of being a joyous and triumphant event for America (and a treasure trove of intelligence from bin Laden himself), it would have quickly dissolved into a perplexing anxiety for the country as a multitude of ACLU type lawyers and liberal human rights groups elbowed each other out of the way to ‘protect’ bin Laden’s supposed ‘rights’ and set up a defense team.
At least with the rules originally laid out by former President Bush we could have been sure that Osama bin Laden would never have been released. He would have been thoroughly interrogated over a period of years. He would have spent the rest of his life in an isolated, austere incarceration, prevented from ever influencing the world in any way again. He would not have been considered a martyr by his followers. He would have eventually died in prison and his death would have been only a footnote in history, as at most it should have been.db
• Principle – unintended consequences
Under the new rules of the Obama administration where bin Laden’s right to due process would be paramount, the whole situation would have turned into a bloody three ring circus. Think about this 800 pound gorilla, American neighbor. Think about Osama bin Laden on trial in New York city if he had decided to plead not guilty. It would have made the O. J. Simpson trial look like Sesame Street. “Send in the clowns!” The TV networks would have been filled with ‘experts’ all advising on how to deal with bin Laden’s captivity. The truthers would have come out of the woodwork seeing their moment to prove their supposed case that the Bush administration actually brought down the twin towers and targeted the Pentagon. How would they have even found the members for a jury of twelve who had not been influenced one way or another over the years? There would have been violent rioting with many deaths in Muslim nations and probably in many western nations. There also would have been many kidnappings of Americans to use in bartering for bin Laden. There would probably have been desperate terrorism attacks across the the world. NY City would have been the number one target. Who’d have wanted to serve on a jury and expose themselves and their families to reprisals from Muslim extremists? Would you have been willing to put your friends and family and neighbors at risk, American neighbor? Do I need to go on? Chances are that there would have been no conviction. After all, there wasn’t even a bloody glove. His videos could have been explained away as propaganda exploiting terrorist events perpetrated by others. There was no smoking gun from bin Laden’s hands to use as court evidence. Osama bin Laden would then have filed numerous lawsuits and so would have many other detainees and former detainees, with the help of liberal groups who’s only aim would have been to discredit that evil Bush. This would have been all thanks to supposedly noble liberal motivations with no forethought to their calamitous results. In fact this is another teachable moment for you, American neighbor. As you will see throughout the N.C. Essay Series, liberal good intentions more often than not end up with horrible results. Liberals have been so busy demonizing conservative/Republican policies and principles that they haven’t looked ahead to see the consequences of their own actions. So Obama had no choice but to execute Osama bin Laden. And now we can see one more principle of liberalism: Contemporary liberalism is rife with unintended consequences. In fact this principle is an adage of liberalism:
~ “We meant to do better, but it came out as always.”~ – Russian proverb serendipitously describing contemporary American liberalism
I don’t take conservative positions because I am a conservative. Reason leads me to conclusions that turn out to be conservative.
Liberal arguments are nuked with contextual investigation and critical analysis.
So President Obama spared the nation the heartache and violence (and himself a giant headache) of a foolish trial of bin Laden under his own policies and liberal desires, and instead upheld the eminently more reasonable Bush doctrines for dealing with terrorism (unfortunately a multitude of intelligence had to be sacrificed with bin Laden’s death). I’m just wondering when the liberal impeachment trial of Obama begins, and then the liberal trial against assassination, and then the liberal murder trial, and the liberal war crimes trail, the liberal crimes against humanity trial… Oh – and then there is the little matter of impeaching Obama over Libya. [*3dlm4pu] [/sarcasm - sort of]
President Obama has flip-flopped on indefinite detention at Guantanamo Bay as well. When the Supreme Court attempted to assume jurisdiction over non-citizens, outside of U.S. soil (and failed), Obama said at the time of the decision:
~Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama described the ruling as “a rejection of the Bush administration’s attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo” and “an important step toward re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law.”~ [7cwmn5j]
As a presidential candidate Obama adamantly insisted that he would make the closure of the Guantanamo detention facility one of his top priorities as President, but once President he again agreed with Bush:
