Deprogramming LiberalismRediscovering the Core American Value of Liberty

Book 1 of 4-book Series

By Jim Autio

Copyright 2012 Jim Autio

Scribd Edition

Cover photo: Kathryn Rotondo [82rd8ku]

Cover background: SQUIDFINGERS [4rol8]

Deprogramming Liberalism book series ebook downloads:

Book 1: Rediscovering the Core American Value of Liberty [ccnd6ok]

Book 2: Appraising the Core American Value of Liberty [cm22pwf]

Book 3: Vindicating the Core American Value of Liberty (available mid-summer 2012)

Book 4: Liberating the Core American Value of Liberty (available late-summer 2012)

Deprogramming Liberalism Companion blog: [763p544]

License Notes:

Although free, this ebook remains the copyrighted property of the author, and may not be reproduced, copied or distributed for commercial or non-commercial purposes. For fair use only.

Contents

Return to Contents = C

Links utilize the TinyURL system – see Citation Links Info

Deprogramming Liberalism Companion blog: [763p544]

Glossary: [6rgrw8q] :: Graphs & Tables: [83svvqf]

Citations Links book 1: [7ot4mt3] :: Citation Links book 2: [6t4s3d3]

Acknowledgements :: Introduction :: Citation Links Info :: Broken Links

Chapter 1 Core Value :: A Story of Lunch :: Deprogramming Liberalism = Rehabilitation from a Societal Conditioning :: Third Person Analysis :: 800 Pound Gorillas :: Inevitable Double Standards :: Deprogramming Liberalism = You Get To Choose :: Your Deprogrammer :: Wars and Lies :: More About Your Deprogrammer :: Reasoning Instead of Ideology :: Whose Rights Take Precedence :: President Obama Pulls a Bush – Twice :: Messy Thinking :: Deprogramming Lessons :: Deprogramming Exercise :: Humor, Sort-of

Chapter 2 Paranoids :: Mini Critical Thinking Exercise2 :: Liberal Motives and Conservative Motives :: Liberal Motives are Noble :: Conservatives are Motivated by Evil :: List of Evils :: Mock Your Enemy :: The Paranoid Style In Contemporary Liberal Ideology :: Deprogramming Lessons2 :: Deprogramming Exercise2 :: Humor, Sort-of2

Chapter 3 Self-interest :: Mini Critical Thinking Exercise3 :: Liberal Defense Response :: Avoiding the Scoff :: ***** :: Self-interest :: Conducting Our Own Study :: Truisms Versus Liberalisms :: Illustrating Our Study :: Passive Groupthinkers and Aggressive Groupthinkers :: The Awakening :: Deprogramming Lessons3 :: Deprogramming Exercise3 :: Humor, Sort-of3

Chapter 4 Origin :: Mini Critical Thinking Exercise4 :: Alpha-Beta Scale :: Groupthink = Presumptions :: The Father of Liberalism :: Utopian Dreams :: Utopia = Top Down Injustices :: Questions for You :: How to Indoctrinate a Society :: Invasion of the Mutant Liberals :: The Essence of Contemporary Liberalism :: Sophistry and Demagoguery :: Liberalism - the Giant Fail :: Classical Liberalism and Contemporary Conservatism :: Deprogramming Lessons4 :: Deprogramming Exercise4 :: Humor, Sort-of4

Chapter 5 Arachnophobia :: Mini Critical Thinking Exercise5 :: Two Belief Systems :: Irrational Liberal Beliefs :: Contradictory Beliefs :: Cognitive Dissonance :: Guilt and Shame :: Moral Double Standards :: The Buck Stops Here :: Passing the Buck :: Blame and Loathing :: Self Projection :: Societal Conditioning :: Evolution / Devolution :: Deprogramming Lessons5 :: Deprogramming Exercise5 :: Humor, Sort-of5

Chapter 6 Leftwing/Rightwing :: Mini Critical Thinking Exercise6 :: Deprogramming Liberalism American Ideology Dichotomy Scale :: Totalitarian Leftists :: Progressive/Conservative :: Rivalry :: Nazi Command Capitalism :: Socialism/Nazism :: Extreme Rightwing :: Leftwing – Rightwing :: Control – Liberty :: Vanity – Humility :: Libertine – Moralistic :: Deprecation – Exceptionalism :: Arbitrary Rights - Deistic Rights :: Crisis Engineering - Ordered Liberty :: Capitalism :: Entitlement Attitude - Rugged Individualism :: Government Dependency - Entrepreneurial Spirit :: Constitutional Circumvention - Constitutional Adherence :: Deprogramming Lessons6 :: Deprogramming Exercise6 :: Humor, Sort-of6

Chapter 7 Ideologies :: Mini Critical Thinking Exercise7 :: Defining Contemporary Ideologies :: Deprogramming Liberalism Target Groups :: Leftwing – Rightwing7 :: What's Not Included :: Conservatism :: Transitional :: Liberalism :: Authoritarianism :: Nihilism/Terrorism, Anarchism and Minimalism :: The Ideological Evolution of America :: Ideological Walls :: Individualist Versus Collectivist :: Deprogramming Lessons7 :: Deprogramming Exercise7 :: Humor, Sort-of7 :: Bridge

Book 2 Chapter 1 Taxes :: The Continuing Story of Lunch :: Mini Critical Thinking Exercise1 :: Liberal Presumption: Tax Cut = Deficit :: Roaring Twenties = Successful Experiment :: New Deal = Failure :: Camelot = Liberal Nightmare :: Jimmy Carter - Unknown Tax Cutter :: The Gipper = Against All Odds :: The Contract = Conservatives for a While :: W = Compassionate Conservatism = Liberalism + Tax Cuts :: Revenue Growth Rates :: Spending :: Conclusion :: Deprogramming Lessons1 :: Deprogramming Exercise1 :: Humor, Sort-of1

