Liberals Are Not Smartier Than Conservatives (redux)

Liberals Are Not Smartier Than Conservatives (redux)

Last week, we offered some genuine proof that liberals are dumber that conservatives. Not only did we point out the kinds of errors they embrace in their thought processes, but we also pointed out how conservatives smoke them in testing. Now some liberal professor claims conservatism is the result of low brain power. Wrong.

The study (LINK) was done by a University of Arkansas psychologist and claims to have found that conservatism is the result of “low-effort thinking.” Essentially, the study claims that when the brain is firing on all cylinders, i.e. when it is engaged in “effortful, deliberate responding,” the mind tends toward liberalism. But when those deep thoughts are disrupted for various reasons (e.g. alcohol or time pressure), people become evil, stupid conservatives. How convenient for liberals who want to kid themselves about their own stupidity.

Let’s debunk this.

First, look at the labels this dipsh*t is using. Labeling conservatism as “low-effort” thinking is strong evidence of political bias. How do we know? Because what this study labels as “low-effort” thinking is actually defined by the study as the brain processes becoming “quick and efficient.” Thus, they have chosen a negative label (one implying limited brain power) to describe something which is actually a positive process (efficient use of brain power). Therefore, a more accurate description of the results of this study would instead be: “efficient thinking processes result in conservatism.” But that won’t comfort liberals.

Secondly, the study defines “conservative” wrongly. The study claims that conservatism “may be identified by several components,” which include: “an emphasis on personal responsibility, acceptance of hierarchy, and a preference for the status quo.” Wrong. Conservatism absolutely believes in individual responsibility. But individualism and acceptance of hierarchy are contradictory beliefs. And it is liberalism, not conservatism, which is marked with subservience to hierarchy. Liberals believe in leader worship, strong government, supremacy of experts and the superiority of certain classes of people. And if you want real world proof of this, look no further than any liberal country (e.g. Europe, Japan, South America) and you will find a heavy emphasis on strong government and social class, i.e. hierarchies, with a strong deference given to superiors telling inferiors how to live their lives. Only in America, the most conservative country on earth, is class minimized.

Moreover, if it were true that conservatives were beholden to hierarchies (and the status quo) then how can one explain that conservatives go against the MSM? America’s media and political class are center-left. If conservatives followed the herd, they too would be center-left. Yet, conservatives fight those groups and actively disbelieve what these authorities tell them -- again, it is liberals who do what they are told. Thus, again, we see that the study has tried to define conservatism as consisting of the worst traits of liberalism.

Third, the study is obviously wrong on its face because it is trying to explain ideology as a matter of brain function. Yet, ideology must be cultural in nature. How do we know this? Because different cultures produce different ideological results. The vast majority of the populations in Europe and Japan are far left by American standards and the vast majority of the populations in America and China are far right by European standards. This cannot be explained by brain function, it can only be culture. In other words, if ideology were the result of brain function, then all countries would exhibit similar ideological characteristics. Yet, they do not. That means brain function is not a predictor of ideology. And this study’s attempt to find such a link is a fool’s errand.

Fourth, the study looked only at political centrists, i.e. moderates. So the obvious problem here is whether moderates can be used as a proxy for conservatives? In fact, the authors admit that they do not know if conservatives get more conservative or if liberals get more conservatives (or more liberal) if tested in the same manner. Basically, the only thing they can say for certain is that when you put moderates under pressure, they give more conservative responses. This could mean they become more conservative under pressure. Or it could mean that moderates are more likely to fake liberal views until they are put under pressure, at which point their “real” beliefs appear. Or it could mean moderates are inherently conservative thinkers who delude themselves until it comes time to make a decision. Or it could be that conservatism is the human default for problem solving. Or it could just be that moderates realize that conservative ideas will give them the best result.

All we know for sure is that the study found this:

When moderates are put under pressure, so that a quick and efficient response is needed, they will resort to “conservative” thinking.

And the reasons for that are unknown. What cannot be concluded from this study, however, is that “low-effort thinking results in conservatism.”

Once again, what we see here is how far liberals will go to convince themselves they aren’t idiots. This study took the worst parts of liberal thinking and re-labeled them as conservative, conducted a useless test on moderates, and drew untenably broad conclusions while simultaneously ignoring overwhelming contradictory real world evidence all in the hopes of telling liberals that conservatives are stupid. Pathetic.

This is all starting to explain a lot, isn’t it? Who are your top five stupid liberals and what are their “shining moments” of stupidity?

Last week, we offered some genuine proof that liberals are dumber that conservatives. Not only did we point out the kinds of errors they embrace in their thought processes, but we also pointed out how conservatives smoke them in testing. Now some liberal professor claims conservatism is the result of low brain power. Wrong.

The study (LINK) was done by a University of Arkansas psychologist and claims to have found that conservatism is the result of “low-effort thinking.” Essentially, the study claims that when the brain is firing on all cylinders, i.e. when it is engaged in “effortful, deliberate responding,” the mind tends toward liberalism. But when those deep thoughts are disrupted for various reasons (e.g. alcohol or time pressure), people become evil, stupid conservatives. How convenient for liberals who want to kid themselves about their own stupidity.

Let’s debunk this.

First, look at the labels this dipsh*t is using. Labeling conservatism as “low-effort” thinking is strong evidence of political bias. How do we know? Because what this study labels as “low-effort” thinking is actually defined by the study as the brain processes becoming “quick and efficient.” Thus, they have chosen a negative label (one implying limited brain power) to describe something which is actually a positive process (efficient use of brain power). Therefore, a more accurate description of the results of this study would instead be: “efficient thinking processes result in conservatism.” But that won’t comfort liberals.

Secondly, the study defines “conservative” wrongly. The study claims that conservatism “may be identified by several components,” which include: “an emphasis on personal responsibility, acceptance of hierarchy, and a preference for the status quo.” Wrong. Conservatism absolutely believes in individual responsibility. But individualism and acceptance of hierarchy are contradictory beliefs. And it is liberalism, not conservatism, which is marked with subservience to hierarchy. Liberals believe in leader worship, strong government, supremacy of experts and the superiority of certain classes of people. And if you want real world proof of this, look no further than any liberal country (e.g. Europe, Japan, South America) and you will find a heavy emphasis on strong government and social class, i.e. hierarchies, with a strong deference given to superiors telling inferiors how to live their lives. Only in America, the most conservative country on earth, is class minimized.

Moreover, if it were true that conservatives were beholden to hierarchies (and the status quo) then how can one explain that conservatives go against the MSM? America’s media and political class are center-left. If conservatives followed the herd, they too would be center-left. Yet, conservatives fight those groups and actively disbelieve what these authorities tell them -- again, it is liberals who do what they are told. Thus, again, we see that the study has tried to define conservatism as consisting of the worst traits of liberalism.

Third, the study is obviously wrong on its face because it is trying to explain ideology as a matter of brain function. Yet, ideology must be cultural in nature. How do we know this? Because different cultures produce different ideological results. The vast majority of the populations in Europe and Japan are far left by American standards and the vast majority of the populations in America and China are far right by European standards. This cannot be explained by brain function, it can only be culture. In other words, if ideology were the result of brain function, then all countries would exhibit similar ideological characteristics. Yet, they do not. That means brain function is not a predictor of ideology. And this study’s attempt to find such a link is a fool’s errand.

