Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Conservative Rhetoric And Objections Rebutted


There are times when the vagaries of Life intervene, and despite the most rigorous of schedules and best of intentions, things get  postponed or put off - as we see by the absence of today's posting.  In lieu of this lapse, I am re-posting two of the more popular pages (under the tabs of this site just below the banner), "Conservative Rhetoric" and "Objections Rebutted," together with a few comments that were posted at the time.


Conservative Rhetoric



"How To Master Conservative Political Arguments, In Six Easy Steps, Easily Defeating The Most Brilliant Liberal Opponents Without Raising A Sweat."

Few of us have the chance or ability, initiative, energy, or wealthy parents to become millionaires yet many people identify themselves as Conservatives or Republicans because propaganda has convinced them that they can somehow become rich because they live in the United States.  Simple math, multiplying a million (dollars) by 300 million (Americans), shows us that there isn't enough money in the world to fulfill that silly dream (the total is 300 trillion dollars for the mathematically challenged), but by mastering the following seven steps, and by continue to listen to your favorite conservative personality - Limbaugh, Hannity, Romney, Palin, it doesn't matter who ( just watching the GOP media outlet, Fox News 24/7 will do), you too can be a force in conservative politics, you too can start on your way to fame and wealth, even if you are someone who votes Republican against your own interests as a member of a racial minority, a female, an lgbt, or a Christian, or someone inconveniently born with parents who are members of the 99%.

Studying "Conservative Philosophy" is a waste of time, there is no such thing, you're a Conservative because as you can see by the tab on this blog called "The Science" your brain structure makes you a Conservative - a "kick down, kiss up" Authoritarian Personality (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_personality) perpetually driven to the Conservative cause.  Conservative positions change as voter demographics change, and your leadership will tell you what to think and say anyway.

So sit back, relax, and learn how to destroy your liberal opponents in six easy steps:

Step 1.  Lie about, exaggerate, or distort every single one of your opponent's positions and statements, no matter what they are and whether or not he has actually stated what you're attacking him for.

Create your own statistics and citations.  By the time your opponent finds out they're made up, the debate will have been ended.  (Don't worry about being labeled a hypocrite, we'll explore this issue later in an essay titled, "Lying Is  A Virtue, Greed Is A Blessing."

You can accuse your opponent of supporting "Judicial Activism," for example, the creation of some unknown Conservative genius, and related to "Projection," in Step 4, and the "Straw Dog a
Argument," Step 5.  Truthiness," as described by conservative spokesman Stephen Colbert of *The Colbert Show* fame, describes how this essential tool for every Republican works: (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness)

Step 2.  Repeat everything often and people will believe whatever you say.

Remember hearing the name "Joseph Stalin" somewhere?  Stalin was a Georgian leader (the USSR Georgia, not Newt's home state) who was able to get away with all kinds of political pranks, murdering millions of his own people.  Even though he was a Commie, he and his adversary Adolf Hitler perfected the "Big Lie," a tool that works for the GOP today as we dish up the most outrageous lies often enough that everyone ends up swallowing them.

"Swift-Boating," the repeated attack on your liberal opponents' strengths, was a tool first implemented by President Richard (Tricky Dick) Nixon when he first ran for Congress by trashing his opponent, Congresswoman Helen Gahagan Douglas, as a liberal  "pinko" (see "Name Calling" below).  Swift-Boating was then perfected by "Bush's Brain," Karl Rove, the creator of the Plan For A Permanent Republican Government, he turned war hero John Kerry into a cowardly child-killer by smearing him repeatedly.

The media will always protect your strategy of repeating yourself over and over by repeating your statements over and over, in the airwaves or in print.  Thanks to years of tireless GOP messaging, people believe the Big Lie that the "mainstream media" are liberal media, even though they are owned and run by wealthy conservative Republicans and always follow the GOP party line.  These titans won't contradict you; they want their employees and potential critics to buy into the fact that real journalism by definition investigates conservative evil-doers, persons and corporations.  But it's just lip service , so don't hesitate to call them "liberal," they love it.