Book 1 Graph and Tables: :: Chapter 3 Graph 1 :: Chapter 6 Table 1 :: Chapter 7 Table 1

Book 2 Chapter 1 Graphs and Tables: :: Graph 1 :: Graph 2 :: Graph 3 :: Graph 4 :: Graph 5 :: Graph 6 :: Graph 7 :: Graph 8 :: Graph 9 :: Graph 10 :: Graph 11 :: Table1

Acknowledgements C

No man has inspired my enthusiastic leap into ideological studies more than noted Alberta rapscallion Ted Byfield, one time hard drinker, curmudgeon, reporter, devoted Christian, profound thinker, movement maker. All describe a man of courage, principle, knowledge and depth. As did William F. Buckley Jr. in America, Mr. Byfield has been a pioneer of the contemporary conservative movement in Canada, keeping conservatism alive in his weekly Alberta Report and Western Report magazines throughout the radical liberalism of late twentieth century. The parallels are striking, as well as the achievements, especially in a significantly more liberal country than the United States. Mr. Byfield almost single-handedly birthed the contemporary conservative movement of western Canada that has grown into the majority Conservative federal government of today that has preserved the Canadian economy through the 2008 financial crisis and the following Obama Malaise better than any other western nation (thank you conservatism - and thank you Ted Byfield). (I have a request, Mr. Byfield. Please write an autobiography - it will certainly be the most entertaining and enlightening of any conservative provocateur ever written.)

Sometime in the early nineties I found a talk radio show on KFBK, Sacramento that led me into the American political universe. Five nights a week my wife and I would strain to listen to Rush Limbaugh fade in and out for an hour at bedtime. Now, twenty years later, we still listen to Rush at bedtime over the internet.

The internet allowed me to transition from a spectator of America into a devoted researcher of America. The following are a list of websites that have been invaluable to my research: Drudge Report, Lucianne.Com, NewsBusters, Hot Air, Free Republic, Memeorandum, Climate Depot, Breitbart (evolved from the Big websites), Daily Kos, Huffington Post.

In a considerable coincidence, I just glanced at Drudge as I have been writing this list. The news that the creator of the Big websites, Andrew Breitbart died last night just flashed on the screen. What a shock! There may never have been a more fearless defender of modern conservatism than Mr. Breitbart, willing to wade into angry throngs of liberal protestors, camera in tow to challenge them to their faces. He will be greatly missed.

Besides being my personal editor, my wife Annette has been my anchor and wall to bounce things off. I could not have written this book series without her. (Love you...)

Introduction C

Why a Liberal Should Read the D.L. Book Series

Two reasons. The first one is simple and personal - to discover yourself. No other book has ever plumbed the depths of liberalism to the extent of Deprogramming Liberalism. I have discovered that contemporary American liberalism results from a societal conditioning propagated on a foundation of paranoia that subsequently drives liberals into the deceptive comfort of attempting to create a safe, collectivist utopia at the expense of individual liberty. The purpose of the D.L. book series is to provide a process of liberation therapy through which Americans can effectively dispense with that paranoia by rediscovering their core American value of individual liberty. Unsurprisingly, I call this process Deprogramming Liberalism. Along with a detailed exploration of the history and evolution of contemporary liberalism, both its societal implications and personal ramifications in your life are closely examined and remedied. The Deprogramming Liberalism book series is an ideological journey of self-discovery and companion to the deprogrammingliberalism.com [763p544] website.

Secondly, to become a successful polemist (debater), in addition to the necessity of being intimate with one's own arguments, it is also essential to know your opponent's counterarguments as well as they do. Never before have so many conservative counterarguments to liberal arguments been compiled so succinctly with such detail, affording you a comprehensive reference to ideological issues not previously available. If you wish to learn the best the other side has to offer, here it is. However, you should be aware that your liberalism is unlikely to survive the journey.

My History

This book series is the result of a harmless liberal's pilgrimage. I grew up in a mostly apolitical household. Although my parents were opinionated about a select few political and social topics, many more were never discussed. My development in these matters was mostly left up to my schooling, what I watched on television, the suppertime news on the radio, and the sports section of the newspaper. It was thus inevitable that I would grow up to be fundamentally ignorant of most political and social matters, with a meager amount of knowledge mostly accumulated from sound bites. What little I was aware of was naturally tilted towards the left of the political spectrum. Unfortunately, this is probably also the story of most Americans who have grown up from the sixties onward. We didn't choose to become ignorant and somewhat liberal. We just sort of went with the flow of life and ended up there.

I see contemporary progressives and liberals as synonymous in regard to the topic of this book series, so for brevity I have chosen to address liberalism as representative of both, intending insult to neither. Even though the book series is specifically aimed at the ideological leftwing in a generic sense, most self-styled moderates and conservatives will enjoy its insights as well since most have also been affected by liberalism in at least some areas of their lives. Somewhat liberal by default and fairly harmless, I look back at

myself as a gentle variety of liberal. Being a Canadian myself, and giving you the same benefit of the doubt I will address you as a 'gentle American', dear reader. So, gentle American, let me tell you what happened that eventually led to my writing this series of books.

In my mid twenties I began reading the A section of the newspaper and the occasional mainstream news magazine like Time and Maclean's. All were liberally slanted publications - not that I really knew the difference. But then, in my thirties serendipity struck when I picked up a small, regional news magazine named Alberta Report. It was decidedly and unabashedly conservative, not only proclaiming it, but explaining conservatism and distinguishing it from liberalism every week. This was an epiphany for me. My sociological and political world views changed in short order and I have never looked back. I hope this book series will be just as serendipitous for you, gentle American.