~President Obama signed an executive order Monday that will create a formal system of indefinite detention for those held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who continue to pose a significant threat to national security.~ [48thatj]
Where are all of those liberal protests and dozens of liberal media columns against this decision that were so prominent when Bush made the same decision as President? Can you say “double standards”, American neighbor?ba
• Liberals on genocide
Liberals denounced George W. Bush for invading Iraq and stopping Saddam Hussein from mass murdering up to one hundred thousand Iraqis per year, but liberals had no criticism for Bill Clinton when he could have easily stopped the majority of the genocide of 800,000 Tutsis by Hutus in Rwanda (he was warned two months in advance and later admitted on TV that 500,000 lives could have been saved with only 5,000 American troops). [ydl83k5] It seems liberals don’t really care about stopping genocide, whether it is through a Republican President or a Democratic President (unless of course it is against seals, owls, minnows or beetles). Then again, liberals supported Bill Clinton’s war with Serbia over an invented genocide. So I guess the liberal standards on human slaughter are these: An angry NO to stopping an ongoing mass murder in Iraq, a shrug of the shoulders for ignoring a predicted and easily preventable genocide in Rwanda, and an enthusiastic YES to stopping a fictitious “ethnic cleansing” in Kosovo. What a mess liberal thinking is…
Why do you think it is, American neighbor, that liberals desire that former President Bush should be prosecuted for supposedly lying America into a war with Iraq, while giving former President Clinton a complete pass for lying America into a war with Serbia based on his obvious lie of supposedly “500,000″ Kosovars having been “ethnically cleansed” by the Serbs? Here’s another example. Both President Obama and Vice President Biden adamantly opposed exactly what they have ended up doing in Libya. Again, will liberals hold them to account? [*4z38cwf] And here is another: Why was it imperative under Bush that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who is held in the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, be tried in a civilian court on American soil with full civilian rights for admittedly masterminding and initiating the 9/11 attack, while it was OK, and even courageous for Obama to summarily execute (assassinate) Osama bin Laden when he could have just as easily been taken into custody and flown to the U.S. for trail? Of course I have already repeatedly illustrated that liberalism is based on glaring double standards. Liberals simply do not hold up their own for the same scrutiny that they hold up conservatives. Liberals can easily gloss over liberal sins, but liberals never pass over any conservative indiscretion, or any event they think they can turn into a perceived indiscretion. These are not just arbitrary decisions – there is a method here. What do you think the explanation is, American neighbor? I’ll provide a complete answer in the next essay.bb
• Deprogramming lessons
As we conclude this first essay I want to encourage you to tone down your emotions and turn up your Mr. Spock demeanor, American neighbor. No one enjoys having their ideological legs kicked out from beneath them, but you have to look at this as remedial, not an attack on you. That you are willing to persevere through this at all is greatly to your credit, American neighbor.
The first lesson learned here in essay one is the fundamental difference between a contemporary conservative and a contemporary liberal. Both respond to the question of whether they prefer to have as a life principle the liberty to direct their own lives or have others direct their lives with the exact same answer – both the conservative and the liberal prefer the liberty to direct their own lives. Here is the difference: The conservative attempts to live their life consistent with their answer. However, the liberal willingly accepts unnecessary and contradictory outside limitations imposed by others on their life in a direct contradiction to their core belief – they embrace a life of servitude. The question you must answer to yourself is, ‘Are you going to continue to allow liberal programming to run your life?’bc
I want you to know that you are not alone, American neighbor. Many Americans are in the very same position as you. Liberalism has stolen away liberty as the universal core value of America. The Nuclear Counterarguments Essay Series is about getting it back, one American at a time. This week it is your turn. Next week it will be a co-worker’s, a friend’s or a family member.
Our first two principles of liberalism illustrate their willingness to accept these external limitations placed on them by others:
Contemporary liberalism requires a strict adherence to playing stupid.
Without irrational double standards contemporary liberalism cannot exist.
A third principle is a result:
Contemporary liberalism is rife with unintended consequences.