Fourth, the study looked only at political centrists, i.e. moderates. So the obvious problem here is whether moderates can be used as a proxy for conservatives? In fact, the authors admit that they do not know if conservatives get more conservative or if liberals get more conservatives (or more liberal) if tested in the same manner. Basically, the only thing they can say for certain is that when you put moderates under pressure, they give more conservative responses. This could mean they become more conservative under pressure. Or it could mean that moderates are more likely to fake liberal views until they are put under pressure, at which point their “real” beliefs appear. Or it could mean moderates are inherently conservative thinkers who delude themselves until it comes time to make a decision. Or it could be that conservatism is the human default for problem solving. Or it could just be that moderates realize that conservative ideas will give them the best result.

All we know for sure is that the study found this:

When moderates are put under pressure, so that a quick and efficient response is needed, they will resort to “conservative” thinking.

And the reasons for that are unknown. What cannot be concluded from this study, however, is that “low-effort thinking results in conservatism.”

Once again, what we see here is how far liberals will go to convince themselves they aren’t idiots. This study took the worst parts of liberal thinking and re-labeled them as conservative, conducted a useless test on moderates, and drew untenably broad conclusions while simultaneously ignoring overwhelming contradictory real world evidence all in the hopes of telling liberals that conservatives are stupid. Pathetic.

This is all starting to explain a lot, isn’t it? Who are your top five stupid liberals and what are their “shining moments” of stupidity?

Liberals Are Not Smartier Than Conservatives (redux)

View Detail

Conservatives ARE Smarter Than Liberals

Conservatives ARE Smarter Than Liberals

Liberals love to think they’re smarter than conservatives, but they aren’t. Conservatives are smarter than liberals, and we know this to be true for a variety of reasons. Now, Pew has give us more proof to add to the pile. But before we talk about Pew, let’s consider the proof we already have that conservatives are indeed smarter than liberals.

Here are six reasons why we know liberals are simply not very smart:

1. They support liberalism. No, I’m not being facetious. Liberalism has been an unmitigated disaster everywhere it’s been tried. It has bankrupted countries, destroyed inner city families, and made a mockery of education. Indeed, any area of our culture or economy which is dominated by liberals is a mess. And the more liberal a country is, the more likely it is to be broke with massive unemployment and little idea how to turn itself around. Not to mention that liberalism runs contrary to human nature, and its cousin socialism has slaughtered hundreds of millions of people. Einstein defined insanity as repeating the same behaviors and expecting different results, yet that is exactly what liberals are doing. Hence, anyone who still believes liberalism can work is either stupid or insane.

2. They reject reality. Anyone who ignores facts they don’t like and insists on believing things that are provably false just isn’t very smart. Yet, that describes liberalism to a T. They will believe things which have been debunked and ignore all evidence that disproves their beliefs. And, not only do they ignore evidence they don’t like, they attack the messenger and try to force people to accept their fantasy version of reality over genuine reality through groupthink and political correctness.

3. They accept contradictions. Anyone who can accept a logical contradiction is an idiot because it shows they have no ability to reason and they are willing to believe that which cannot be true just to maintain their worldview. And liberalism is crawling with logical contradictions. My recent favorite is Keynesian thought, which says that spending money helps the economy because it adds to the economy but simultaneously claims that taxes don’t hurt an economy even though taxes pull money from the economy.

4. They lack a principled framework through which to see the world. The liberal decision-making process is emotive and reactionary, it lacks consistency and any sort of framework upon which to base decisions. It is essentially “reasoning through gut feeling.” Inconsistency and lack of problem-solving methodology are evidence of weak, useless minds.

5. They are incapable of seeing the long term. All decisions have short-term and long-term consequences, yet liberals simply cannot grasp the concept of long-term effects. Only being able to grasp half an answer is evidence of stupidity.

6. They “admit” it. Liberalism’s most obnoxious trait is that liberals project their own worst traits onto others. Thus, while they act like racists/sexists/homophobes/ageists/etc-ists, they deny being any of these things and instead project these flaws onto others. They whine about conservatives speaking in code because they themselves speak in code. They accuse people of being liars when they are the liars, they accuse others of being “haters” when they have the hate, and they accuse others of being “fascists” when they are the fascists. So what do we make of liberals accusing conservatives of being closed-minded (a distinctly liberal, but not conservative, trait) and stupid? Hmm. Sounds like an admission to me.

And now we have more from Pew. Every year, Pew asks people a variety of questions to gage the public’s knowledge of various topics. If liberals are indeed smarter as they claim, they should dominate these tests, but they don’t. To the contrary, conservative blow them out.

Here are the results from the 2010 quiz:

● Men did better than women (50% to 35% correct) and in fact beat women on every question.
● College grads did much better than high school grads (61% to 33%).
● Age-wise, those in the 30+ brackets did much better than the 18-20 bracket (50% to 32%).
● And Republicans (50%) and Independents (47%) did better than Democrats (40%).

In fact, it was even worse than it appears for the Democrats. On the 2010 Pew survey, Republicans outperformed the Democrats on 10 of 12 questions, with one tie and the Democrats winning the other question. On this year’s survey it was even worse. This year, Pew asked 19 questions and Republicans outperformed the Democrats on ALL 19 questions. Imagine that.

So these condescendingly smug liberals who see themselves as vastly more knowledgeable than Republicans. . . after all, they watch Stephen Colbert while you hillbillies are watching NASCAR. . . got smoked on 19 out 19 questions. And this continues a trend of Republicans smoking Democrats.

Sadly, the Democrats are probably too stupid to understand what this means, but feel free to try to explain it to them the next time they claim they are smarter than conservatives. I suggest using puppets to make it easier for them to understand.

Liberals love to think they’re smarter than conservatives, but they aren’t. Conservatives are smarter than liberals, and we know this to be true for a variety of reasons. Now, Pew has give us more proof to add to the pile. But before we talk about Pew, let’s consider the proof we already have that conservatives are indeed smarter than liberals.

Here are six reasons why we know liberals are simply not very smart:

1. They support liberalism. No, I’m not being facetious. Liberalism has been an unmitigated disaster everywhere it’s been tried. It has bankrupted countries, destroyed inner city families, and made a mockery of education. Indeed, any area of our culture or economy which is dominated by liberals is a mess. And the more liberal a country is, the more likely it is to be broke with massive unemployment and little idea how to turn itself around. Not to mention that liberalism runs contrary to human nature, and its cousin socialism has slaughtered hundreds of millions of people. Einstein defined insanity as repeating the same behaviors and expecting different results, yet that is exactly what liberals are doing. Hence, anyone who still believes liberalism can work is either stupid or insane.

2. They reject reality. Anyone who ignores facts they don’t like and insists on believing things that are provably false just isn’t very smart. Yet, that describes liberalism to a T. They will believe things which have been debunked and ignore all evidence that disproves their beliefs. And, not only do they ignore evidence they don’t like, they attack the messenger and try to force people to accept their fantasy version of reality over genuine reality through groupthink and political correctness.

3. They accept contradictions. Anyone who can accept a logical contradiction is an idiot because it shows they have no ability to reason and they are willing to believe that which cannot be true just to maintain their worldview. And liberalism is crawling with logical contradictions. My recent favorite is Keynesian thought, which says that spending money helps the economy because it adds to the economy but simultaneously claims that taxes don’t hurt an economy even though taxes pull money from the economy.

4. They lack a principled framework through which to see the world. The liberal decision-making process is emotive and reactionary, it lacks consistency and any sort of framework upon which to base decisions. It is essentially “reasoning through gut feeling.” Inconsistency and lack of problem-solving methodology are evidence of weak, useless minds.

5. They are incapable of seeing the long term. All decisions have short-term and long-term consequences, yet liberals simply cannot grasp the concept of long-term effects. Only being able to grasp half an answer is evidence of stupidity.

