Catholic writer, Blaise Pascal: “Truth is so obscure in these times, and falsehood so established, that, unless we love the truth, we cannot know it.”
The unfortunate fact is some people don’t want to know the truth, at least not certain truths, and thus obviously don’t love it. The result is folly, and there is no group more adept at folly than liberals, who’s foolishness is insanely easy to demonstrate. My “Liberal Dunce Folder” offers a quick example.
For those wondering, I keep a file—a massive file—of the many examples I find of well-demonstrated liberal foolishness. Or rather, examples of sound and incorruptible logic that crush “liberal logic,” or so it’s called; that render liberals’ arguments and positions on matters utter nonsense; and that should be for them utterly humiliating.
It’s never humiliating, of course. But, nevertheless …
For the example, which we’ll label: Exhibit A, something fairly recent: Liberals want to eliminate the Constitution’s Second Amendment and confiscate guns from the American people. Yet they leave Taliban terrorists $90-million-dollars in weaponry.
So, how does this make sense? It doesn’t, obviously—a recurring theme when dealing with liberals. Thus, the incessant head scratching and perplexed expressions at liberal ideas and arguments.
Some would say this Afghanistan fiasco was Joe Biden’s doing alone; blame him for the logical inconsistency! But are Biden, any of his fellow Democrats, or the liberal news media taking issue with the inconsistency?
And your local liberal voter—the mindless, servile and annoying liberal devotee in your personal sphere—are they saying, “What fresh nonsense is this, fer chrissake?! We’re supposed to be ridding the world of guns!” In fact, forget the inconsistency. Shouldn’t liberal voters be incensed that Biden left $90-milllion in weaponry behind that they financed?
They should be angry, but are they? No. Like the democrats and liberal news media, are liberal voters taking issue with the logical inconsistency?
It is clear we’re staring at a steaming pile of illogical foolishness. The question is: can liberals one and all see that it’s a steaming pile of illogical foolishness? The answer is yes.
No guns for you, Americans, because guns are the bane of civilized society. But here, terrorists, the world’s most violent and evil criminals, have $90- million worth of our taxpayer’s weaponry.
It’s disgracefully illogical, not to mention hypocritical. And make no mistake, liberals all can see it.
Let’s try a few more choice examples from the “folder,” considering them Exhibits B, C, D, and so on …
“If guns kill people, why do we send people with guns when they go to war? Why not just send the guns?”
Imagine a military commander briefing a room of crated M-16s on an upcoming operation. Because, this is where liberal logic leads: “Okay, men. Listen up. The LZ is here, in this field. We’re moving three klicks to the north, up this ridge, here …”
It’s embarrassing, I know.
Here’s one from youthful gun control activist and Parkland school shooting survivor, David Hogg: “Remind me. How many AR-15’s did Jesus own?”
Twitter response: “Not enough to avoid being murdered by his government.”
Ouch. And did the murderous rebuttal faze Hogg? Not in the least.
Incidentally, liberals have no use for God, and think the concept nonsense. Yet, they lecture everyone on the virtues of Godliness. Doesn’t seem very, logical, does it.
And this Foxworthy themed logic: “If you don’t trust the police or government, but you think they should be the only ones to have guns, you might be a liberal.” Or perhaps, a “redneck” liberal.
And these on the issue of abortion: “Bacteria is life on Mars, but a heartbeat isn’t life on earth.”
“Biology lesson: your baby’s DNA isn’t identical to your DNA, making it not your body.”
“Why would liberals be upset about deporting children, but not upset about aborting them?”
And this related pandemic jewel: “If unvaccinated American kids aren’t allowed in public schools, why would we import millions of unvaccinated immigrants?”
And these on the issue of gender: “If men who think they are women can use women’s bathrooms, why not men who think they are men? Does mental illness make you safer to women?”