My Curiosity

It was obvious how I had become a conservative - the rational counterarguments I read each week in Alberta Report overwhelmed my then basically one-sided, naive liberalism. However, I also became curious as to how I ended up as a liberal in the first place, and why I was so unaware of its development in my life. As I researched this curious history in my life and those of millions of others, I began to see patterns in liberalism. I started to wonder if there were some sort of governing principles that predictably define liberalism's day-to-day functions. I investigated its origins. I searched out the mechanism of how liberalism grows within a person, apparently without any consenting knowledge. I observed many negative societal and self-destructive personal traits in liberalism. Eventually, I cracked what evidently was a code of conduct that subliminally manages the life of every liberal. It was then that I decided that my understanding of liberalism could be applied to helping any and all who have been exposed to liberal conditioning to help them overcome what is obviously a debilitating condition for every person afflicted, and American society as a whole.

Your Opportunity

Paralleling the beginning of contemporary liberalism, American society took a distinctly ideological left turn in the nineteen-sixties. This led to drastic social changes for America, many with very negative implications. But it is not my purpose to arrogantly lecture you on these, gentle American. Neither will I scorn you. And this book series is not a rant like many political books, nor simple fact-placing. I will not condemn myself for having innocently become a liberal, and neither will I condemn you for developing into a liberal. More so, rather than as ideological enemies, I see liberals as victims of a pernicious societal habituation (as I was). This book series is simply a collection of my observations about where contemporary liberalism originated, its history, how it operates within American society, how it can affect your personal life, and how it has affected contemporary political and societal issues. I will offer you a suggestion or two for rehabilitating yourself at the conclusion of each chapter, but it is entirely up to you whether you decide to use the information and suggestions.

Quick Citation Access C

All citations can be directly accessed at the Deprogramming Liberalism website: http://deprogrammingliberalism.com/citation-links-1/ [7ot4mt3]

Make a shortcut to the above link and access the citations as need be directly on this page.

Or the TinyURL link system can be accessed using the codes in the book text. Citations are given within the text as letter/number combinations within square brackets - [akp6ed]. (Citation links beginning with an * indicates the linked page has valuable additional information and should be investigated by the reader. The * is not a part of the address.)  Depending on your ebook reader, the TinyURL codes may be active links.

The number/letter combination is added to the TinyURL address, http://tinyurl.com/akp6ed, which is a short form for the original page address, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/24/pakistan-barack-obama-air-strike.

To efficiently utilize the letter/number combinations, create a Favorites icon for the address http://tinyurl.com/.

When you wish to view a citation web page, open this Favorites page and add the letter/number citation code (akp6ed) to the end of the address - http://tinyurl.com/akp6ed - and press enter.

The original page - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/24/pakistan-barack-obama-air-strike - will appear.

Broken Links C

If the TinyURL and the original web page address cease to operate there are a number of possible remedies:

1. See if a replacement link is available on the Citation Links page: http://deprogrammingliberalism.com/citation-links-1/ [7ot4mt3]

2. You can see if Google has a cached (archived) copy of the page. Go to the Citations list and copy the page address into Google like this: >cache:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/24/pakistan-barack-obama-air-strike<

3. Do a site/headline search (again from the Citations list): >site:http://www.guardian.co.uk "President orders air strikes on villages in tribal area"<

4. Place a portion of the headline or quotation from the page in a search engine between quotation marks "President orders air strikes on villages" and initiate a search. A number of the large search engines offer cached pages which may be viewed even when the original page address no longer works. Additionally the search results may include other addresses to the same article.

5. The Internet Archive may also be utilized here: http://www.archive.org/index.php. Place the original page address in the Take Me Back form box and press enter. If it has been archived it will give you a list of links to the page based on the dates archived.

Chapter 1

Core Value

A Story of Lunch

"Welcome to my parlor," cheerily greeted the spider to the fly."You are just in time for lunch."

To be continued...

Deprogramming Liberalism = Rehabilitation from a Societal Conditioning C

Hello, gentle American liberal. Welcome to my ... oh, never mind. I expect you are at least a little surprised and perhaps amused to discover a book seriously proposing that liberalism (or progressivism, if you prefer) is the result of some sort of brainwashing technique requiring cult-like deprogramming. That, however, is not exactly my contention, although I can see how someone first encountering the title, Deprogramming Liberalism might reasonably draw that conclusion. While deprogramming is technically a forced intervention, whereas a voluntary procedure like reading this book series falls closer to what is known as exit counseling, few would catch the meaning of a book entitled Exit Counseling Liberalism, so I will continue using the term deprogram presuming you know what I mean.

Gentle American, you may think that at some time in your past you knowingly decided to accept liberalism as your ideological world view. Realistically, that is very, very unlikely. You may have at some point in your life markedly decided to embrace and overtly act upon your liberalism, but it is much more likely that your liberalism originated as a subliminally acquired condition in your early childhood. From then on it has been compounded throughout your life, likely with no real awareness of its covert progress by yourself or those around you.

Look, nobody wants to admit that they have been manipulated, but it is not like you have been fooled by some con man. There is no dastardly mastermind with some dark strategy attempting to take control of your life. Liberal programming is a form of societal conditioning that is universal to all societies. Think about it this way: If you had been born and now lived in rural Pakistan, do you think you would be a contemporary liberal? No, of course not. Soon you will begin to understand that your liberalism is based on a command structure of thinking that all who have absorbed even a small amount subconsciously follow like a ticking clockwork. You will also see that liberalism negatively impacts every aspect of your life, clandestinely operating in both your belief system and your thought process. People will generally hold onto their current manner of thinking until a demonstrably better way comes along. This is what I am offering. I have written this book series as a rehabilitation tool for contemporary American liberals just like you, gentle American.

To illustrate your need for rehabilitation you are required to answer only one simple question that reaches down to your core values: As a principle, would you prefer others to direct your life, or would you prefer to have the freedom to direct your own life, gentle American? So what is your choice? What is your foundational principle of life? Please consciously answer this question to yourself before continuing...