6. They “admit” it. Liberalism’s most obnoxious trait is that liberals project their own worst traits onto others. Thus, while they act like racists/sexists/homophobes/ageists/etc-ists, they deny being any of these things and instead project these flaws onto others. They whine about conservatives speaking in code because they themselves speak in code. They accuse people of being liars when they are the liars, they accuse others of being “haters” when they have the hate, and they accuse others of being “fascists” when they are the fascists. So what do we make of liberals accusing conservatives of being closed-minded (a distinctly liberal, but not conservative, trait) and stupid? Hmm. Sounds like an admission to me.

And now we have more from Pew. Every year, Pew asks people a variety of questions to gage the public’s knowledge of various topics. If liberals are indeed smarter as they claim, they should dominate these tests, but they don’t. To the contrary, conservative blow them out.

Here are the results from the 2010 quiz:

● Men did better than women (50% to 35% correct) and in fact beat women on every question.
● College grads did much better than high school grads (61% to 33%).
● Age-wise, those in the 30+ brackets did much better than the 18-20 bracket (50% to 32%).
● And Republicans (50%) and Independents (47%) did better than Democrats (40%).

In fact, it was even worse than it appears for the Democrats. On the 2010 Pew survey, Republicans outperformed the Democrats on 10 of 12 questions, with one tie and the Democrats winning the other question. On this year’s survey it was even worse. This year, Pew asked 19 questions and Republicans outperformed the Democrats on ALL 19 questions. Imagine that.

So these condescendingly smug liberals who see themselves as vastly more knowledgeable than Republicans. . . after all, they watch Stephen Colbert while you hillbillies are watching NASCAR. . . got smoked on 19 out 19 questions. And this continues a trend of Republicans smoking Democrats.

Sadly, the Democrats are probably too stupid to understand what this means, but feel free to try to explain it to them the next time they claim they are smarter than conservatives. I suggest using puppets to make it easier for them to understand.

Conservatives ARE Smarter Than Liberals

View Detail

Fighting Fire With Fire

Fighting Fire With Fire

ScottDS and I had an interesting discussion yesterday, related to the Andrew Breitbart’s Bigs. Later in the day, Rufus at Threedonia, posted some similar thoughts. So this is probably worth discussing. Right now, the Bigs are kind of annoying. . . BUT here’s why they are actually doing a good thing.

The reason the Bigs are annoying is because they are jumping on minutia and mercilessly pounding it into the ground. Game Change had some inaccuracies, but is it worth 500 articles calling Tom Hanks everything from a truth rapist to the last American communist? Tom Hanks also appears in a video with someone in blackface. Is that worth pounding away? Bill Maher says much worse things than Rush ever said, but do we need to hear about it 10,000 times? Etc. All of this seems petty and it’s somewhat hypocritical in the sense that the Bigs are judging these people under politically correct standards which conservatives don’t accept. And frankly, I don’t personally like it. I don’t find this interesting and I would rather they were more constructive.

So it’s bad, right? Well. . . no.

Here’s the thing. For at least two decades now, the left has worked to isolate conservatives from the culture and make them pariahs. Every time a conservative spoke their mind, the left attacked them using some faked-sleight invented by the left. They would feign offense at some non-offensive word or act and then smear the conservative as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. It didn’t matter that leftists routinely said the same things, they still attacked. In fact, they would hound these conservatives until the conservatives either left the public sphere or surrendered to the mercy of their persecutors. In this way, they made it impossible for conservatives to have their voices heard because every time a conservative got noticed, they were destroyed personally and professionally. The idea literally was to make sure conservatives were afraid to speak.

And how did conservatives respond? Most cringed and did nothing. And when they saw leftists saying or doing the exact same things the left had attacked conservatives for doing, they remained silent. Why? Because they decided to take the high road. They reasoned that if it wasn’t fair to attack conservatives because of X, then it wouldn’t be fair to attack liberals for X either, so they refused to attack. This was stupid.

For twenty-plus years now, conservatives have let the left destroy conservative after conservative with hypocritical attacks without a peep of challenge except to whine about the hypocrisy. Public life became intolerable for conservatives (look at what they did to Palin for example), while liberals got to skate through saying and doing anything they wanted, secure in the knowledge that conservatives were unwilling to attack them.

No more. The Bigs have declared war. They have taken the same pathetic, petty attacks the left has used to smear conservatives for years and they are now applying those same attacks to leftists. They are fighting fire with fire, because that's the only way to stop what the left is doing. When someone has a weapon they can use with impunity, they will. But when they suddenly realize that others will use it against them, they will stop. Think of it as the cultural version of Mutually Assured Destruction: if you want to try to destroy a conservative as racist/sexist for using a particular word, then we will destroy every liberal who uses that word. This may not make for a pleasant world in the short term, but it is the only way to put an end to these attacks.

Indeed, fighting fire with fire is the only technique which works against the left because they win through incremental progress. In other words, they can win by getting a little bit at a time each time they come to power unless conservatives roll back their gains. For example, for decades, the left concentrated power in the executive branch and the courts. They used that power to force leftist ideas onto businesses, schools, state governments, charities, churches and individuals. When conservatives came to power, they would stupidly declare that they would take the high ground and not use the powers created by the left. The left laughed. And once the conservatives lost power again, the left picked right up where they were before and kept right on pushing -- secure in the knowledge that conservatives lacked the will to use these instruments of power against them.

All of that changed under Bush, particularly in education where Bush used the levers of power liberals created to push liberalism onto schools as a means to impose conservatism instead. Suddenly, the left started howling about state’s rights and attacks on personal freedom and they did their best to strip away the powers they had created. Ditto in the courts, where the left now squeals about legal principles like stare decisis, binding precedent and judicial restraint. . . things they ignored for fifty years while the courts were pushing the country to the left.

It’s the same thing here. Taking the high ground equals surrendering. Conservatives must learn to make the left pay for creating these weapons. This means using the government to bring lawsuits against liberal businesses that violate the laws, sending the IRS after liberal churches, unions and charities which engage in politics, going after race hustler groups and black racist organizations under the civil rights laws, targeting Obama-crony companies like GE with the environmental laws they demanded. . . and making life hell for liberal celebrities who step into the traps liberals have set for conservatives.

That’s what the Bigs are doing. And while I don’t personally enjoy it, I absolutely recognize the value of what they are doing. They are firing back the same nuclear weapons the left has been lobbing at us, and they’ve been rather successful at it. And when the left starts to realize that they are living under an unfair microscope of their own making, they will surrender. . . just as they have every other time conservatives have fought back.

ScottDS and I had an interesting discussion yesterday, related to the Andrew Breitbart’s Bigs. Later in the day, Rufus at Threedonia, posted some similar thoughts. So this is probably worth discussing. Right now, the Bigs are kind of annoying. . . BUT here’s why they are actually doing a good thing.

The reason the Bigs are annoying is because they are jumping on minutia and mercilessly pounding it into the ground. Game Change had some inaccuracies, but is it worth 500 articles calling Tom Hanks everything from a truth rapist to the last American communist? Tom Hanks also appears in a video with someone in blackface. Is that worth pounding away? Bill Maher says much worse things than Rush ever said, but do we need to hear about it 10,000 times? Etc. All of this seems petty and it’s somewhat hypocritical in the sense that the Bigs are judging these people under politically correct standards which conservatives don’t accept. And frankly, I don’t personally like it. I don’t find this interesting and I would rather they were more constructive.

So it’s bad, right? Well. . . no.

Here’s the thing. For at least two decades now, the left has worked to isolate conservatives from the culture and make them pariahs. Every time a conservative spoke their mind, the left attacked them using some faked-sleight invented by the left. They would feign offense at some non-offensive word or act and then smear the conservative as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. It didn’t matter that leftists routinely said the same things, they still attacked. In fact, they would hound these conservatives until the conservatives either left the public sphere or surrendered to the mercy of their persecutors. In this way, they made it impossible for conservatives to have their voices heard because every time a conservative got noticed, they were destroyed personally and professionally. The idea literally was to make sure conservatives were afraid to speak.