Arm sweep everything else off the table, having to argue male and female restroom arrangements with liberals should explain the level of lunacy we’re dealing with. There isn’t a liberal parent one, male or female, who wants their 6-year-old daughter in the restroom alone with a mentally ill weirdo dude in a dress. Not one. Yet, ask your local liberal parent if they approve of this liberal-driven restroom nonsense, and watch them battle feelings of cult betrayal. They won’t be sending their 7-year-old daughters into bathrooms alone and unattended, but damn if they’ll openly rebuke cult doctrine and question cult leadership. Thus, the predictable response:
“Transphobe! Bigot! Trumptard!”
“If liberals don’t believe in biological gender, then why do they march for women’s rights?”
“Liberals say there’s a gender pay gap, and then say there’s no such thing as gender.”
“The people who claim President Trump has mental issues, also claim there are more than two genders. Let that sink-in.”
Indeed, let those last three sink-in. And when you feel deeply embarrassed for liberals, realize they feel humiliated, too. For religious loyalties, however, they just can’t show it. Instead, it’s:
“Transphobe! Bigot! Trumptard!”
And then, these illustrative outliers: “If socialist college professors believed their own propaganda, wouldn’t they teach for free?”
“White privilege: the privilege of being called ‘racist’ by people who see nothing except your race.”
Remember the liberal line, “Walls don’t work?” Well: “If walls don’t work, are prisoners staying voluntarily?”
“Liberals won’t fund a border wall to keep illegals out. Yet they expect you to fund sanctuary cities to keep illegals in.”
These two Exhibits encourage one to think: liberals just say whatever pops into their mind, don’t they. Yes. They do.
And finally, for a bleeding scalp, this from Clint Eastwood: “If you could reason with a [liberal], there wouldn’t be any [liberals].”
The reader is probably asking: are these people really this—let’s be amiable and say: naive?
The answer is no.
Contrary to what some say: that liberals are morons, they are not morons. For the most part they are extremely intelligent, capable human beings. The problem is, one, they’re emotion driven—angry, bitter, resentful, hateful (liberalism is the repository for malcontents)—and they make these illogical proclamations, see: the Exhibits, emotionally and without thinking things through. Then, as well-illustrated by the Exhibits, those less inclined to emotion do the thinking, and issue the thoughtful, incontrovertible, wise, and should-be-embarrassing rebuttals.
The result is the decimation of liberal logic and ideological ruin. Their argument lying lifeless for all to see presents problem two for liberals: the ruins. They can’t acknowledge them. For if they did, they’d be admitting their leaders, the people they revere and serve, are incompetent fools, and worse. And if their leaders are incompetent fools, and worse, then what are the servile liberal faithful?
One can see the quandary. The answer to it?
It’s doing what liberals always do when confronted with their failed logic and beliefs, represented in this old adage: if you don’t like what’s being said, change the conversation.
The Exhibits, in their entirety, present a problem: the liberal premise in each is illogical and doesn’t make any sense. A fact clear to everyone, even liberals. The truth of the matter is, liberals are liars. If they truly wanted to eliminate guns from society, for example, they wouldn’t provide $90-million worth to the world’s most violent and evil criminals, to use on society.
So, liberals are not only liars. They are hypocrites, too.
Point this out to your local liberal—in fact, point any one of the Exhibits out to your local liberal, and it is a logical certitude which cannot be reconciled or overcome. So in response, liberals deftly change the subject to something else, a distraction. They must change the subject and make that topic the discussion, because fools can never and will never argue the truth. Why?
The truth means the demise of their beliefs—beliefs they want to have, that they want to be true. Or, demise of their ideology, their religion. In this case: liberalism.
The outcome intolerable, liberals create an alternative universe for themselves where these desired beliefs can be real, genuine, and true. And when facts and logic render those beliefs false, and when their counterfeit universe is challenged by reality. Liberals simply won’t allow it. They can’t allow it. Otherwise, they would be complete and utter fools, and complete and utter followers and worshipers of fools.