Step 3.  Sarcasm and Name-Calling, coupled with hateful rhetoric, instill feelings of fear and hate in the crowd, and are intimately related to the political smear.

Newt Gingrich mastered the use of words like "sick, pathetic, lie, destructive, self-serving, welfare, bizarre, decay, traitors, radical, destroy, pathetic, corrupt, steal and shame" in his speeches that merit memorizing on by you to use in your everyday speech.

Next to a rabble rouser named Adolf Hitler, Gingrich is the ultimate grand master of name-calling  of our time (http://www.consortiumnews.com/2012/01/30/the-ugly-words-of-newt-gingrich/), and for a list of words guaranteed to bring out the worst side of your supporters click:http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/27/us/politics/27gingrich-text.html.

And don't forget to say "Democrat Party," instead of the correct adjective "Democratic."  All of your leaders do, because psychologists have tipped them to the fact that listeners will associate the word "rat" with the Dems and Libs.  Again, never fear to look or sound stupid, look how George W. Bush's handlers turned stupidity into a virtue - remedial reading classes are for losers.

Step 4.  Project your own behavior onto your opponent's.

This subconscious psychological defense mechanism is a boon to the average Republican of below-average I.Q. as a *conscious* attack strategy.

Descriptions of your faults, negative actions and shameful feelings, can be inserted into your invective to describe your opponents as "fascist," "criminal," or "murderous."  You can accuse Democrats of "destroying the Constitution," "killing babies," or "taking away our free speech," and your audience will never guess that you're describing yourself!

This is why you can call President Obama a racist or Nazi, why you can claim that Democrats are waging war against women, students, minorities, and the elderly.  If you practice and become as proficient as Rush Limbaugh, you can call African American figures *racist* and be believed.

Step 5.  Misrepresent all issues contrary to yours.

Attack teachers for trying to brainwash their students, professors for trying to rid our country of God, Democrats for creating "death panels,"and the ACLU for attempting to place our military in  communes - nothing is too ridiculous because you're attaching a label on your opponent, making him ridiculous by default.

This is what the "Straw Dog Argument" is all about.  Don't take monotonous critical thinking courses at your local junior and community college: leave those to your so-called "intelligent" liberal foes - just make something up as an aspect of your opponent's personality or platform as if it were true.  You don't need to be "logical," most people don't even know what a logical fallacy is!

A Corollary to this Step is this: "If something happened just once, it will always happen again."  Reagan spoke often about a "Welfare Queen," thus making all welfare recipients guilty of welfare fraud in the collective mind, even though the actual numbers of fraud approached only .02 percent of the total people receiving public assistance.

Once a paroled prisoner named Willie Horton went on a killing spree, which enabled "Poppy" Bush to brand his rival as "soft on crime."  You under-use this valuable tool at your peril.

Step 6. The Rage Factor.

Feigning anger is not the province of Limbaughs, Scarboroughs, or Hitlers alone - with just a smidgen of acting ability you too can swerve the smartest liberal from his "logical" rebuttal!

The effective use of rage, together with the first Five steps, combine not only to win arguments and debates, but they are designed to instill fear and hate in your audiences.

Turn red, pound the table, froth at the mouth - the average True Believer kiss up-kick down authoritarian follower equates rage with "strength."  And rolling around the floor and pounding the carpet with your fists will show your lily-livered liberal opponent who's boss!

As all winning GOP politicians do, practice your anger mismanagement in front of the mirror every day.  Pretend you have Al Franken tied to a chair and at your mercy; imagine the rage coursing through Mitt Romney as he cut off the hair of his classmate who tried to be different than everyone else in school.  Practice, practice, practice!