And how did conservatives respond? Most cringed and did nothing. And when they saw leftists saying or doing the exact same things the left had attacked conservatives for doing, they remained silent. Why? Because they decided to take the high road. They reasoned that if it wasn’t fair to attack conservatives because of X, then it wouldn’t be fair to attack liberals for X either, so they refused to attack. This was stupid.

For twenty-plus years now, conservatives have let the left destroy conservative after conservative with hypocritical attacks without a peep of challenge except to whine about the hypocrisy. Public life became intolerable for conservatives (look at what they did to Palin for example), while liberals got to skate through saying and doing anything they wanted, secure in the knowledge that conservatives were unwilling to attack them.

No more. The Bigs have declared war. They have taken the same pathetic, petty attacks the left has used to smear conservatives for years and they are now applying those same attacks to leftists. They are fighting fire with fire, because that's the only way to stop what the left is doing. When someone has a weapon they can use with impunity, they will. But when they suddenly realize that others will use it against them, they will stop. Think of it as the cultural version of Mutually Assured Destruction: if you want to try to destroy a conservative as racist/sexist for using a particular word, then we will destroy every liberal who uses that word. This may not make for a pleasant world in the short term, but it is the only way to put an end to these attacks.

Indeed, fighting fire with fire is the only technique which works against the left because they win through incremental progress. In other words, they can win by getting a little bit at a time each time they come to power unless conservatives roll back their gains. For example, for decades, the left concentrated power in the executive branch and the courts. They used that power to force leftist ideas onto businesses, schools, state governments, charities, churches and individuals. When conservatives came to power, they would stupidly declare that they would take the high ground and not use the powers created by the left. The left laughed. And once the conservatives lost power again, the left picked right up where they were before and kept right on pushing -- secure in the knowledge that conservatives lacked the will to use these instruments of power against them.

All of that changed under Bush, particularly in education where Bush used the levers of power liberals created to push liberalism onto schools as a means to impose conservatism instead. Suddenly, the left started howling about state’s rights and attacks on personal freedom and they did their best to strip away the powers they had created. Ditto in the courts, where the left now squeals about legal principles like stare decisis, binding precedent and judicial restraint. . . things they ignored for fifty years while the courts were pushing the country to the left.

It’s the same thing here. Taking the high ground equals surrendering. Conservatives must learn to make the left pay for creating these weapons. This means using the government to bring lawsuits against liberal businesses that violate the laws, sending the IRS after liberal churches, unions and charities which engage in politics, going after race hustler groups and black racist organizations under the civil rights laws, targeting Obama-crony companies like GE with the environmental laws they demanded. . . and making life hell for liberal celebrities who step into the traps liberals have set for conservatives.

That’s what the Bigs are doing. And while I don’t personally enjoy it, I absolutely recognize the value of what they are doing. They are firing back the same nuclear weapons the left has been lobbing at us, and they’ve been rather successful at it. And when the left starts to realize that they are living under an unfair microscope of their own making, they will surrender. . . just as they have every other time conservatives have fought back.

Fighting Fire With Fire

View Detail

Liberals Are Intolerant, Who Knew?

Liberals Are Intolerant, Who Knew?

Is it just me or do liberals strike you as intolerant? They don’t engage with conservatives, they attack. Say something they don’t like and they will call you a liar, call you names, try to shout you down, or even try to get you fired. They won’t compete with talk radio, they demand prosecutions and FCC shutdowns. Bloggers? Forget about it, they want those shut down too. They want conservative political ads banned, actors blacklisted, companies boycotted, and churches hounded by the IRS. Not a very tolerant bunch. Here’s more proof.

Pew just did a fascinating poll about tolerance and the internet. And what they found will not shock you: liberals are intolerant of opposing views. Shocker, right?

According to Pew, 52% of liberals have discovered by going onto social networking sites (e.g. Facebook) that their friends have different beliefs than they thought. That’s right, more than half of all liberals were blind to the views of their friends. How did conservatives do? Only 34% of conservatives reported the same thing. And before you say those are roughly comparable, they aren’t. This means liberals are 150% more likely than conservatives to not grasp that their friends don’t share their views.

What would cause this? It’s a combination of two things. First, as anyone who has ever met a liberal knows, they live in bubbles. They believe that everyone thinks like they do, a view which gets confirmed by the MSM and Hollywood. Thus, they are essentially walking egoists without the power to empathize with anyone because they lack the ability to grasp that others are not like them. Hence it never occurs to them that their friends might disagree and they are incapable of seeing the signs that their blathering on about liberalism isn’t going over so well.

Secondly, they are intolerant. We know this because there is clearly something about these liberals which has stopped their friends from being honest with the liberals despite the fact they are apparently willing to otherwise share their views with the world on social networking sites. We also know this from something else Pew found. According to Pew, 28% of liberals have blocked people or unfriended people because they disagreed with something the user said. That's three in ten! Extrapolating that to the liberal population of the US means 34.7 million liberals have tried to silence people they know because they disagree with them. That’s the equivalent of TWICE the entire populations of New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Philadelphia, and Boston combined.

But wait, aren’t conservatives just as bad? Hardly. Only 16% of conservatives reported doing the same. That means liberals are 175% more likely to try to shut people out because of their views. Imagine that.

Of course, none of this should surprise anyone. We’ve all seen the examples in our own lives where liberals assume that everyone in the room must be liberal because they simply can’t conceive of anyone thinking differently. And we’ve seen how shocked, how angry, and how vile they get when they hear that people have different views. And we’ve seen how they ignore all evidence which conflicts with their beliefs and how they dismissing any source which shakes up their world. We’ve seen it where they are incapable of good faith disagreement. We’ve seen it where they think nothing of using government force to impose their beliefs on others. We’ve seen it where they try to make words and thoughts into crimes and where they apply double standards based on their guess about your motives rather than looking objectively at your actions.

These numbers confirm that liberals are indeed what they appear to be: an intolerant group who are so self-centered they don’t understand that their friends don’t share their views and who are so intolerant that their friends are afraid to tell them the truth.

Liberalism is a sad way to live.

Is it just me or do liberals strike you as intolerant? They don’t engage with conservatives, they attack. Say something they don’t like and they will call you a liar, call you names, try to shout you down, or even try to get you fired. They won’t compete with talk radio, they demand prosecutions and FCC shutdowns. Bloggers? Forget about it, they want those shut down too. They want conservative political ads banned, actors blacklisted, companies boycotted, and churches hounded by the IRS. Not a very tolerant bunch. Here’s more proof.

Pew just did a fascinating poll about tolerance and the internet. And what they found will not shock you: liberals are intolerant of opposing views. Shocker, right?

According to Pew, 52% of liberals have discovered by going onto social networking sites (e.g. Facebook) that their friends have different beliefs than they thought. That’s right, more than half of all liberals were blind to the views of their friends. How did conservatives do? Only 34% of conservatives reported the same thing. And before you say those are roughly comparable, they aren’t. This means liberals are 150% more likely than conservatives to not grasp that their friends don’t share their views.

What would cause this? It’s a combination of two things. First, as anyone who has ever met a liberal knows, they live in bubbles. They believe that everyone thinks like they do, a view which gets confirmed by the MSM and Hollywood. Thus, they are essentially walking egoists without the power to empathize with anyone because they lack the ability to grasp that others are not like them. Hence it never occurs to them that their friends might disagree and they are incapable of seeing the signs that their blathering on about liberalism isn’t going over so well.

