Yes, they are in fact completely nuts.
As but one example of how subtle stimuli, presented properly, can yield outsized results, consider the case of MIT Biology Professor Nancy Hopkins. Larry Summers gave a speech on gender differences in scientific aptitude, in which he said that since the uppermost echelons of scientific study depended heavily on aptitude, it is possible there may be a gender disparity in aptitude which will affect the relative numbers of men and women within such fields. Simply listening to this speech, Hopkins reported that, “I felt I was going to be sick. My heart was pounding and my breath was shallow. I was extremely upset. I just couldn’t breath because this type of bias makes me physically ill.” If she hadn’t left, she reported that, “I would have either blacked out or thrown up.”
That response, particularly the disruption of the enteric nervous system, and associated GI upset, was produced by an amygdala stimulation, and it leaves little doubt that Hopkins is a lefty, with an amygdala poorly suited to routing specific types of adverse stimuli into productive action, or anything for that matter, beyond a panic attack of extraordinary proportions. I recognize the phenomenon because I have engendered it myself, using the techniques which will be described herein.
This is not nearly as unusual a phenomenon as Liberals would like you to believe. In fact, it is the threat of this sensation which I believe drives the frantic vitriol and shrillness of the modern Liberal when confronted with undeniable facts and logic by an unemotional opponent. That shrillness is desperation – it is amygdala.
This series of posts will assert that you can identify the stimuli which produce this effect in the modern Liberal, and that this stimuli will be relatively standardized among hardcore Liberal ideologues. It will be subtle – yelling, vitriol, and other extreme emotional presentations will not be required to produce the effects – and indeed will even diminish their magnitude.
Okay, that’s from Part the First. This is a very careful, well-thought-out thesis intended not to lay out an effective method for debating Leftards—which I’ve long posited is a waste of time anyway—but for destroying them, for reducing them to a quivering mass of blubbering confusion incapable not just of debate but of even coping with reality at all, on any level. Case in point:
In this video, Mike Wallace will make the mistake of trying to assert intellectual superiority/dominance over Peter Jennings by asserting that a real reporter would leave a US combat Patrol to be ambushed and killed, so he can get “the story.” Few others on the panel truly believe this to be noble, and many offer spirited logical arguments focusing on the value of soldier’s lives, the morals involved, and other logical arguments. Wallace repels them all, and then becomes even more assertive of his position.
After almost ten minutes of successfully fighting off polite, logical criticisms, Col. George M. Connell, USMC, is asked his opinion. He sneers with disgust and slowly and angrily says,
“I feel utter contempt. Two days later they (the reporters – Jennings and Wallace) are both walking off my hilltop and they’re 200 yards away, and they get ambushed and they’re lying there wounded. And they’re going to expect I’m going to send Marines out there to get them. They’re just journalists. They’re not Americans. Is that a fair reaction? You can’t have it both ways.”
As a hard-core Liberal ideologue, Wallace was undoubtedly programmed to betray his in-group, of course. Have no illusions, as a Liberal, he was subconsciously programmed to betray our nation and our people. If a war would benefit us with cheap oil, he would oppose it, saying, “No blood for oil.” If a war had no benefit to us but would kill our troops, he would have no problem sending our military men to some place like the Sudan or Somalia, to die for outsiders who wouldn’t even appreciate their sacrifice. He would have wanted deeply (though he was probably ignorant of the urge’s existence) to betray the US and his fellow in-group members.
Here, Colonel Connell presents an image of Wallace as weak, cowardly, and helpless, and he presents it as ancillary to the main argument.
This is devastating to the Narcissist’s necessary self-image of being the superior individual (a similar trait to the Liberal’s need to feel superior to the Conservative in some fashion, despite their laughable patheity). Notice, Colonel Connell presents this with no debate, as almost an irrelevant afterthought to another, more important issue. Most people wouldn’t even register it, but Wallace did, and even worse, he never even got to argue with the portrayal. Deep down, every Liberal ideologue knows they are a psychological pansy in a species which reviles such – and the characterization hurts them far more than we can imagine. Here, it affected his mood and his ability to focus, in a way which a person without such a disorder couldn’t possibly imagine. His false reality was attacked, and he didn’t even get a chance to defend it. Even worse, in his mind, everyone else now accepts that he is inferior, on the word of another. Someone has done to him what he is programmed to do to others. He has been inferior-ized, and the group is now focused on him, his aberrance, and his weakness.
There’s much, much more here, and I can’t possibly do it all justice with mere excerpts, no matter how lengthy; you really gotta read it all. But the denouement of the Wallace segment is just too delicious not to share with y’all:
This interview is interesting in the context of our national debate over politics in that it highlights two different styles of debate with Liberals. For the first seven and a half minutes, debaters treat Mike Wallace as a reasonable equal, and seek to sway his opinion with logic. In response, Wallace becomes ever more forceful in his treasonous assertions, even as he trips himself up with his own arguments. Of course, this is exactly what our reasonable and respectful treatment of Liberals in our national political debates has gotten us today, on the national stage.