Congratulations if you've been able to make it this far!  Remember that the Grandmaster of Conservative communication, two-term George W. Bush, was about the stupidest Chief Executive in our nation's history, and with only a little help from five Supreme Court Conservative operatives, a little voter suppression and disenfranchisement, intimidation (and a ton of rigged voting machines - the most premier campaign tool in the Republican Party's bag of tricks), Bush 43, the student of all the methods you have learned here, was able to eliminate liberal institutions in the making for almost a hundred years, setbacks that will last, if not forever, for over a hundred years or more!

The point is that the old saw, that "the GOP is made up of a few smart people and a whole lot of dumb ones," isn't 100% wrong: it implies that the smart heads of the Party lead the dumb followers by the nose, but look at our leaders - Sarah Palin, Eric Cantor, John Boehner, all of them dumb as a post, with barely enough intelligence to bring fork to mouth when hungry.  But somehow these morons are in positions of power and prestige and awaiting a future of wealth.  Their talents in spewing forth verbal vomit geared to permeate the air with fear, fear that turns into hate - that's what makes them succeed where smart people fail.

By mastering these simple strategies, you can help take us back to the wonderful times when wealth ruled without objection, where the poor knew their place and those with wealth could help the poor and helpless if they wanted to, not because they had to, and we could rid ourselves of wrong-doers without reproach.

By "Mr. Republican."


2 comments:

  1. Your writing shows you are very passionate about changing a system which I agree is diseased. I do not, however, blame Conservatism. It is foolish to pretend that the issues you identify would be solved by giving more power to a government which is manipulated time and again for personal gain. Very few people are immune to the temptation of corruption and self-interest when given the kind of power that our politicians and bureaucrats receive.
    ReplyDelete

    Replies

    1. Thank you for the compliments. History is replete with those who called new ideas "foolish," as I think you'll agree. And I am *not* pretending.

      If you examine this site further, you'll see nothing about "changing the system" or "giving more power to (the) government." The government is us, the 99 percent, and the greedy and power hungry 1 percent is the entity that I'm decrying. My aim is to convince people that Conservatism is not a bona fide political philosophy: it is rather, a criminal enterprise of historical antecedents that must be done away with.

      I argue that if governments are, as we both agree, "manipulated time and again for personal gain" (and I would add to this, the lust for power), whether or not it is only a few of us that are immune to such temptations (which I would disagree with), the kind of "power that our politicians receive" is primarily a province of the Conservative leadership by virtue of its mentality. The Conservatives are fed by those of obscene wealth who want to eliminate the middle class to their ends.

      But many thanks for your observations, you are one of the few that has commented on this page, "Conservative Rhetoric," and I urge you to also read "Objections Rebutted."

      I believe that the depredations foisted upon the People by these criminals must come to a stop, and readily confess that my way is a radical one.



Objections Rebutted


The most common objections to Criminalizing Conservatism fall under four simple headings:

1. The First Amendment's Free Speech Mandate.
2. The Necessity of A Two-Party System.
3. The Retort that "liberalism" Should Be Criminalized.
4. Today's Conservatives, The Tea Party Types Are The Radical Extremists, the GOP isn't so bad.
5. Banish them, don't punish them.

While these objections seem at first to be viable considerations in making the Conservatives accountable for their criminal activities , we shall make short work of them, thus:

1. The First Amendment's Free Speech Mandate.

Free speech does not permit us to threaten another or to lie for profit with impunity, nor does it permit us the proverbial yell of "fire" in a theater.  Mafia figures cannot invade our schoolyards to recruit our children nor to dull their minds by selling them marijuana, and confidence men are routinely sent to prison for robbing their victims without laying a hand on them.

These are all viable analogies of the crimes committed against our country as a whole and to our citizens individually by Conservatives, and have nothing to do with honest political debates where opinions are examined for the benefits to the welfare of the People.  Conservative rhetoric is aimed solely to acquire total power, maximize income, and retain assets for the benefit of the rich by any means.  Speech supporting such goals cannot be tolerated in our democracy.