Secondly, they are intolerant. We know this because there is clearly something about these liberals which has stopped their friends from being honest with the liberals despite the fact they are apparently willing to otherwise share their views with the world on social networking sites. We also know this from something else Pew found. According to Pew, 28% of liberals have blocked people or unfriended people because they disagreed with something the user said. That's three in ten! Extrapolating that to the liberal population of the US means 34.7 million liberals have tried to silence people they know because they disagree with them. That’s the equivalent of TWICE the entire populations of New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Philadelphia, and Boston combined.

But wait, aren’t conservatives just as bad? Hardly. Only 16% of conservatives reported doing the same. That means liberals are 175% more likely to try to shut people out because of their views. Imagine that.

Of course, none of this should surprise anyone. We’ve all seen the examples in our own lives where liberals assume that everyone in the room must be liberal because they simply can’t conceive of anyone thinking differently. And we’ve seen how shocked, how angry, and how vile they get when they hear that people have different views. And we’ve seen how they ignore all evidence which conflicts with their beliefs and how they dismissing any source which shakes up their world. We’ve seen it where they are incapable of good faith disagreement. We’ve seen it where they think nothing of using government force to impose their beliefs on others. We’ve seen it where they try to make words and thoughts into crimes and where they apply double standards based on their guess about your motives rather than looking objectively at your actions.

These numbers confirm that liberals are indeed what they appear to be: an intolerant group who are so self-centered they don’t understand that their friends don’t share their views and who are so intolerant that their friends are afraid to tell them the truth.

Liberalism is a sad way to live.

Liberals Are Intolerant, Who Knew?

View Detail

“Post-Birth Abortion”. . . Seriously

“Post-Birth Abortion”. . . Seriously

Let’s talk about a shocker from the British Medical Journal. In a recent BMJ edition, Oxford University’s Francesca Minerva, a medical ethicist, and Alberto Giubilini, a bioethicist from the U. of Milan, argue in favor of “post-birth abortion.” Specifically, they advocate a right to kill newborn babies if they are disabled, unwanted, or if they would be too expensive for the family. Yes, you read that right.

Here is their argument:

1. Like an unborn child, a newborn has yet “to develop hopes, goals and dreams.” Thus, while the newborn is human, it is not yet “a person – someone with a moral right to life.”

2. In the case of disabled children. . . while the child may be happy, it will not reach the full potential of a normal child: “To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole. . . On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion.” In other words, if you aren’t perfect, your don’t have a right to live.

3. Parents, siblings and society have goals that could be affected by the arrival of the child, and those goals should take precedence over the child’s rights. Therefore, “post-birth abortion” is justified if the mother “no longer has the time, money or energy to care for” the child.

Wow, chilling.

The abortion movement has always hidden behind the idea that fetuses aren’t “alive.” Ergo, aborting a fetus is not like killing a child and abortion is no big deal. This argument has worked to the extent we have been unable to define when life begins. That’s why many people are indifferent to early-term abortions, but oppose late-term abortions because the more the fetus looks like a human the more likely it is to be alive. That’s also why partial-birth abortion was such a disaster for feminists because no one could help but grasp that this was a child being killed.

But now Minerva and Giubilini lay bare the real thinking behind the pro-abortion position. They don’t care if the child is alive or not. All that matters to them is the economic progress of the mother.

Moreover, the mental gymnastics Minerva goes through are stunning. First, she redefines life to have value only if a person has “hopes, goals and dreams.” But that’s not really her test because babies have hopes, goals and dreams, as does my dog. What she’s really saying is life only has value when people have “hopes, goals and dreams” which she considers worthwhile. That is a justification for mass murder of undesirables.

And while she limits this to newborns to make her theory seems less dangerous to readers, the fact is her logic does not account for an age limit. Indeed, what difference does it make using her test if someone is 6 weeks, 6 years, or 6 decades old? If they don’t have the right “dreams”/goals to be considered human, then logically there is no reason they couldn’t be exterminated using her same justification. The sick, the infirm, those on welfare or without useful skills, or even old people who are beyond trying to achieve their goals could all be exterminated using her logic.

She also really twists herself to dismiss adoption as an alternative. Indeed, if the mother doesn’t want the child, why not just give it up for adoption? Well, Minerva says we can’t do that because adoption could cause undue psychological distress to the mother. Think about that. There is no psychological distress with killing your child, but there would be psychological distress in letting someone else have it. How sick is that?!

What she’s really worried about is that unless the doctor exterminates the child, the mother might want to keep it, and that would expose the atrocity of her theory once the mothers realized that these newborn things actually turn into people that matter.

Not surprisingly, our Hitlerian genius Minerva was shocked at the negative reaction, which included death threats. Boo hoo. She claims that her argument has been “taken out of its academic and theoretical context” and that she’s not advocating this policy. But the fact is, she is advocating this by issuing a paper in which she claims this is an ethically/ philosophically correct position. Whether she likes the backlash or not, she has tried to justify infanticide and she even provided the euphemism: “post-birth abortion” (as if you could abort something that has already happened).

Remember this the next time some abortion advocate tells you they only support abortion because “it’s not alive.”

Let’s talk about a shocker from the British Medical Journal. In a recent BMJ edition, Oxford University’s Francesca Minerva, a medical ethicist, and Alberto Giubilini, a bioethicist from the U. of Milan, argue in favor of “post-birth abortion.” Specifically, they advocate a right to kill newborn babies if they are disabled, unwanted, or if they would be too expensive for the family. Yes, you read that right.

Here is their argument:

1. Like an unborn child, a newborn has yet “to develop hopes, goals and dreams.” Thus, while the newborn is human, it is not yet “a person – someone with a moral right to life.”

2. In the case of disabled children. . . while the child may be happy, it will not reach the full potential of a normal child: “To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole. . . On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion.” In other words, if you aren’t perfect, your don’t have a right to live.

3. Parents, siblings and society have goals that could be affected by the arrival of the child, and those goals should take precedence over the child’s rights. Therefore, “post-birth abortion” is justified if the mother “no longer has the time, money or energy to care for” the child.

Wow, chilling.

The abortion movement has always hidden behind the idea that fetuses aren’t “alive.” Ergo, aborting a fetus is not like killing a child and abortion is no big deal. This argument has worked to the extent we have been unable to define when life begins. That’s why many people are indifferent to early-term abortions, but oppose late-term abortions because the more the fetus looks like a human the more likely it is to be alive. That’s also why partial-birth abortion was such a disaster for feminists because no one could help but grasp that this was a child being killed.

But now Minerva and Giubilini lay bare the real thinking behind the pro-abortion position. They don’t care if the child is alive or not. All that matters to them is the economic progress of the mother.

Moreover, the mental gymnastics Minerva goes through are stunning. First, she redefines life to have value only if a person has “hopes, goals and dreams.” But that’s not really her test because babies have hopes, goals and dreams, as does my dog. What she’s really saying is life only has value when people have “hopes, goals and dreams” which she considers worthwhile. That is a justification for mass murder of undesirables.

And while she limits this to newborns to make her theory seems less dangerous to readers, the fact is her logic does not account for an age limit. Indeed, what difference does it make using her test if someone is 6 weeks, 6 years, or 6 decades old? If they don’t have the right “dreams”/goals to be considered human, then logically there is no reason they couldn’t be exterminated using her same justification. The sick, the infirm, those on welfare or without useful skills, or even old people who are beyond trying to achieve their goals could all be exterminated using her logic.

She also really twists herself to dismiss adoption as an alternative. Indeed, if the mother doesn’t want the child, why not just give it up for adoption? Well, Minerva says we can’t do that because adoption could cause undue psychological distress to the mother. Think about that. There is no psychological distress with killing your child, but there would be psychological distress in letting someone else have it. How sick is that?!