If your answer is that you would prefer to have the freedom to direct your own life, as any normal person would choose, then in your core values you are not a liberal, gentle American. Yes you read that correctly. Authentic contemporary liberals (a very rare and eccentric occurrence) shun the preferred ethic of self-reliance, but instead embrace the liberal doctrine of collective interdependence where others direct much of their life. Liberalism is not about the individual liberty that you have just chosen - it is about collective submission and dependence. The only real responsibility for the liberal is voluntary submission. Here is the definition of today's liberalism in regard to individual liberty: Contemporary liberalism is the coerced mindset of a command-style society requiring each individual to submit to collective management of their life while believing their submission to be an act of individual liberty. Liberalism is a seductive delusion, and in this sense liberals truly are victims of their own ideology. Contemporary liberalism is the result of a societal conditioning where fear is instilled and leads to a desire to create a controlled and safe society at the expense of each person’s liberty. Fear drives liberals to give up their individual liberty for the comfort and protection of the herd (more later). Liberals voluntarily submit themselves and encourage all others to also submit, and to any who resist, demand that they too submit to collective management of their lives. This makes liberalism an anti-individual liberty ideology, but don't try telling that to a liberal without some context - they truly do believe that coercive collective management is the actual definition of individual liberty. Gentle American, you likely just think you are a liberal because of your societal conditioning (so I will continue to address you as a liberal to keep things simple). Your life experience has been liberalism - it has programmed you into thinking like a liberal and into thinking you are a liberal, even though in your core values you are in fact not a liberal at all. This will be repeatedly confirmed to you as we penetrate through the layers of your liberal conditioning to discover your real self, gentle American.

This is important: Deprogramming Liberalism is not about changing you. Did you get that, gentle American? I am not your enemy and I am NOT attempting to change you. We are on the same side - the choice of freedom to direct our own lives. Your conditioned liberalism fights against your choice of freedom values, instead desiring you to submit to the external control of government coercion, bureaucratic regulation, influence groups, political correctness, media herd mentality, union intimidation, and especially liberal peer group pressure. This is a book series of self-discovery. You will be alarmed at the liberal facade that life has dumped on you, gentle American. My purpose is to reveal to you who you really are under the layers of conditioned liberalism that have kept your true self submerged and hidden away. This will be accomplished through contrasting your programmed liberalism with the choices of freedom that you will make in response to the issues with which we will deal. However, if in the unlikelihood fear has driven you to answer that you prefer others directing your life (a type of voluntary slavery which is quite abnormal), you may be in need of more help than I can offer. Even still, there is some hope (of course you could always reconsider your answer and make things easier for both of us).

Third Person Analysis C

For the most part a person is what they experience (again, think of if you had been born in rural Pakistan). A liberal model of thinking generally develops from a lifetime of

repetitive suggestion reinforcement whose results can be characterized in observable rules of thought and conduct. It is these observable rules that I describe as the principles of liberalism that will allow us to accurately map out and deal with your affliction (if you had been born in rural Pakistan you would have acquired the principles of that culture). I have catalogued each of these principles and repeatedly illustrate them so that you can witness them working in society and in your own life, gentle American. To help you see them objectively I suggest that while reading this book series you resolutely appropriate the demeanor of Mr. Spock from Star Trek. If you are unfamiliar with this old science fiction television series, Mr. Spock was a half alien Science Officer on the starship Enterprise who had virtually no emotions and deliberated every situation solely by logic and results. This lack of emotions also allowed him to be essentially fearless. As Mr. Spock you will now resolve to decide each issue presented in this book series strictly on its merits and rational deduction, and detach yourself from any preconceived notions, ideology or induction.

To enable you to accomplish this we will incorporate something similar to what is known in the psychotherapy world as third ear listening. In effect there will be three of us proceeding through this book series. Of course there will be me your deprogrammer, teaching and guiding you through your deprogramming, and of course there will be you, a subject of societal programming, reading and responding within your liberal mind-frame to my presentations. Your Mr. Spock demeanor completes our trilogy utilizing third person analysis to enable you to step back from your liberal self to objectively analyze your own reactions to issues and scenarios that I present. To facilitate this I will address you apart from your liberalism, based on your Mr. Spock demeanor. Together we (your Mr. Spock demeanor and I) will examine liberals and the ideology of liberalism from the outside looking in. You will focus on two things. One, of course, will be the issues we discuss. Your Mr. Spock demeanor will objectively assess what I present, and draw conclusions based on reason and evidence. Your Mr. Spock demeanor's second focus will be on yourself - your liberal self, which from now on will be someone foreign to the person reading this book, allowing you to facilitate third person analysis of your liberal self, gentle American. Think of yourself as an archeologist, objectively and dispassionately examining an alien world. Even in the rare instances when I speak to you directly as a liberal you should be stepping outside of your liberal self to analyze the situation. You will then be able to see the principles of liberalism working in your life as we discuss them and the issues I use to illustrate them. With this fearless new attitude, and along with the revelatory new knowledge contained herein, I will offer you the tools necessary to overcome your liberal conditioning and reclaim your freedom of thought through your own self-re-education. Although you probably did not come to this book fully convinced that you are in need of rehabilitation, your conviction will soon grow. In fact let's begin right now.