2. The Necessity of A Two-Party System.

The most specious of arguments:  The two-party system is not necessary to democracy, it exists in other political systems similar to ours, especially parliamentary forms of government, and hundreds of competing factions exclusive of right wing interests can coexist exist in every country.  In this country, labor interests have competed with environmental interests and feminist issues are often at odds with liberal faith-based factions.

It can be argued with more validity that two-party systems are detrimental to democratic societies, and that in countries where two parties dominate the system, they are for all purposes alike except for their shared lust for power.

3. The Retort that "liberalism" Should Be Criminalized.

The most laughable of the five objections and the product of the juvenile "so are you" mentality.  George Washington was a liberal (http://www.truebluepartyblog.com/2011/06/why-i-am-a-liberal.html) as were most all of the Founding Fathers, but the attempt by Conservatives to subvert the democratic spirit still lives.  Conservatism, the mouthpiece of the rich, is antithetical to the revolution's spokesmen - the Peoples' declarations at the ballot box.

4. Today's Conservatives, The Tea Party Types Are The Radical Extremists, the GOP isn't so bad.

Some will protest, saying, "Oh, Joyce, today's Conservatives are just wacky right wing radicals, extremists that voters are sure to unseat in elections to come."  But to those Uninformed Voters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_democracy#Irrational_voters) I must explain that these are not merely extremists, they are merely Conservatives smelling Final Victory, filled with arrogance, endowed with the hubris of a party that knows that complete domination of the government is within inches of spitting distance.  They own the media, they own the Supreme Court(http://www.thenation.com/article/none-dare-call-it-treason) and Congress, and they are getting closer to the Great Depression II that their propaganda mavens will lay the blame for on the backs of the Democratic Party.  Until the GOP was able to elect a one-term Congress in 1946, the infamous Do-Nothing Congress, and were able to convince the malleable war hero Eisenhower to run and win the presidency in 1952, the country understood how the elitist policies of the rich had caused the Great Depression I.  Then came Nixon, Reagan, Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox "News."

The right wing extremist capos, in the guise of theTea Party leadership, isn't something new or different; they are the logical absurdity of Conservatism gone wild.  Allies of the Conservative philosophy, of the right of the Elites to rule, they are just Christians Gone Wild.  They are descendants of the "Enthusiasts" of the 18th Century (http://www.english.upenn.edu/~mgamer/Etexts/hume.superstition.html), the new American Taliban, the street soldiers who ignore the their Savior's mandate on the Sermon On The Mount, as written in Matthew 6:5-15 (http://www.english.upenn.edu/~mgamer/Etexts/hume.superstition.html).   These exhibitionist need to admire their own holiness in public, a practice quite at odds with their professed Christian beliefs.  The American Taliban is enthralled with the more murderous Biblical mandates of the Old Testament.  ("And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall surely stone him: as well as the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death." Lev. 24:16).

5.  Banish them, don't punish them.

Banishment, a punishment popular in Greece and Rome, created future problems for the citizenry.  Safe from further prosecution, observation, and controny of the ostracized citizens continued their political mischief, raising money to hire armies, spies, and agent provocateurs, thus continuing their war against the State.  No more needs to be said other than to refer the reader to the adjoining tab, "Penalties And Punishments."

Like mold on food, a parasite in the body, or a pimple on one's skin these hoodlums waving the red flag of Conservatism should be eradicated or contained.

Just examine a scattering of deaths that are caused by the wealthy conservatives or their representatives: liquor and cigarette ads aimed at our youth, leading to cancer, strokes, and heart attacks, highway deaths and murders; higher and higher speed limits to please the oil and auto moguls, but leading to more senseless highway deaths; politicians delighting in playing soldier like Reagan and the Bushes in their senseless invasions of Grenada, Iraq, and Paraguay; poisoning our air, (no matter the number of smog-related deaths and disease), water (remember the Exxon Valdez and BP oil spill?), earth (now permeated with pesticides and other cancer-causing sprays), and food (also leading to obesity, cancer, and diabetes via the use of preservatives, corn syrup, GMOs, hormones, dyes); and quashing health coverage for the indigent, just for starters.

