Kenn's Laws | AbateTheHate.com | REAL Black History | Kenn's Essays | History & Archaeology | Weather

Why Racism is Wrong | Why White Supremacy is Wrong | Why Antisemitism Is Wrong

MUST READ ► My Horrific Experience With A Psychopath

September 19, 2013


Source ►

"Inside the conservative brain" is an article written by Avi Tuschman and published by the uber-liberal salon.com.

The wackiness of clear-thinking conservatives can be attributed to neurological disorders. Of course we knew that after reading the article's title.

And that prompts a question of our own:

What goes on inside the leftist brain? Apparently not much.

I note that leftists find it intellectually challenging to debate primary issues. They opt, instead, to create secondary issues in the form of straw man arguments which they can easily knock over. Ever try to joust with scarecrows? You win every time.

In this case it's a classic ad hominem attack directed towards the entire lot of conservatives.

• The author observes that conservatives like Ronald Reagan have historically appealed to the self interests of their supporters.

If preventing government from transferring your wealth to non-productive voters is considered self interest then, of course, the author has a point. My guess is the author locks both his home and his car, both acts of self interest. How greedy. Is he a closet conservative?

The author fails to see that leftists, like Barack Obama, find enhancement on election day by redistributing wealth from society's innovative class -- mostly white people -- via government hand-out programs such as EBT cards (food stamps), the umbrella SNAP program, federal housing, Affirmative Action, etc. Add the never-ending cadence among liberals with labor unions and you have an epidemic of appealing to self interests. If such political policies and practices reveal trace neurosis in conservatives, we must conclude that liberals are flat-out wacky.

• The author observes that the anti-establishment movement of the sixties was comprised of liberals who had deep humanitarian empathies and unrealistic expectations which led to ultimate failure.  Barack Obama is served up as a contemporary example of such well-intended but flawed thinking.

The summation is that Obama isn't the oaf that he appears to be. Rather, his apparent idiocy and incompetence is our misunderstanding. Behind the outer shell of a piteous moron is the humanitarian soul of a well-meaning man who assumes that bellicose, self-exploding Islamic terrorists are fundamentally good people who, like himself,  desire nothing more than a warm-and-fuzzy fire-side chat. Hence the dialogue with militant Muslims.

The author's argument is, of course, convincing; but only to self-serving Obamabots whose devotion to the president is nothing more than abject denial. They need a reason to excuse the president's incompetence. The author serves it up on a platter: His altruism is simply misunderstood.

• The author dares to contrast the slam-dunk Reagan inquiry, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago" to that of John F. Kennedy who famously quipped, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

The apparent point is to reinforce the perspective that Reaganites are a mob of selfish dotes. What isn't uncovered by the author's pen is that Reagan's victory came on the heels of the Jimmy Carter disaster. Nothing argues more strongly against socialists, leftists, liberals, et al, than tried-and-failed policies. Never has the Marxist mindset improved society. Reagan took note as did voters and sent Carter packing. Also ignored by the author is that the Reagan-Thatcher years saw the implosion of Soviet communism allowing Russians and their sister states to incur a renaissance of economic enhancement and stability. Nowadays neither Russians nor Reaganites stand for hours in bread lines. That, author seems to conclude, is the stuff of self interests.

Neurotic conservatives believe
culture is degenerating.

The Farwell Building in Detroit.
Architects Bonnah & Chaffee, 1915.
Photograph Philip Jarmain 2011

• The author portrays conservatives as neophytes who presume they live in a dangerous world. He finds support for his view that conservatives are quite the neurotics by quoting a university professor. He wholly ignores statistics provided by the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that affirm conservative perspectives that the world is, indeed, dangerous are well founded.

The author also conveniently forgets the Islamic attack on the World Trade Center preferring, instead, to invoke the likes of Tom Metzger as the quintessential conservative. The straw man falls, but only because the author ignores Metzger's run for Congress which netted, maybe, a dozen votes. But it doesn't matter. The race-card has been played and that, for liberal writers, is sufficiently conclusive.

The author masks leftists failures through classic projection. That is, he transfers liberal failures to conservatives through stereotyping. And all good liberals know that stereotyping begets bigotry and hatred. That begs another question: Why do liberals hate conservatives? Could the answer lie in the fact that conservatives are misrepresented by mindless bigot authors who portray them as fool-hearty neurotics?

Liberalism feigns a distaste for stereotyping. It's a key component of its pretense for compassion. It shrinks in horror at the suggestions that all Mexicans are lazy, all blacks are criminals, and all Jews are greedy. But it will embrace and even advocate the silly notions that all conservatives are absorbed with self interest, lacking in compassion, and paranoid.

• The author faults conservatives for presuming our world is degenerating.

We heartily recommend the author take pause to visit the streets of London and muse for a moment at what conservatives perceive as degeneration. Then, perhaps, he could tour the streets of Detroit and examine the magnificent works of architecture that have fallen to ruin and now beg for mercy from a wrecking ball. There, in the darkness of night amid the sounds of crickets competing with gunfire, he may reflect on a paraphrase of Reagan's challenge: Are you better off now than you were a generation ago? And maybe. Perhaps. In a solitude moment of honesty. The author may determine that conservatives aren't as neurotic as the liberal professors would have him -- and us -- believe.

Please report errors
Like this story?
Help Kenn spread the word by clicking it onto Facebook. See icon below . . .

Permission is granted to use the material in this article providing (1) the byline is included in an obvious manner crediting DailyKenn.com as the author, (2) a link to this page is included and (3) no changes are made either by deletion, addition or annotation. Original compositions at DailyKenn.com are sometimes seeded with decoy data, such as hidden acronyms, to detect unauthorized use and plagiarism.

COMMENTS: The use of vulgarities and pejoratives may result in your comment being zapped.

0 comments:

Post a Comment