The proverbial “blind leading the blind.”
Liberal: “Trump’s a traitor who colluded with the Russians to steal the election!”
You: “No. Sorry. Hillary’s campaign manager confessed in federal court that it was a scam perpetrated by Hillary. Trump was fully exonerated.”
Liberal: “Well, Trump is a disgusting human being!”
You: “Are we still talking about Russian collusion?”
No. No we’re not talking about Russian collusion any longer. Because facts and truth can’t exist in the alternative universe. Why? Because liberals can’t argue them. Indeed, facts and truth aren’t merely offensive in Fantasy Land. They are deeply offensive. Look at the previous conversation. It is every word true. Is this not what occurs in every conversation/debate with liberals? Does your local liberal accept the truth, and reality? No—and despite showing them hard, incontrovertible evidence. Liberals continue diverting to other topics, instead. Why?
Because the truth isn’t what they want to believe; it deeply offends them.
Trump’s a traitor, dammit! I want to believe that!
Thereto, liberals divert for having fully invested in this traitorous fraud put forth by their leaders, which makes the faithful dupes, suckers, and ultimately fools. Who wants to cop to that? In fact, take each of the Exhibits. Confronted with these instances of equally devastating logic, who wants to cop to those intellectual and ideological failures?
Not liberals. So what do they do?
They repeatedly change the conversation.
In other words, everyone must argue the lies and ignore the truth. It’s how Fantasy Land survives.
The Bible speaks of “hardness of the heart”—They have eyes to see but do not see, and ears to hear but do not hear. People can’t see or hear not because they can’t see or hear, but because they don’t want to see or hear. It’s “hardness of heart,” which ultimately means: defiance.
People, in this case liberals, want to believe something else, and thus obstinately refuse to recognize the truth. Pride won’t allow truth’s validation and failure. It’s the heart basically saying: there is no evidence so irrefutable, compelling, or damning that will make me change my views!
Thus, supremely logical bearers of truth become racists, misogynists, bigots—become anything but correct, righteous, and the ideological winner. This is precisely why conversations/debates with liberals never go anywhere, and why problems can never be effectively solved. The truth ends debate and remedies problems, and liberals reject it. And whatever the subject matter, what does one do with people who refuse to acknowledge the truth?
Mr. Scott, you’re an alcoholic.
No, I’m not.
You’ve lost your wife and family and business for it.
That wasn’t the reason.
Well, it’s what your family says. What your business partners say.
You can’t listen to them.
How does one breakthrough this hardened, Tungsten-grade obstinance?
It’s impossible. Any attempt, fruitless.
Mr. Scott would rather live in the alternative universe he has created for himself, wherein neither he nor his drinking are responsible for his personal destruction. Likewise, liberals would rather live in their alternative universe, wherein the truth isn’t allowed to exist, and failure and humiliation must then never be endured.
Clearly, Fantasy Land is a virtue-free society. So then, why discuss freedom, liberty, honor, integrity, morals, principles, the rule of law, the constitution, and the like with liberals when they haven’t such virtues and such virtue dependent things in their characteristic profile?
If liberals were principled human beings driven by morals, integrity, and honor, they would be in agreement with the truth, and you. They would believe what you believe and hold your positions. Instead, they get up every day and listen to what their leaders, people of like belief, tell them to believe, which they then take out into the world and proselytize. And then, there you are, the truth-seeking realist, providing them the logic they never employed; providing them the unassailable truth of matters, with the documents and quotations and indisputable facts. And they want no part of it.
In fact, you’re an infidel!
Although perfectly capable, liberals, particularly the servile faithful, aren’t interested in thinking for themselves. They aren’t interested in listening, in thinking things through critically, and employing their own logic to decipher the meaning and truth of certain matters. It’s a really easy thing to do, and they can easily do it. It’s just, they want to believe something else.