800 Pound Gorillas C

Liberals believe they stand on the moral high ground in regard to human rights issues. They see the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility as symbolic of their defense of human rights. Their argument is that former President Bush illegally, or at least unethically held foreign prisoners captured in the Middle East for indefinite periods without due process and trials. Liberals strongly condemn the Bush administration for

what some consider war crimes or crimes against humanity. Liberals like to equate these terrorism suspects with common domestic criminals and demand the same rights for them. This brings us to an 800 pound dilemma. Do you know what an 800 pound gorilla is, gentle American? According to Wiktionary it is:

~Something dangerous or menacing or spooky that is obvious but not addressed.~

This definition is not the original, but seems to have developed as a mixed metaphor with the idiom "the elephant in the room" - an obviously inconvenient fact or question which is deliberately ignored as if it does not exist. It is also similar to "whistling past the graveyard". For our purposes we will use the 800 pound gorilla as an idiom for the fearful implications of a deliberately ignored fact or question whose obvious answer invalidates liberal thinking. The fear of the 800 pound gorilla induces a defensive response intended to preserve the belief that you are a contemporary liberal even though fundamentally you likely do not believe that in principle your life should be directed by others. This defense response is necessary, because 800 pound gorillas incrementally make self-apparent the flaw in your thinking of yourself as a liberal. The 800 pound gorilla dilemma will be the key for your doorway to reality, gentle American. In fact, this is our first principle of liberalism: Contemporary liberalism requires a strict adherence to playing stupid. Playing stupid is a type of thought process similar to what is known in clinical psychology as magical thinking. To preserve their liberalism the contemporary liberal must ignore obvious contradictions to its legitimacy - 800 pound gorillas. I use the term playing stupid because magical thinking conveys the idea of someone inadvertently lost in la la land, and that is imprecise as a description of liberals. Here is George Orwell's thought on this:

~...we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.~ - George Orwell (the pen name of Eric Arthur Blair) from the essay, In Front of Your Nose

Whether you can now admit it or not, you have been conditioned to think like this, gentle American - playing stupid. Because lying to oneself is how liberalism works, it is imperative that you determinedly change your attitude so as to stop lying to yourself. This attitude change will facilitate your ability to see that the world is not really as it seems to you right now. You as a liberal have been viewing the world through the rose tinted glasses of your liberal societal conditioning. They filter out 800 pound gorillas by allowing you to play stupid about inconvenient facts and questions.

So here is the first 800 pound question for you, gentle American. Since liberalism demands due process through domestic, civilian trials for foreign terror suspects as a basis for objecting to the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, why is it OK in the Middle East for President Obama to execute foreign terror suspects in their homes along with their families and neighbors' families with Predator drone missiles without due process or trials on U.S. soil? [*akp6ed, *bzszcy] [1]

[All citations are internet web pages that can be directly accessed through the Deprogramming Liberalism website: http://deprogrammingliberalism.com/citation-links-

1/ [7ot4mt3] Additional links and alternates for broken links are also provided. An explanation for accessing the TinyURL internet links through the code offered in the text in the [square brackets] is provided in the Introduction, as well as ideas for finding alternatives to any future broken links. Depending on your ebook reader, the TinyURL codes may be active links. TinyURL citations beginning with an * indicate the linked page has important additional information for the topic at hand. You should read as many of these * links as is possible. TinyURLs without an * are cited for evidence of existence and reference only, as in a quotation or number or case in point. The citations validate my points so that you can trust my claims, and will often provide you with invaluable supplemental information. You are here to self-educate yourself, gentle American, so that you can learn to properly analyze and draw reasonable conclusions. Unlike with your liberalism, this is now your choice. We'll continue when you get back from those links...]

(One other technical note: I utilize what is known as logical punctuation in regard to quotations rather than the common mandates of the Chicago Manual of Style. [nhqbx] [2] Logical punctuation allows for a faithful quotation without introducing foreign punctuation within the quote that may erode its accuracy. It is all about trust - I want you to be confident in what I present, gentle American.)

Inevitable Double Standards C

Can you see the double standard, gentle American? The same is true of both instances. In Guantanamo Bay are alleged terrorists. In those bombed Pakistani houses were alleged terrorists. Both instances are about eliminating terrorist threats. Neither have been granted due process or trials. In the first instance liberals condemn former President Bush for providing them with full prison amenities like exercise, recreation, special meals to meet their religious requirements, prayer times, etc. Oh - and of course they are also granted their lives. In the second instance liberals give a pass to President Obama for condemning suspected terrorists to a death sentence and in some instances along with their families and their neighbors' families, with no lawyers, no trial, no judge and no jury. (There are a few liberals who are objecting, but notice they are targeting the "policy", not calling for President Obama to be charged with war crimes as liberals have with Bush. The vast majority of liberals are simply producing a collective yawn toward Obama's drone strikes. [*yhob9re] [3]) About these drone missile strikes a former CIA counterterrorism official has said:

~"Each particular decision is essentially rendering a death sentence on someone and usually more than one someone when you get into the collateral damage."~ [bme4au5] [4]

The "collateral damage" refers to the unfortunate neighbors. So are liberal demands for due process for Guantanamo detainees an example of upholding human rights? No, human rights are simply an excuse to condemn a disdained political rival in former President Bush. If it were about human rights liberals would be demanding that the suspected terrorists in Pakistan be at the least arrested and brought to trial. This is an example of liberal double standards. Condemning former President Bush for holding terrorism suspects indefinitely without due process or trials is political demagoguery and has nothing to do with human rights, otherwise liberals would also condemn President Obama for executing them along with their families and their neighbors with missile

attacks in Pakistan without due process and trials. After all, we don't send police out to execute suspected bank robbers, muggers or even murderers, and most liberals don't believe in the death penalty for any reason, anyway.

(Incidentally, this same argument applies to so-called torture. Why should former President Bush be condemned for supposedly torturing inmates that have been granted their lives, when President Obama is given a pass for his drone program that does not even allow for them to live. Which is worse treatment of a terrorism suspect, gentle American? A little water boarding and then incarceration with all of the amenities that a Republican administration whipped into submission by political correctness can provide? Or being condemned to death by being blown into pieces by some drone along with their family and their neighbors' families?)

Now two years after Obama as President promised to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, he has instead flipped on the idea of indefinite detention without trials of any kind for Guantanamo inmates. [34zkzss] [5] Do you think there will be protests where liberals demand charges be laid against President Obama for denying those prisoners their supposed rights, gentle American? No, I doubt there will be either.

