I get a few things all the time from liberals in my experience of blogging, and I’m going to get a couple of the things that annoy me the most off my chest.
I wrote an article titled, “Who Spent More? Average Bush Vs. Average Obama Spending Per Day Proves Obama Most Reckless And Irresponsible EVER.” It certainly isn’t my biggest article ever (as an example, I once had someone who called herself “Ann” come across one of my articles titled, “Tax Cuts Increase Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues,” and it turned out to have been Ann COULTER. She linked to it on her site and it just went ballistic), but this more recent article is definitely in the top ten in terms of views in a single week:
Now, I’m sure that some bloggers who might come across this might think, “9k views in a week for one article? Big Deal. I get that all the time.” But as I said, this is definitely one of my top ten most viewed in such a short time period.
I obviously love it very much when an article I write takes off, because I’m writing to try to make a difference. But the problem is that somebody must have re-posted my “Who Spent More” article under a rock or something. Because a bunch of liberals suddenly started coming to visit me.
Now here’s the thing that annoys me. I’ve got a very clear premise that clearly matches my title: Democrats demonized George Bush for spending, but lo and behold Obama’s spending makes Bush’s spending look Lilliputian in just three years in office. But do liberals want to talk about Obama’s spending? Nope. That is pretty much the last thing they want to talk about when they comment to me.
What is the real important subject as far as they’re concerned? In a word, it’s that I’m “mean.”
And, you see, if I’m mean it means that facts don’t matter, so nyah, nyah, nyah. Or something to that effect.
I tried to respond to somebody the other day that if Aristotle had a scowl, he’d be just as good of a philosopher as if he wore a smile. But that didn’t seem to wash. The “You’re a mean meany so I get to disregard all of your facts” meme continued to play and play like puppies who afterward can’t control their little bladders.
If you were racing down the road at 120 mph and I had a scowl on my face when I shouted that the bridge had washed out, would it really matter whether I had that scowl and shouted? I mean, if you’re genuinely sane?
The bottom line, for the record, is that liberals are giving me a play from the Saul Alinksy playbook. He said on page 75 of his Rules for Radicals (which was dedicated to Lucifer as “the first radical known to man”):
“Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more live up to their own rules than the Christian Church can live up to Christianity.”
And, to an extent, this is true. For one thing liberals don’t have any rules or code of honor that binds them; they can be as vile as they wish: Lucifer sure won’t care. And the Kingdom Jesus established is a spiritual one. And you must therefore either recognize that strife and violence is a part of this world while you strive for the better one to come, or you simply bow your head to the next dictator that comes along. But it is very difficult to fight for a very political world in the here-and-now against a side that has no rules beyond “Rules for Radicals.” It’s a genuine dilemma for Christians.
This dilemma has increasingly overtaken us during the course of the last century. It was there when the Germans used first poison gas and then total war and then the intentional bombing of civilian populations. Should we have used these vile tactics against an enemy that had no moral restraint, or should we have encouraged more and more of the same by displaying that we wouldn’t fight in such a way that the enemy knew there would be consequences for such terrible actions? By using poison gas ourselves we forced the Germans to quit using it; wouldn’t not using poison gas have amounted to an immoral sacrifice of our own troops?
I’ve come to realize that I can turn the other cheek to the guy I’m trying to bring into the kingdom of heaven and I can shoot the home invasion psychos who are breaking in my house to murder my family. And I believe that any morally intelligent individual can understand that difference.
I also believe that most of the reason that culture has degenerated to the shocking extent that it has (I mean Lady Gaga? Seriously?) is related to the fact that too few Christians were willing to stand up and fight – even wrestle in the mud as necessary – for their culture. It was far easier for too many to create their own little sub-culture, much as the monks did in walling themselves up in monasteries lest they have to face a nasty world.
So I’m fighting as best I know how. And I often must fight against a pseudo-righteousness from a side that calls me all kinds of terrible names and labels even as it hypocritically demands I refrain from doing the same thing they’re doing to me.
In any event, I’ve recently gotten a larger dose in a shorter period of time crap from liberals that I’ve basically been experiencing since the day I got my “very first comment” and it turned out to be from a liberal hater. I’m getting my fill of liberal avoidance and victimism and projection and other disorders.
“Victimism” in this context is when a liberal practices a particularly bizarre form of psychological jujitsu in order to make themselves the victim in an argument or debate. You see, in their warped little minds, if they can manage to make themselves the victim, they win. It doesn’t matter how strong your case is or how weak theirs is otherwise; in liberalism the victim always wins. Period. And look; they’re the victim!