Thus, liberals proceed to argue 15 million other inapplicable nothings so as to remove this offensive and annoying truth bearer from their presence. Liberals don’t want reality. They want their comfortable and warm alternative universe, wherein they can be quasi-righteous and -intellectually superior.
Wherein Trump is a traitor colluding with the Russians.
Wherein guns are evil, and not the people who wield them and use them in crimes.
Wherein there is no gender, but a gender pay gap.
Where liberals can be enraged at the ill-treatment and deportation of children, but abortion enthusiasts at the same time.
A person of truth and order doesn’t understand this chaos. Things must make sense to people of order, must be logical and add-up. They must know what they are doing, and that it’s the right thing. They want to live where things make sense, where things are secure and prosperous.
Well, such a place is living hell to liberals, who fancy Fantasy Land, and who are no less encouraged to believe such a place exists by leaders and a culture that help maintain the belief’s viability. The desire for make-believe is odd given liberals desperately want the truth in other areas of their lives. They’re warm to the truth, actually, and will even listen to its bearers. In these cases, the logical capability works just fine.
You’re cancer-free, Mrs. Liberal. [elation, tears, hugs for the truth-bearer]
Yet, show them actual trial testimony of Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager confirming her treasonous fraud, and thereby exonerating Donald Trump. Show them laptop evidence that exposes presidential crime and corruption. In fact, show them the facts behind any one of the previous Exhibits, and they reject it. All of it. Why?
It contradicts what they want to believe.
It renders Fantasy Land and their entire liberal religion a fraud.
Worse, it renders them dupes, suckers, and fools.
And who wants to cop to that?
Hence, the hard-hearted defiance. Under these conditions, it’s no longer about true and false or right and wrong. It’s about undesired reality, and losing, and saving face, and humiliation, and having to change.
A fourteen-year-old girl and her soccer coach father were suspended by a Vermont school district for the daughter’s discomfort with undressing in front of a transgender boy in a school locker room. Liberals one and all know the transgender issue is a liberal cause. They know adolescent girls and boys undressing in front of each other is utterly absurd and morally wrong, too. Furthermore, they know MeToo feminists have advised young women to speak out when they are uncomfortable, and that it’s “their body” to do with as they see fit.
Liberals know all of this, and yet they run the other way. They ignore the story, let it wither on the vine. Until they’re forced to address the matter for some nauseating truth bearer, where the response is:
“Transphobe! Bigot! Trumptard!”
Standing up for children and fellow females? For morality? Being people beholden to their convictions, organizational claims, and word? No. None of that.
That means facing the music, and there’ll be none of that, either.
Again, it’s the heart basically saying: there is no evidence so irrefutable, compelling, or damning that will make me change my views! Leaving the truth more loathsome than “Medicare healthcare advisor, Susan, on a recorded line. Can you hear me okay …?”
So what we have, basically, is a cult of narcissists and sociopaths. People who never recognize their mistakes or failures or the undeniable truths that illustrate both; who then never apologize for either; and who thus make society a contentious, dreadful place—at least for the realists, the people of truth and order. The, good citizens.
Fantasy Land seems like a pretty cool place: lies are true, enduring righteousness, never having to fail or apologize. An extremely seductive locale, indeed. There’s only one problem:
It isn’t real. It’s a world of lies, and obviously self-loathing—that one would make deceit an ally and truth their enemy. And then, defiantly stick to the lies no matter what.
Speaking about her husband’s indiscretions, actress Emma Thompson said she was “utterly, utterly blind” to the fact he was having affairs with other women. “What I learned,” she said, “was how easy it is to be blinded by your own desire to deceive yourself.”
Lying to oneself is easy, indeed. But then, what does one do upon realization of such an adverse condition?
One begins a love affair with the truth, so they can then know it. And changes their life, for the better. It’s the mark of a mature, well-functioning adult, and of a contributing member to society.
Otherwise, you’re just a fool.
All Rights Reserved
JMWs latest: New Rules: Relationship Logic for the Darkside.