So within only the first few pages of this book I already sense anxiety in you, gentle American. Are you not even now scrambling to think of some way out of this conundrum? Perhaps you are thinking that former President Bush also executed suspected terrorists with missiles, but if former President Bush is to be condemned for war crimes or crimes against humanity at Guantanamo Bay, then he is no less to be condemned for his missile attacks for the same reasons. How does this excuse President Obama? It doesn't, and your logical Mr. Spock mind knows it, gentle American. You have now learned the second principle in understanding liberalism: Without irrational double standards contemporary liberalism cannot exist. Commit this to memory, gentle American. You will see it displayed over and over as we proceed.

Holding to double standards is irrational thinking that casually accepts lying to oneself - playing stupid. (Remember our first principle of liberalism is: Contemporary liberalism requires a strict adherence to playing stupid.) It means one of two possibilities. Either liberals have some sort of inherent mental deficiency, or they have been conditioned to think this way. While some contend that liberals do indeed suffer from some mental defect I prefer to see liberalism as a foreign affliction that is thoroughly treatable and reversible. There is good news and bad news and more good news in this for you, gentle American. The good news is that as a liberal you are probably not mentally damaged even though you exhibit symptoms of what could be mental instability. The bad news is that you probably have been programmed to think irrationally, thus exhibiting these symptoms, but even more good news is that I can definitely help you with this lamentable condition - as long as you are willing to extend your cooperation. Again, it is your choice. Choose well.

Deprogramming Liberalism = You Get To Choose C

Congratulations, gentle American! If you are truly a critical thinker instead of a liberal scoffer you will have just taken your first small step toward self-deprogramming. You have now learned the first two of many irrational principles that make up the foundation of your programmed liberalism:

Contemporary liberalism requires a strict adherence to playing stupid.

Without irrational double standards contemporary liberalism cannot exist.

I want you to know that it is OK for you to admit that you have been implanted with a lifetime's worth of societal conditioning (we all have to some extent). You weren't given a choice. Neither was I. Neither has anyone. The unfortunate result has been that, through little fault of your own, you have been unwittingly instilled with a contemporary liberal mindset. Again, you were not given a choice. It was chosen for you through the luck of the draw. This book series will provide you with an opportunity you have never had - it will be your turn to make your own conscious and informed decisions.

I don't want you to think of this book series as an ideological battle, gentle American. It is not your job in reading this book series to make ideological judgments on the issues presented. The reason I say this is because, being a liberal you will naturally jump to the left side of each issue if you make ideological judgments. That is what you have been conditioned to do, and that would be counterproductive. To avert this I want you to see your job as judging each issue on its merits of reasoned analysis (remember, you are not reading this book as your liberal self, but as your Mr. Spock demeanor). The above example of what to do with terrorism suspects is not an ideological choice. It is an analytical choice. Once the analysis is exposed it becomes obvious that to hold Bush in contempt for supposed human rights issues over Guantanamo Bay is an irrational double standard unless one also condemns Obama for the missile strikes. Demanding one be brought up on charges of illegality means bringing both up on charges of illegality, and conversely, finding one innocent extends to the other. Follow the reasoning, not the ideology. Remember Mr. Spock. Remember to utilize third person analysis. More later.

~"An unflinching determination to take the whole evidence into account is the only method of preservation against the fluctuating extremes of fashionable opinion."~ - Alfred North Whitehead

In other words - pay attention to the 800 pound gorillas. You are a gorilla watcher, gentle American.

Your Deprogrammer C

Allow me to introduce myself, gentle American. My motto is, to boldly think where no man has thought before, and in my most elevated moments I fancy myself as a 'liberal deprogrammer'. However, when I come back down from the interstellar clouds I find that I am little more than a research-junky/polemist who specializes in the liberal/conservative dichotomy. I am sort of a freelancing one man think tank devoted to understanding and remedying the affliction of conditioned liberalism in American society. You however may at first see me as a bully attempting to intimidate you with beliefs contrary to your own, but I am not a bully, gentle American, and again, I am not your enemy. I am very patient, I won't swear at you, I am not given to throwing around derogatory names, and I will do my best not to appear condescending to you (except in two chapters which are actually a test). Indeed I will attempt to engage you with one of your own most precious perceived virtues - compassion. I sincerely wish to help you understand how programmed liberalism hampers your life, and America's. I will presume you are at least somewhat aware of most current and historic political and societal issues. I will appeal to you as a

critical thinker. As such, I will presume you are intellectually capable of following reasoned arguments. I will also presume you are not a scoffer who simply waves off counterarguments with no analytical assessment. Basically a scoffer is a know-it-all who thinks he has nothing to learn - sort of like a rebellious fourteen-year-old who can't be told anything. I am afraid I have nothing to offer liberal scoffers and feel sorry for them. Unfortunately, as is true with dogmatic scoffers of any kind, without an attitude adjustment, both rebellious fourteen-year-olds and liberal scoffers are beyond reason or help.

As a passionate observer of American society, which I view mostly through the internet media from Canada where I live, my menu of media links run through the whole mainstream political spectrum from the far right of conservatism, through to full blown progressivism and liberalism on the far left. I am a mainstream, contemporary conservative. (When I refer to contemporary liberals and contemporary conservatives it is not with the old pre-sixties definitions of liberal and conservative. Those are different ideologies from different eras. This will all be explained in due time.)