The process of deprogramming liberalism is about providing you with alternative choices to your liberal world view based on analytical deductions rather than ideological presumptions. Each time your choice is based on analysis over ideology you are confirming your first, core choice of this essay, a desire to direct your own life, American neighbor. Choosing analysis over ideology is a choice to direct yourself to reject the playing stupid of our first liberal principle. For instance, by concluding that as an ethic there is no difference between President Bush holding terrorism suspects in the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and President Obama’s decision to bomb terrorism suspects in remote Pakistan, you have affirmed the very real existence of the second liberal principle of double standards, and have rejected it as irrational thinking – playing stupid. Again, these conclusions were confirmed when examining the parallels between President Bush’s justifications for invasion of Iraq that have been framed as lies, and President Clinton’s obvious propaganda used to enter a war against Serbia – there is no difference, we are discussing the same ethic. Another confirmation is the liberal double standard demand for civil rights for terrorism suspects that even legitimate prisoners of war have always been denied. Through the choice of analysis over ideology you have had the liberal principles of playing stupid and double standards revealed to you, American neighbor. This has provided you with a freedom of personal choice over that of others directing and limiting your choice through foreign principles that contradict your core value of liberty. Continue making these choices, American neighbor. The more you do so, the more you will realize that at the core of your being you are not a liberal.
Here is a prime example of playing stupid (warning – the determination to refuse to acknowledge a simple fact, displayed in this video of DNC Chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, is actually excruciating to watch for those who are not playing stupid along with her): [*943svyt] This next link illustrates some of liberalism’s untintended consequences: [*amzlne]bd
• Deprogramming exercise
From now on, American neighbor, whenever you find yourself judging conservatives or say, viewing a liberal on television judging conservatives, use your third person analysis to observe the double standard that is very likely being employed. Be aware of the 800 pound gorilla. Continuously ask yourself, what if the issue were reversed? When judging a conservative, would I be so harsh if it were a liberal that I was judging for the same supposed failure or indiscretion? Or if a liberal failure or indiscretion is the issue, would I be so generous to a conservative in the same position? As a liberal you will find that the answer is almost always no. Don’t play stupid – in fact, analyze the situation to determine whether you are in fact playing stupid without realizing it. This is third person analysis. We’ll learn some of the mechanics of this attitude disorder in the next essay. Read this as a preliminary test: [*8bnaovu]
Here is another exercise. With no warning or pre-explanation go ask your liberal and conservative friends and acquaintances our core question: As a principle, would you prefer others to direct your life, or would you prefer to have the freedom to direct your own life? (Again, don’t give them any hint that it is coming.) Do you think any of them will not choose the self-reliance of freedom, American neighbor? Do you think any of them are actually liberal at the core of their being and will prefer the collective interdependence of being herded around like sheep? Neither do I.
(Please note: Of course I understand that conservatives and Republicans are often but not always symbiotic, as is also true of liberals and Democrats, so when I mention them as pairs or separately, please let this qualification stand throughout the N.C. Essay Series and search out the context of what I have written to determine whether I am equating them or not. Also please realize that when I write liberals believe this or conservatives do that, although it may be written as all-inclusive, I do realize that there are often exceptions to the rule – please keep this in mind as well so I don’t have to qualify every inclusive statement in the N.C. Essay Series.)
I am a big believer in the direct relationship between sleep and the ability to think through problems and new ideas. It is important that you go to sleep at night pondering the new ideas you have discovered here each day. This will lead to new insights and realizations the next day, or even when waking during the night. Many concepts in the N.C. Essay Series came to me lying awake at four in the morning.
Here is a link for the above seven statement test: [c3ojvxo]
And here is the link to George Orwell’s essay on playing stupid: [*5o48zg]be
• Humor, sort-of
Now for a little humor to break the tension at the end of this essay, American neighbor. It is from my “And you thought Sarah Palin was stupid…” file, and is a sneak preview of another principle of liberalism: Contemporary liberalism is absurd.
In the mid-nineties “tolerance” was the ultimate liberal virtue in life. In foreign policy it was all about apologizing to America’s enemies and negotiating meaningless peace agreements with the likes of Yasser Arafat, Kim Jong-il and Saddam Hussein. Along with domestic military base closings and cutbacks to the intelligence arms, catching terrorists became less de rigueur. The clandestine services had a lot of idle time on their hands and the President’s CIA Director brought in a nanny to teach the operatives how to be nice and to tuck them into bed each night. Officers were required to spend countless hours sewing “diversity quilts” in order to keep their jobs (I kid you not, American neighbor). And then there were the “sensitivity-training classes” and “role-playing skits to conform to politically correct social themes”. Those liberals running the CIA at the time were certainly not in any way attempting to turn out James Bond type operatives that were “licensed to kill”. The new liberalized CIA was learning to be “tolerant” (and how to sew). [crdm4el]
One question, American neighbor – did Barack Obama enter into a “rush to war” against Libya over oil? Jus’ askin’… [*clksjz5]