What she’s really worried about is that unless the doctor exterminates the child, the mother might want to keep it, and that would expose the atrocity of her theory once the mothers realized that these newborn things actually turn into people that matter.

Not surprisingly, our Hitlerian genius Minerva was shocked at the negative reaction, which included death threats. Boo hoo. She claims that her argument has been “taken out of its academic and theoretical context” and that she’s not advocating this policy. But the fact is, she is advocating this by issuing a paper in which she claims this is an ethically/ philosophically correct position. Whether she likes the backlash or not, she has tried to justify infanticide and she even provided the euphemism: “post-birth abortion” (as if you could abort something that has already happened).

Remember this the next time some abortion advocate tells you they only support abortion because “it’s not alive.”

“Post-Birth Abortion”. . . Seriously

View Detail

Are We Too Stupid For Democracy?

Are We Too Stupid For Democracy?

Professor David Dunning, a psychologist at Cornell University, thinks humans are too stupid to make democracy work. Well, yeah. . . duh. But that doesn’t mean democracy is a bad idea. Observe.

Dunning claims democracy can't work because “incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people.” Translation: when a person does not know how to do something (i.e. they are incompetent), they are also incapable of determining whether other people are competent or not. In other words, if you don’t know how to fix a car then you are also incapable of distinguishing between good mechanics and mechanics who don’t know what they are doing. Since politics requires problem solving in many fields in which few people are competent, the public is incapable of picking quality leaders. Ergo, we end up with “mediocre leaders and policies.”

Let’s blow this puppy away. . .

For starters, Dunning is no expert on logic. Indeed, he makes two fatal mistakes right out of the gate. First, his entire theory is a tautology (circular reasoning): he assumes people are incompetent at picking leaders and thus concludes they pick incompetently. That’s circular and it’s logical nonsense.

Moreover, he provides no support for his assertion that we pick incompetent leaders except his further assertion that we get mediocre leaders -- another tautology. Nor does he quantify how we should conclude that our leaders are mediocre. . . nor does he show that the alternatives offered were better. . . nor does he explain some of the primo talent of the past 30 years like Reagan, Thatcher, Clinton, Paul Ryan, Helmut Kohl, Tony Blair, etc.

Secondly, he assumes that people must be incompetent at picking a leader because they can’t possibly know everything there is to know about tax policy and economics and social issues and environmental law, etc. In other words, since no person can be an expert in everything, we must be incompetent at picking leaders to handle everything. But here’s the flaw in that. We aren’t picking leaders who handle everything. Instead, we are picking leaders who will find the right people to handle the various issues. Hence, the only competence we need in picking leaders is competence in picking someone whose judgment we trust to find the right experts.

So Dunning’s premise and argument is simply wrong.

But I’m going to run with it anyway because there’s a bigger point here. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that his assumptions are right. Should we then get rid of democracy? Well no, because the alternatives are worse.

If people are by definition unable to pick someone to lead in an area about which they know nothing, then how would socialism work better than democracy? Guys like Dunning pretend that “panels of experts” would make decisions, but how do we determine who is an expert? The only difference between democracy and socialism in that regard is that a smaller pool of people (not a smarter pool of people) pick the leader. So even if his argument is true, it does not argue against democracy. . . it argues against trusting the government.

Moreover, my experience with expert panels is very much what Ayn Rand predicted. You end up with a committee of blowhards with little actual knowledge or ability, who are appointed because they speak the nomenclature and they have insider contacts. These people then spend their time trying to stop the genuine experts from plying their craft because the genuine experts represent a threat to the panel: in effect, the experts become a cabal that seeks to keep out anyone with the skill to expose the panel’s defects.

Thus, whereas democracy MAY result in the wrong leaders being picked, any system other than democracy will INVARIABLY result in the wrong leaders being picked. So it’s 50/50 under democracy or guaranteed 0% under the other systems. That’s where you get all-stars like Hitler, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Mubarak, the Ayatollah, Mugabe, Castro, Amin, Chavez, etc.

Further, politics suffers from an adverse selection problem. Adverse selection means the worst people will gravitate toward the positions where they can do the most harm. That’s why the unhealthy want insurance, but the healthy don’t. That’s why child molesters gravitate toward being priests or Scout Leaders. And that’s why the very people who should never be trusted with power go into politics -- because they crave power, and they end up satisfying their own desires to dominate rather than making decisions for the greater good.

Making this worse is the ego/arrogance aspect of this. In a democracy, politicians know their power is on loan. In other systems, where people are appointed because of connections or because they believe they are “experts,” the power is considered a divine right as a result of being superior to the public in some way, i.e. “I’m better than you because I’m an expert.” When you combine the adverse selection problem with a sense of divine right, you will end up with megalomania.

Finally, under democracy, politicians remain answerable to voters who can toss them out if they become abusive. No such check exists under the other systems.

So we may be too stupid for democracy, but we’re certainly too stupid for anything else.

Professor David Dunning, a psychologist at Cornell University, thinks humans are too stupid to make democracy work. Well, yeah. . . duh. But that doesn’t mean democracy is a bad idea. Observe.

Dunning claims democracy can't work because “incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people.” Translation: when a person does not know how to do something (i.e. they are incompetent), they are also incapable of determining whether other people are competent or not. In other words, if you don’t know how to fix a car then you are also incapable of distinguishing between good mechanics and mechanics who don’t know what they are doing. Since politics requires problem solving in many fields in which few people are competent, the public is incapable of picking quality leaders. Ergo, we end up with “mediocre leaders and policies.”

Let’s blow this puppy away. . .

For starters, Dunning is no expert on logic. Indeed, he makes two fatal mistakes right out of the gate. First, his entire theory is a tautology (circular reasoning): he assumes people are incompetent at picking leaders and thus concludes they pick incompetently. That’s circular and it’s logical nonsense.

Moreover, he provides no support for his assertion that we pick incompetent leaders except his further assertion that we get mediocre leaders -- another tautology. Nor does he quantify how we should conclude that our leaders are mediocre. . . nor does he show that the alternatives offered were better. . . nor does he explain some of the primo talent of the past 30 years like Reagan, Thatcher, Clinton, Paul Ryan, Helmut Kohl, Tony Blair, etc.

Secondly, he assumes that people must be incompetent at picking a leader because they can’t possibly know everything there is to know about tax policy and economics and social issues and environmental law, etc. In other words, since no person can be an expert in everything, we must be incompetent at picking leaders to handle everything. But here’s the flaw in that. We aren’t picking leaders who handle everything. Instead, we are picking leaders who will find the right people to handle the various issues. Hence, the only competence we need in picking leaders is competence in picking someone whose judgment we trust to find the right experts.

So Dunning’s premise and argument is simply wrong.

But I’m going to run with it anyway because there’s a bigger point here. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that his assumptions are right. Should we then get rid of democracy? Well no, because the alternatives are worse.

If people are by definition unable to pick someone to lead in an area about which they know nothing, then how would socialism work better than democracy? Guys like Dunning pretend that “panels of experts” would make decisions, but how do we determine who is an expert? The only difference between democracy and socialism in that regard is that a smaller pool of people (not a smarter pool of people) pick the leader. So even if his argument is true, it does not argue against democracy. . . it argues against trusting the government.

Moreover, my experience with expert panels is very much what Ayn Rand predicted. You end up with a committee of blowhards with little actual knowledge or ability, who are appointed because they speak the nomenclature and they have insider contacts. These people then spend their time trying to stop the genuine experts from plying their craft because the genuine experts represent a threat to the panel: in effect, the experts become a cabal that seeks to keep out anyone with the skill to expose the panel’s defects.