Something I pride myself on is that as a conservative I do not insulate myself from liberal views. I keep abreast of liberal opinion not only by reading liberal articles, columns and forums on the web (I surf news and blog aggregate sites including the Huffington Post and Daily Kos), but every day I also listen to a half hour of liberal radio news on the The World at Six on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (think of the CBC as a liberal Canadian cousin of NPR). Additionally, I occasionally listen to up to another hour and a half of As It Happens, another liberal news program on CBC radio (and other liberal programs during the week). I even occasionally tune in to MSNBC and CNN. I am a rare bird as a conservative who spends hours every day absorbing liberal opinion. Few conservatives have the time or the patience to endure so much liberalism, and even fewer liberals spend time immersed in conservative opinion either, so one last presumption I will make is that it is quite likely that you as a liberal are generally uninformed about conservative positions other than what you have learned through liberal criticism of conservatism or sound bites on TV (usually the same thing). [*quwojp, *cncnwk] [6]

Please do not think you get an informed view of conservatism from your 'great' liberal thinkers. Liberals think that they are informed about conservatism, but virtually all of their information is generated from other liberals as caricatures of conservatism. The self-identified liberal columnist from the NY Times, Paul Krugman was kind enough to volunteer as an icon of this insular delusion. In a recent interview he claimed, "A liberal can talk coherently about what the conservative view is because people like me actually do listen." [3gmarmq] [7] I believe Krugman actually does believe this about himself - it fits right in with the playing stupid delusion. Only a few months earlier he had candidly admitted that he does not invest any time into what conservatives are saying and that he has little clue of what the right thinks about the issues of the day, dismissing devoting any attention to them with a flippant, "life is short". By his own admission, if you read a Paul Krugman column you'll get a singularly insular liberal view that is completely devoid of any researched knowledge of the current conservative counterarguments (but he thinks he is informed). [*4tasnth] [8] Judging from the uninformed straw men arguments that many liberal media and bloggers battle everyday, it seems pretty obvious that few are more

venturous than Paul Krugman. In fact, many surveys and studies confirm that liberals are considerably more insular than conservatives. [*73tf7hc] [9]

In other words, gentle American, I doubt that you have had much direct experience with truly original conservative views, and as you will soon see, none are more original than mine. Believe me, gentle American, no matter how informed you think you are, you will be greatly surprised and amazed at what you discover in Deprogramming Liberalism. (There will be plenty of illuminating, eureka moments for conservative readers as well.)

You might wish to question my ability to comprehend American society from Canada. On the surface, a valid objection, I admit, but as is true with many topics of research, one need not live on the moon to learn about the moon (especially now that all the world is but a few clicks away). In fact I have an innate advantage - America has been evolving ideologically left and I live in a country just next door that is thoroughly integrated with American culture and yet is mostly two liberal steps ahead of where America is headed on many issues. American liberals are only now dreaming about a society that I live in many ways as a nightmare every day. I would say this makes me uniquely qualified to understand contemporary American liberalism. Indeed, America is as much of interest to Canadians as Canada itself is, and to me much more so. The Canadian news programs I listen to are filled with American stories and have their own following south of the border. But this isn't a peeing contest, so enough of that.

You need not doubt me when I claim to be informed about American political and societal issues from both the right and left side of the spectrum, gentle American. You will not find this book series just a simple regurgitation of other conservative authors and talking heads. Indeed, even they will often fail to see my arguments coming and will be as astonished as you, gentle American. Maybe it is that to be an American is to climb the mountain that is America, and it may be that American commentators are too close to be able to see the many aspects of their own mountain that someone like me can observe from the mountain across the valley. I gaze at your mountain everyday using 3D imaging, satellite radar mapping, and powerful field glasses, examining every nook and cranny. The internet and the radio are my predominant windows into your liberal world. It is likely that it is because I am an informed outsider looking in that I am able to generate my unique assessments of America. I do not have to worry about opinion polls, nor do I have a television audience to satisfy, nor a talk radio audience, and nor do I have to come up with profound insights each week to satisfy some editor. Neither is Deprogramming Liberalism a production of a committee of researchers and assistants as are many political books. It is just you and me, gentle American liberal. My sole focus in writing this book series is you.

~"The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it."~ - Samuel Johnson

I shade toward the minimalist end of conservatism with slight ideological conflicts with neoconservatives on the near left, as well as increasingly strong disagreements with neoliberalism and progressivism respectively (I will explain all of the contemporary ideologies later). I have aimed this book series at liberals of all stripes (progressive, neoliberal, socialist, etc.), and although it is necessarily about what liberals think, it is more importantly about how liberals think. The first book focuses mostly on the

sociology and psychology of liberalism and related ideologies. This chapter is necessarily a mixed bag introduction of me as your deprogrammer, my approach to deprogramming liberalism, and a couple of issues. The second book explores liberalism's relationship with money in a number of areas, both current and historic. Book three examines liberal tactical responses to their opponents, and book four deals with major strategies. Each book builds on the prior book's strengths. Together we are going to build a profile of the typical attitude of the contemporary American liberal. If a person's attitude is in sync with their world, their world view will more likely be in sync with their world. The problem I have found with liberalism is that it necessitates an attitude that unwittingly restricts a person's ability to accurately discern and interact with the world around them. It is like liberals are caught in a deep crevice on the mountain that is America, and can't find their way out. From my vantage point across the valley I can see the path that is hidden from your view and will direct your successful ascent of the mountain. Hopefully, gentle American, I can convey this message to you in an unthreatening manner that will greatly benefit your life. Here is another example (remember, your job is to follow the reasoning and ignore the ideology).

Wars and Lies C

Liberals believe that former President Bush lied to the American people to get support for invading Iraq. They called it an "illegal war". For this reason many liberals have wanted the former President to be somehow held accountable. During his Presidency they wanted him impeached and many have called for jail time. But where was their outrage when former President Clinton lied to the American people to get their support for a war with Serbia? [*595vvr] [10] President Clinton attacked Serbia with no U.S. interest in Serbia or Kosovo, no threat to America, no congressional approval, and without even bothering to consult the United Nations or formally inform them of his intentions. Providing very dubious evidence, his administration claimed "500,000" ethnic Kosovars had disappeared as a result of "ethnic cleansing" by the Serbs, and on television he compared it to the "Holocaust" of World War Two when six million Jews were exterminated by Hitler's Nazis, but the only legitimate comparison to the Nazis was Clinton's flagrant use of propaganda to sell his war. It all turned out to be a complete fabrication. Even the most inflated casualty numbers from questionable post-war survey estimates topped out at 12,000. Actual body counts range up to only a few thousand. [6yds64e] [11] Many of those deaths were ethnic Serbs killed by American bombs and the Kosovar KLA Muslim terrorists that precipitated the Serb military action in Kosovo in the first place (incidentally, the KLA were recognized as Islamic terrorists by the U.S. government at the time). [*282hm8, *7d39eku] [12] President Clinton actually aligned America with a recognized Islamic terrorist group that essentially were domestic terrorists in Serbia. Did liberals demand rock-solid evidence before the war began? No. Did liberals demand a UN resolution before entering the war? No. So here is our next 800 pound gorilla. Where were liberals demanding impeachment and jail time for former President Clinton for conducting an "illegal war" based on outrageous administration fabrications of propaganda? Where are their parallel demands for Clinton to be tried for the same supposed crimes as Bush?