Grover Norquist, who tells GOP Congressmen what to do and when, spilled the beans and no one noticed when he said, "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."  The conservative leadership's goal is to thrust our country into another Great Depression.

Franklin Roosevelt was able to show Americans how Conservatives created the stockmarket crash in 1929 that created the Great Depression.  The recognition of Conservatives' true aims created a national belief in liberal philosophy for over 20 years until behind-the-doors Conservative efforts ushered in the election of the Do-Nothing Congress of 1947 and the hapless Eisenhower in 1952, which in turn led to the victories of the Reagan-Bush Era and the takeover of the judiciary, as we see above, so that even our once-hallowed Supreme Court has been corrupted.

“I do draw a distinction between looting a company, leaving behind broken families and broken neighborhoods, and leaving behind a factory that should be there,”said Republican Newt Gingrich recently.  In the clearest picture yet of the true meaning of compassionless Conservatism, the follow-up on this recent attack by Newt Gingrich on Mitt Romney was seen by virtually *every* Republican goodfellow in one 24 hour period SOLELY as an "attack on Capitalism" .

“Is capitalism really about the ability of a handful of rich people to manipulate the lives of thousands of other people and walk off with the money, or is that somehow a little bit of a flawed system,” Gingrich asked reporters after a visit to an electric company here.  “I do draw a distinction between looting a company, leaving behind broken families and broken neighborhoods, and leaving behind a factory that should be there,” he said.  Yes, that was the Gingrich who left two wives behind (so far).

The Supreme Court finished up the Federalists work with the Citizen's United 5-4 decision.  It first got the ball rolling with the decision that corporations were people; then the decision that political cash contributions were a form of "free speech," that is that money talks; and then it drove the last nail in the coffin of fair elections by saying that any corporation could give any candidate unlimited amounts of money without being required to disclose the source!
Naturally, the Party of the Wealthy will win every court battle.

But in the interest of fairness and good will, I will later present an essay by prominent Republican theoretician, William Buckley, Jnr, (a descendant of the more liberal William Buckley of Australia - not to be confused with William Buckley, *Jr.,* a now deceased pseudo-intellectual of the Conservative stripe), "An Argument Against Criminalizing Conservatism In The United States," that makes the case that criminalizing the Right Wing will provide us "with some inconveniences" nor will it produce "(m)any good effects proposed thereby."  (Criminalize Conservatism's sister blog, "Criminalize Fascism," will be referenced in later posts, again in the interest of fair dealing.)


2 comments:

  1. Your position: "The two-party system is not necessary to democracy."

    "It can be argued with more validity that two-party systems are detrimental to democratic societies, and that in countries where two parties dominate the system, they are for all purposes alike except for their shared lust for power."


    Thomas Jefferson would seem to disagree: "In every free and deliberating society, there must, from the nature of man, be opposite parties, and violent dissensions and discords; and one of these, for the most part, must prevail over the other for a longer or shorter time." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1798. ME 10:45

    Please explain to us why Jefferson was wrong.
    ReplyDelete
  2. Again?! Please read the other essays, a few more upcoming posts, the comment to your fourth(!) Comment under the tab, "Read First," and come on back in a week. In fact, read this page again.

    The whole point of the site is that Conservatism is criminal and must be abolished,* no matter what Jefferson, with limited experience of the plotting of Conservative factions, thought at the time. As you Conservatives are fond of pointing out, Jefferson was also "wrong" about slavery.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Christian Reconstructionists advocate a theocracy with religion ruling the people.  Been there, done that, no thanks."

Joyce, Jnr

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No comments:

Post a Comment