Thus, whereas democracy MAY result in the wrong leaders being picked, any system other than democracy will INVARIABLY result in the wrong leaders being picked. So it’s 50/50 under democracy or guaranteed 0% under the other systems. That’s where you get all-stars like Hitler, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Mubarak, the Ayatollah, Mugabe, Castro, Amin, Chavez, etc.

Further, politics suffers from an adverse selection problem. Adverse selection means the worst people will gravitate toward the positions where they can do the most harm. That’s why the unhealthy want insurance, but the healthy don’t. That’s why child molesters gravitate toward being priests or Scout Leaders. And that’s why the very people who should never be trusted with power go into politics -- because they crave power, and they end up satisfying their own desires to dominate rather than making decisions for the greater good.

Making this worse is the ego/arrogance aspect of this. In a democracy, politicians know their power is on loan. In other systems, where people are appointed because of connections or because they believe they are “experts,” the power is considered a divine right as a result of being superior to the public in some way, i.e. “I’m better than you because I’m an expert.” When you combine the adverse selection problem with a sense of divine right, you will end up with megalomania.

Finally, under democracy, politicians remain answerable to voters who can toss them out if they become abusive. No such check exists under the other systems.

So we may be too stupid for democracy, but we’re certainly too stupid for anything else.

Are We Too Stupid For Democracy?

View Detail

Delusional Liberal Myths

Delusional Liberal Myths

The Weekly Standard did an article this weekend which listed ten myths liberals tell themselves. Some of these were right, but most really weren’t. So what are the real myths liberals tell themselves? In other words, what false ideas do liberals genuinely believe about themselves, even though those beliefs are nonsensical, contradictory, and/or contrary to all the evidence?

Myth No. 1: Liberals Are The Mainstream

Even though polls show 60% of Americans embrace conservative beliefs, twice as many Americans identify themselves as conservative than liberal (40% to 20%), and even though liberal politicians shy away from the liberal label, liberals still believe they are the mainstream in America.

Liberals believe this because they live in a bubble. They cluster in predominantly liberal cities and they choose only liberal friends. Hollywood inserts liberal messages in their films, Madison Avenue does the same with advertising, liberal publishers do the same with books, and even the nightly news is entirely liberal, while pretending to be unbiased. Thus, to a liberal, the whole world seems liberal because that’s all they see and hear.

An interesting bit of proof of how much this can distort your view comes from a Gallup poll which asked what percentage of the American population is black. Blacks, who cluster together and who hear their leaders complain about under-representation despite being overrepresented in the culture, answered that blacks are 30% of the population. . . three times the actual number.

Myth No. 2: Everyone Genuinely Thinks Like Liberals Do

An offshoot of Myth Number 1 combined with an incredible lack of self-awareness, liberals believe that everyone genuinely thinks like they do. Indeed, when someone dares to express a different view, they automatically assume that person is motivated by bias or has been bought or misled. This issue also explains why liberals believe that all criminals are victims: because they personally can't conceive of wanting to be a criminal. Thus, since they know that everyone else thinks like they do, it stands to reason (to them) that anyone who commits a crime does so against their own will, e.g. they are forced by circumstances beyond their control.

Myth No. 3: Liberals Are Knowledgeable

Liberals believe they are better educated and better informed than the public at large. And they see their enemies as stupid, anti-science, anti-knowledge hillbillies. This is of course wrong. Not only has it been shown over and over that liberals are very poorly informed, but their incredible desire to block “inconvenient truths” through political correctness and simply denying reality, and their refusal to consider knowledge that runs counter to their beliefs (see Myth No. 1 above) keep liberals happily ignorant. So why do they think they are knowledgeable? Consider the old adage that the most intelligent person is the one who knows what they don’t know, and those who are most sure are those who know the least. That describes liberals. They are willfully ignorant of what they don’t know, and that blinds them to the truth and makes their own beliefs seem that much more correct.

Myth No. 4: Liberalism Has Never Failed

Liberal policies have failed whenever they’ve been put into practice. Indeed, the evidence is indisputable that liberal policies are highly destructive. Yet, liberals insist liberalism has never failed. Why do they say this? Because liberals disavow their failures. The most common defense mechanism involves believing that liberal policies weren’t actually tried. This delusion takes two forms: (1) either the liberals in charge turned out not to be "genuine" liberals and thus perverted the policies (e.g. the Soviets or Nazis) or they failed to go far enough (e.g. Obama or the Great Society), or (2) their policies were undermined by the enemies of liberalism, e.g. corporations, Republicans, the rich, white people, religious people, capitalists, the bourgeois middle class, etc. That's how despite 70 years of nearly-uninterrupted liberalism, liberals will tell you with a straight face that liberalism has never really been given a chance anywhere. And in rare instances, where its inescapable that liberalism was tried (e.g. FDR), liberals create elaborate lies to explain how it actually worked despite the historical evidence to the contrary.

Myth No. 5: Liberals Are Independent Thinkers

Liberals are the classic example of “group think.” They believe what they are told, no matter how contradictory. And their beliefs can be changed literally overnight if their leaders tell them so. Yet, liberals consider themselves independent thinkers. This is of course ridiculous. First, consider the fact that liberals actively dismiss all evidence that doesn’t fit their beliefs. Secondly, consider that liberals are poorly informed people who only get their news from liberal propaganda sources. Third, consider that liberals have no problem ignoring reality when they are told it is no longer politically correct to believe reality. None of that is consistent with independent thinking.

Myth No. 6: Liberals Represent The Little Guy

Liberals love to believe they represent the little guy. Yet, their representatives do the bidding of Big Business. Their minimum wage kills the very jobs the little guy needs. Their unions crush small businesses and keep out outsiders (particularly minority workers). Their regulations stop all but the best connected companies. Their open borders keep wages low. Their love of taxes crushes low and middle class workers. Their protectionism hurts consumers. And all their heroes have come from the idle rich class. So much for the little guy.

Myth No. 7: Liberals Aren’t Racist/Sexist/Ageist

Liberals believe everyone else is racist, sexist, etc., but not them. Yet, big liberal cities (like LA, Boston and Washington) have the worst racial problems. Liberal companies don’t hire more minorities than conservative companies. Anyone who knows liberals knows they freely tell racist and sexist jokes. . . which they claim doesn’t make them racist, but would make conservatives racist. Their attacks on conservative blacks and women often take the vilest forms of racism/sexism and few liberals (read: none) will ever raise an objection. And there is a deeply racist underpinning to the liberal view of civil right, i.e. that minorities don’t have the ability to succeed unless white liberals hold their hands the whole way.

Myth No. 8: Liberals Aren’t Full of Hate

Liberals claim everyone else is full of hate. Yet, liberals are the ones who seethe with hate. They rant and rave and want their opponents destroyed. Liberals don’t just want apologies (something they would never feel they owed if the situation was reversed), they want people fired and driven from the public square. They demand re-education, i.e. brainwashing. Their protests turn violent. They want their opponents silenced. They openly hate the rich. . . actually anyone they consider a “have”. They hate religious people. They openly hate Jews again. They hate those who disagree with them. They hate conservatives. They tar their opponents as racists. And they want all of these people crushed by the state.

Myth No. 9: Liberals Are Better People

Liberals believe they are better people, pure and simple. In fact, it's fascinating how self-righteous liberals get about charity. They dismiss the efforts of people engaged in genuine charity, but they think their vote to give your money to someone they feel deserves it more makes them better than you. You see this in every facet of their beliefs. They see themselves as the saviors of the poor, of minorities, and of the very planet. . . all done with your money, though they take all the credit. And they look down on anyone who isn’t as “noble” as they believe they are.