After seven and a half minutes, one man utters a few contemptuous sentences, reducing Mike Wallace to a traitor whom everyone should ignore. And Mike Wallace’s response to this contemptuous dismissal of his views?
A chastened, hand-wringing coward, saying, “It’s a fair reaction,” followed by a complete cessation of his traitorous Liberal assertions. If you examine the video at 42 minutes and 57 seconds, Mike Wallace’s face actually contorts into a micro-expression of extreme agony. Pause the video, and it is astonishing. I have seen that expression in real life myself – this was not a once in a lifetime event. All Liberal ideologues have that pain inside them. In a state of nature, that force within their brain probably kept them alive, by forcing them to swallow their pride, and avoid confrontations at all cost. Today, it lays there within them dormant, waiting for a Conservative, with sufficient testicular fortitude, to step up to the debate, and use it to modify their behavior, and train them to not espouse Liberalism.
Of course the most important aspect of Colonel Connell’s response is that in arguing with emotion and crushing the Liberal, he has just set the course for the Lemmings within the group. Not a single individual on that panel will even begin to support Mike Wallace’s position at that point. Indeed, the issue would not even be raised again.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you debate a Liberal, and lead a movement. The Liberal is the example waiting to be made, not an equal. The Liberal is deserving of nothing more than passing contempt.
Now ask yourself how would the pansies who lead the Republican Party and the Conservative movement have debated Mike Wallace. Would they even consider doing anything similar?
This is our problem.
It damned sure is, and I still maintain that there’s a lot more behind that than mere coincidence, happenstance, or Republican incompetence. It’s collusion, plain and simple: the maintenance of a comfortable status quo between colleagues pretending to be adversaries for the sake of perpetuating their privilege at the expense of those they purport to serve.
How else to explain the Obamacare/Obamacare Lite debacle? These nefarious vermin maintain that 60 Senate votes are required to repeal the Obamacare trainwreck, but it didn’t pass with 60 votes; it was enacted by the underhanded “reconciliation” maneuver…and there is not one damned thing that says a repeal can’t be done the exact same way. Anybody remember the “nuclear option,” pray tell?
These Republican frauds act as if Harry Reid never even existed—as if Nancy Pelosi, of “we have to pass it to find out what’s in it” infamy, wasn’t now saying this:
The American people and Members have a right to know the full impact of this legislation before any vote in Committee or by the whole House.
Bold mine; blank, wet-brained, arrogant, downright depraved hypocrisy all Pelosi.
And not one Republican that I’m aware of—not ONE—calling her out on this, or even suggesting the reconciliation swindle as a prospective means to staunch the hemorrhage of the lifeblood of the Republic represented by Obamacare.
Forgive me, folks, for wandering somewhat far afield from the original topic of this post, but I think that ultimately, they’re at least somewhat related. Because the truth seems obvious: the Republican establishment never really was opposed to Obamacare, nor to any of a thousand other contra-Constitutional Democrat Socialist depredations. They never intended or desired to stop any of it. All they ever really wanted was their turn at the wheel.
How does this relate to my original topic here? Like this: if the Uniparty establishment that has done so much damage to our country over so long a period is to be stopped, it’s going to be up to us to do it. The above strategy for confronting and discombobulating Leftards is but the beginning. The election of Trump the Disruptor, against all odds and in open defiance of that same Uniparty establishment, was the opening salvo in a long war. These are but the first halting, staggering steps towards restoring our nation to its former greatness. In the end, it may not be possible without bloodshed; I pray that isn’t so, but I can’t say even now that I think that’s the way to bet.
But we have to try; we owe that to ourselves and our children, at the very least. Meanwhile, Trump needs to keep right on rendering the liberal media irrelevant and speaking directly to the American people via Twitter; he needs to get out periodically for more rallies like he did in Florida a couple weeks ago, and let the harrumphing, naysaying propagandists suck a big, fat, hard one every time he does.
Most of all, we need to keep right on letting the Uniparty know that, warts and all, imperfections and all, We the People support him. Doesn’t mean we can’t call him out and press him when he’s wrong; doesn’t mean we have to agree wholeheartedly with every single thing he says or does. But in my view, he’s done pretty damned well in these early days, and I’ll still take ten of him to any number of business-as-usual professional politicians you’d care to name.
I expect that somewhere in the Stygian depths, his pockmarked visage limned by the red glow of fire and brimstone, the eternally dysfunctional asshole Mike Wallace is groaning in agony as he watches our President try to alter our course. And that makes me happy. I want more in the long term, of course; we all do. But for now, I’ll take it. And so should you.