Skip to main content

Logic of the Left: F#@& You For Disagreeing

Leftist “logic” tends to operate from the premise of fallacy and from an undying enthusiasm for character assassination. 

From false attributions to false dilemmas or pure ad hominem attacks, the common leftist will stop at nothing to place a threatening idea and its presenter into a coffin, sometimes literally. 



In the case of a threatening presenter, the insecure leftist always reserves a full arsenal capable of swiftly eliminating the threat with a quick and simple knee-jerk quip about the credibility (or personality) of said threat. 

For instance, if you’re poor or middle-class, the common leftist will contend that you’re clearly not good enough to make more money, and therefore your ideas must be just as worthless. 

If you’re wealthy, your ideas are innately clouded by avarice and an inherent inability to relate to poorer people and the subject matter under consideration. 

If you don’t have a degree or a title next to your name, you lack the credentials to merit any real consideration. 

If you possess the credentials or you are genuinely well-versed and intelligent, you risk sounding pompous, faggy or arrogant, and your ideas are dismissed because you have employed esoteric language or concepts, or you have prioritized facts over feelings, rendering yourself less human and less relatable in the process. 

Ultimately, the common leftist has no interest in learning from others, but rather every interest in bolstering everything he feels he knows, dismissing the rest as ersatz facts or complete jibberish on the basis of sounding foreign, complex or uncaring. 

In summary, the common leftist is concerned exclusively with systematically eliminating every doubter and every challenger, labeling him an outcast or a pariah on the very basis of his honest disposition and the insurmountable threat it poses to the social and psychological status quo, something which is to be guarded and preserved at all costs. 

It’s plainly too exhausting, intimidating and expensive to question everything he ever thought he knew, everything he’s accepted and endorsed as the gospel. 

Instead, as animals sifting through the onslaught of data to distinguish between threatening and non-threatening forces, the common leftist reliably dilutes the authority of his threatening foe by the aforementioned process. 

As a matter of routine, he disposes of the foe’s views as rubbish, regularly mitigating the threat by reminding himself that the foe and his views are nothing short of pure evil. 

Just as the average person fails to research the dark annals of history, he neglects to entertain the notions which serve only to showcase the faults of one’s own logical mechanism, which then serve to introduce further cause for only added work. 

Of course, the lazy leftist has no appetite for that, nearly always electing to take the easy way out. 

Just as with learning any new concept or process, there are always growing pains. 

Unfortunately, the average person grows weary of that arduous challenge as he enters adulthood, as he’s typically had enough of it from his schooling. 

And so he likens his opponent to the dislikable teacher who tasks his students with tough questions, pop quizzes and homework. 

The washed-up student eventually looks in the mirror and sees a man, but he fails to witness the decay of his curiosity, the plateauing of his knowledge, and his waning enthusiasm for challenge. 

He then assumes, myopically, that he’s grown into his role as an authority on life, that he has little to nothing else to prove or learn. 

And so he stagnates, he becomes complacent, and he contributes to the perpetual motion of shortsighted social inertia, and he slings arrows and casts aspersions at the occasional threat, and he does this with an army of emotional combatants at his side whose implied consensus and embrace endow the man with a sense of righteousness in his ongoing endeavor to endure his life without question. 

Just as the bulk of psychological research has shown, the individual maintains a preference for this, and he is no more willing to change than capable of hearing, seeing and remembering that which misaligns with his preferences and priorities. 

Indeed, a basic experiment with a friend will precisely illustrate this point. 

Assemble a list of relatively unrelated words, peppering in a number of familiar ones. 

Your friend is most likely to remember the first and last words, in addition to the words which are important to him. 

We can take this even a step further by reading various paragraphs and entertaining a conversation about what we have just read. 

In this case, the two individuals will invariably remember uniquely distinct aspects about the reading, whether details about the theme, the sentence structure and punctuation, the literary voice of the author, or particular events about the tale. 

Oddly, the two people will have read the same exact material, yet they will have remembered distinctly different details to guide them to potentially radically different conclusions. 

One’s memory and interpretation of these printed words stem from the interests and values of the reader, but they also relate to his basic intellectual capacity to retain and clearly interpret the text, all of which operates from multitudes of radii from the original intents of the writer, represented by interpretations of words and syllables which bear both denotative and connotative meaning, the spirit of which is invariably lost on the prejudiced reader who hasn’t the slightest interest in learning from the enemy he has already identified. 

And so illogic abounds to the tune of clamorous and cantankerous chatter, all at the expense of the powerful potential for learning and understanding. 

Indeed, the masses and the manipulators prefer it this way.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

The Keynesian mantra, in its implications, has its roots in destruction rather than truth: “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your guiding principle, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. While it is true that our fates intersect in death, that does not mean that we ought to condemn our heirs to that view: the view that our work on this planet ought only to serve ourselves, and that we ought only to bear in mind the consequences within our own lifetimes.  The Keynesians, of course, prefer their outlook, as it serves their interests; it has the further benefit of appealing to other selfish people who have little interest in the future to which they'll ultimately condemn their heirs. After all, they'll be long gone by then. So, in the Keynesian view, the longterm prospects for the common currency, social stability, and personal liberty are not just irrelevant but inconvenient. In their view, regardless of the consequences, those in charge tod

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. It was a war whose total cost, including pensions and the burial of veterans, was an estimated $12 billion. Likewise, it was a war that would

There's Always Another Tax: The Tragedy of the Public Park

In the San Francisco Bay Area, many residents work tirelessly throughout the year to pay tens of thousands of dollars in annual property taxes. In addition to this, they are charged an extra 10 percent on all expenses through local sales taxes. It doesn't stop there. In addition to their massive federal tax bill, the busy state of California capitalizes on the opportunity to seize another 10 percent through their own sizable state income taxes. But guess what! It doesn't stop there. No, no, no, no.  In California, there's always another tax. After all of these taxes, which have all the while been reported to cover every nook and cranny of the utopian vision, the Bay Area resident is left to face yet an additional tax at the grocery store, this time on soda. The visionaries within government, and those who champion its warmhearted intentions, label this one the "soda tax," which unbelievably includes Gatorade, the preferred beverage of athletes