Myth No. 10: Liberals Are Rational

Finally, liberals believe they are rational, but they aren’t -- they act on emotional impulses without any thought to what they are proposing. This is why their policies are often childishly stupid, e.g. “if someone doesn’t have healthcare, then we should just give it to them. Duh.” This is also why they can actively believe things that cannot be true and why they can believe contradictory things at the same time -- because they aren't thinking, they are feeling. This is also why they get so irrationally angry at anyone who disagrees with them, because they a dealing purely in emotion, where disagreement is a personal affront. This is also why they think their good intentions justify their failures. . . "sure you got hurt, but I meant well."

Put simply, liberals are incredibly not-self-aware morons.

The Weekly Standard did an article this weekend which listed ten myths liberals tell themselves. Some of these were right, but most really weren’t. So what are the real myths liberals tell themselves? In other words, what false ideas do liberals genuinely believe about themselves, even though those beliefs are nonsensical, contradictory, and/or contrary to all the evidence?

Myth No. 1: Liberals Are The Mainstream

Even though polls show 60% of Americans embrace conservative beliefs, twice as many Americans identify themselves as conservative than liberal (40% to 20%), and even though liberal politicians shy away from the liberal label, liberals still believe they are the mainstream in America.

Liberals believe this because they live in a bubble. They cluster in predominantly liberal cities and they choose only liberal friends. Hollywood inserts liberal messages in their films, Madison Avenue does the same with advertising, liberal publishers do the same with books, and even the nightly news is entirely liberal, while pretending to be unbiased. Thus, to a liberal, the whole world seems liberal because that’s all they see and hear.

An interesting bit of proof of how much this can distort your view comes from a Gallup poll which asked what percentage of the American population is black. Blacks, who cluster together and who hear their leaders complain about under-representation despite being overrepresented in the culture, answered that blacks are 30% of the population. . . three times the actual number.

Myth No. 2: Everyone Genuinely Thinks Like Liberals Do

An offshoot of Myth Number 1 combined with an incredible lack of self-awareness, liberals believe that everyone genuinely thinks like they do. Indeed, when someone dares to express a different view, they automatically assume that person is motivated by bias or has been bought or misled. This issue also explains why liberals believe that all criminals are victims: because they personally can't conceive of wanting to be a criminal. Thus, since they know that everyone else thinks like they do, it stands to reason (to them) that anyone who commits a crime does so against their own will, e.g. they are forced by circumstances beyond their control.

Myth No. 3: Liberals Are Knowledgeable

Liberals believe they are better educated and better informed than the public at large. And they see their enemies as stupid, anti-science, anti-knowledge hillbillies. This is of course wrong. Not only has it been shown over and over that liberals are very poorly informed, but their incredible desire to block “inconvenient truths” through political correctness and simply denying reality, and their refusal to consider knowledge that runs counter to their beliefs (see Myth No. 1 above) keep liberals happily ignorant. So why do they think they are knowledgeable? Consider the old adage that the most intelligent person is the one who knows what they don’t know, and those who are most sure are those who know the least. That describes liberals. They are willfully ignorant of what they don’t know, and that blinds them to the truth and makes their own beliefs seem that much more correct.

Myth No. 4: Liberalism Has Never Failed

Liberal policies have failed whenever they’ve been put into practice. Indeed, the evidence is indisputable that liberal policies are highly destructive. Yet, liberals insist liberalism has never failed. Why do they say this? Because liberals disavow their failures. The most common defense mechanism involves believing that liberal policies weren’t actually tried. This delusion takes two forms: (1) either the liberals in charge turned out not to be "genuine" liberals and thus perverted the policies (e.g. the Soviets or Nazis) or they failed to go far enough (e.g. Obama or the Great Society), or (2) their policies were undermined by the enemies of liberalism, e.g. corporations, Republicans, the rich, white people, religious people, capitalists, the bourgeois middle class, etc. That's how despite 70 years of nearly-uninterrupted liberalism, liberals will tell you with a straight face that liberalism has never really been given a chance anywhere. And in rare instances, where its inescapable that liberalism was tried (e.g. FDR), liberals create elaborate lies to explain how it actually worked despite the historical evidence to the contrary.

Myth No. 5: Liberals Are Independent Thinkers

Liberals are the classic example of “group think.” They believe what they are told, no matter how contradictory. And their beliefs can be changed literally overnight if their leaders tell them so. Yet, liberals consider themselves independent thinkers. This is of course ridiculous. First, consider the fact that liberals actively dismiss all evidence that doesn’t fit their beliefs. Secondly, consider that liberals are poorly informed people who only get their news from liberal propaganda sources. Third, consider that liberals have no problem ignoring reality when they are told it is no longer politically correct to believe reality. None of that is consistent with independent thinking.

Myth No. 6: Liberals Represent The Little Guy

Liberals love to believe they represent the little guy. Yet, their representatives do the bidding of Big Business. Their minimum wage kills the very jobs the little guy needs. Their unions crush small businesses and keep out outsiders (particularly minority workers). Their regulations stop all but the best connected companies. Their open borders keep wages low. Their love of taxes crushes low and middle class workers. Their protectionism hurts consumers. And all their heroes have come from the idle rich class. So much for the little guy.

Myth No. 7: Liberals Aren’t Racist/Sexist/Ageist

Liberals believe everyone else is racist, sexist, etc., but not them. Yet, big liberal cities (like LA, Boston and Washington) have the worst racial problems. Liberal companies don’t hire more minorities than conservative companies. Anyone who knows liberals knows they freely tell racist and sexist jokes. . . which they claim doesn’t make them racist, but would make conservatives racist. Their attacks on conservative blacks and women often take the vilest forms of racism/sexism and few liberals (read: none) will ever raise an objection. And there is a deeply racist underpinning to the liberal view of civil right, i.e. that minorities don’t have the ability to succeed unless white liberals hold their hands the whole way.

Myth No. 8: Liberals Aren’t Full of Hate

Liberals claim everyone else is full of hate. Yet, liberals are the ones who seethe with hate. They rant and rave and want their opponents destroyed. Liberals don’t just want apologies (something they would never feel they owed if the situation was reversed), they want people fired and driven from the public square. They demand re-education, i.e. brainwashing. Their protests turn violent. They want their opponents silenced. They openly hate the rich. . . actually anyone they consider a “have”. They hate religious people. They openly hate Jews again. They hate those who disagree with them. They hate conservatives. They tar their opponents as racists. And they want all of these people crushed by the state.

Myth No. 9: Liberals Are Better People

Liberals believe they are better people, pure and simple. In fact, it's fascinating how self-righteous liberals get about charity. They dismiss the efforts of people engaged in genuine charity, but they think their vote to give your money to someone they feel deserves it more makes them better than you. You see this in every facet of their beliefs. They see themselves as the saviors of the poor, of minorities, and of the very planet. . . all done with your money, though they take all the credit. And they look down on anyone who isn’t as “noble” as they believe they are.

Myth No. 10: Liberals Are Rational

Finally, liberals believe they are rational, but they aren’t -- they act on emotional impulses without any thought to what they are proposing. This is why their policies are often childishly stupid, e.g. “if someone doesn’t have healthcare, then we should just give it to them. Duh.” This is also why they can actively believe things that cannot be true and why they can believe contradictory things at the same time -- because they aren't thinking, they are feeling. This is also why they get so irrationally angry at anyone who disagrees with them, because they a dealing purely in emotion, where disagreement is a personal affront. This is also why they think their good intentions justify their failures. . . "sure you got hurt, but I meant well."

Put simply, liberals are incredibly not-self-aware morons.

Delusional Liberal Myths

View Detail