So, of course, if I say something mean – (regardless of anything vile they previously said to me) – they become the victim and therefore they win the debate. Because that’s the way their world works.
You can, of course, translate this into the larger socio-economic-and-political issues: victimhood means everything to the left. It is a cherished status to be sought above everything else – especially above facts.
I would rather have someone sitting right next to me raking her fingernails over a chalkboard than be involved in such a “debate.” But as a conservative blogger I am nevertheless forced to endure it most every day.
There’s a flip side to the victimism, and that is avoidance.
Liberals do not like things called “facts” or “arguments.” They are too constraining and isn’t “liberalism” all about feeling free from such constraints?
So I write an article on the issue of abortion and as a result I get called a “KKK racist.” I get a very similar accusation of being a racist if I talk about government spending. Because, as we all know, being pro-life or anti-reckless government spending is very clearly “racist.” I mean, what liberal doesn’t know that?
Why talk about the facts when you can talk about something else instead?
So all the time I respond to liberals, carefully try to interact with and refute their arguments, and it’s like I haven’t said anything, or maybe like I’m writing in a different, incomprehensible language.
I get very bored very quickly arguing with somebody who doesn’t bother to even acknowledge anything I say. I start thinking about all the things I could be doing that would be far more productive usages of my time.
Again, that’s pretty much just par for the course of being a conservative blogger.
There’s another psychological malady that’s pretty typical of the liberals who comment on my site: a bizarre identity disorder which results in liberals being unable to simply admit what they are. All the time I get people who are very clearly committed leftists/Democrats trying to pass themselves off as “moderates” or “independents.” Because, you see, if they’re “moderate,” then they represent the giant voice of the middle. And how on earth can I debate someone who is the living embodiment of The Middle.
So I get liberals all the time who will post comment after comment – with every single ONE of those comments arguing for liberal/Democrat positions – and then they’ll tell me that they’re most certainly NOT liberals or Democrats.
Often I catch them red-handed being deceitful, such as a guy who started calling himself “Moderate Conservative” to try to fool me shortly after introducing himself as “Moderate Liberal.” He lacked any shame for his deceit in attempting to pass himself off as something he was not, but at least I got him to acknowledge what he was doing. And this same guy was posting to the “Who Spent More” article, fwiw. He was lecturing me on being more civil while dissociating himself from the vileness of his own side. Because the Democrat Party – at the highest national levels – call conservatives “terrorists” and “racists” and “anti-immigrant” and every hateful pejorative they can think up. We want dirtier air and dirtier water and we want children to suffer from Down Syndrome and autism – and those last according to the guy who is calling himself “the President of the United States” as though he represented the entire country rather than just the radical left.
Notice everything I’m linking to is recent. I don’t have to dredge stuff up from 16 months ago; I get this crap ALL THE TIME from liberals.
It’s not enough for me to say that I would never go to a liberal’s blog and try to pass myself off as a liberal in order to achieve some perverted goal; I have never even HEARD of a conservative talking about trying to pull that kind of stunt. It is a peculiar disorder that only liberals suffer.
But, again, the left does it all the time. It’s simply a documented fact that they have done this and continue to do it. They pretend to be conservatives and do something vile to make people believe the lie that conservatives are vile rather than the TRUTH that liberals are vile.
And you might notice that liberals have to manufacture crap by deceit against conservatives. Liberals just crap all over the place all by themselves:
Personally, I believe that liberals, at least at some subconscious level, intuitively understand that they are cockroaches and really ought to feel ashamed of themselves if they could only possess the virtue of shame. But that’s just a pet theory of mine.
This reminds me of another personality disorder that defines the left: projection. In psychology, you’ve got the pathologically angry person who immediately assumes that everyone around him is angry – which of course justifies his constant angry outbursts.
Well, we don’t have to stretch very hard to think about all the labels and demonization the left handed out to the Tea Party. And then the Occupy (OWS) movement came along and showed us what all the ugliness the left was falsely accusing the Tea Party of REALLY looks like:
So, yes, liberalism IS a mental disorder.
But rather than simply walking around muttering to themselves like they ought to, liberals find a way to make their unfortunate mental condition as annoying and harmful as possible.
I just wish they wouldn’t do it so much around me. But as a conservative blogger, I am a light. And they are a bunch of moths.