One can attempt to argue that there were extenuating circumstances with the Iraq invasion that singles it out from the Serbia attack, but that would only be making my

point for me. For instance one might claim that very few American troops died in the Serbia war, but that changes nothing in the basic argument, because all that is saying is that at the beginning of the Iraq War before many American troops had died, the war was in effect justified, only to lose its justification after a certain undefined amount of casualties. That hardly makes sense. At least Bush jumped through all of the right hoops, getting UN resolutions, congressional support, providing time for inspections and at least attempting to validate his reasons for the Iraq War. Another argument might be that innocent civilians died in the Iraq War. This was true in the war with Serbia as well. Here is a video of the bombing of a civilian train by an American jet that resulted in 27 civilian deaths: [*67x2yj5] [13] And here is that story along with another about the killing of 60 Albanian refugees: [*5scyjta] [14]

I've never heard a liberal justify their condemnation of Bush on the extenuating circumstances, but only on the basic premise that Bush supposedly lied. In fact that was and still is the liberal mantra: "Bush lied - thousands died!" That issue will be dealt with later, but for now we definitely know that Bill Clinton did not tell the truth about his administration's reasons for going to war against Serbia. There is no debate on that. His claim of supposedly "500,000" ethnic Kosovars being "ethnically cleansed" and comparing it to the "Holocaust" was a flat out fabrication specifically designed to deceive the American public. (As a side note, this is not the first war entered based on a fabrication by a Democratic President. It has since been discovered and released in 2005 by the National Security Agency that the congressional Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which basically authorized the Vietnam War was also based on an invented incident by Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson's administration. [*2tcalk] [15] Where is that liberal mantra: "Johnson lied - 58,000 American soldiers died!"?)

What about you, gentle American? Were you a liberal who conveniently excused former President Clinton's gross vilification of the Serbs and the subsequent war? Did you even know that the Serbs were responding to a domestic terrorist insurgency within their own country? Maybe you didn't even know that the Serb war was based on a gigantic fraud. Of course that would not be entirely surprising since the orthodox media filter didn't exactly report that part of it, but there were liberals that knew. There were big name liberals in the Democratic Party that knew. The orthodox liberal media knew. They could have made it common public knowledge if they had chosen to do so, but they didn't. After all, Bill Clinton was one of theirs. But former President Bush? He was the political opposition. They preferred to keep you ignorant, knowing little or nothing of Clinton's deception and instead hypocritically demanding so-called justice for Bush. You were played like a fiddle on these two wars, gentle American (and much more than you yet know - later).

Here we have our second example of our first principle of liberalism: Contemporary liberalism requires a strict adherence to playing stupid. The fact that Clinton fits the exact accusation liberals use on Bush should set off alarms bells for you, gentle American. Do you see the double standard? Like I mentioned earlier, our second liberal principle is: Without irrational double standards contemporary liberalism cannot exist. Gentle American, can you see that without a double standard there is no liberal argument for prosecuting former President Bush without also prosecuting former President Clinton?

So how are you doing ignoring the ideology of this issue, gentle American? Were you able to ignore your conditioned disdain for former President Bush and your inherent sympathy for former President Clinton, and instead concentrate on the rational arguments of the issue? Kudos if you could.

More About Your Deprogrammer C

But more about me. I pledge that I will be completely honest with you, gentle American. I know I won't be preaching to the choir and I don't expect you to give me the benefit of any doubt. I realize that for this book series to be taken seriously by liberals like you I cannot take the political route of fudging and spinning the facts to support my arguments. There are many liberal websites that deal with the issues that I will present in this book series. The only way for me to win over your confidence is to prove that I am right and they are wrong through critical analysis, so I will be on my best behavior and will diligently search out self-evident truth for you, gentle American. I only ask for one thing in return; that you reciprocate by being as honest as you can in digesting what I have to present to you. I don't ask you to trust me. I invite your scrutiny and honest appraisal, gentle American. Just leave your ideology out on the porch before you enter my parlor.

Although I have hopefully written this book series as an easy read, it will not be a quick read if you are serious about its purpose and your role in it. I expect you to reason through what I say and reference my internet citations, especially when you have questions. The best way to own an issue is for you to research it for yourself. You will do this here. Create your own links library on your computer. Make notes. Take quotes. Mark up this book. Highlight it. Dog ear it. Sticky note it. I want you as focused as possible on every issue I present. It is my position that I have the facts and the reasoning, and to the extent that you search them out will be the extent that you will own each issue. The more proactively engaged you are, the more likely your deprogramming will be successful. Laziness may result in a waste of your time - and subsequently your life (so sad...). (And if you have come here in some self-aggrandized, noble quest to prove me wrong and your liberalism right, good luck! I have no doubt you will be able to lie to yourself right through to the end of this book series. After all, that is what liberals do well, play stupid - especially with themselves.)

So you see, gentle American, this book series is not simply a defense of conservatism or an assault on liberalism. It is an examination of and continuous exercise in critical thinking. We are going to examine dozens and dozens of political and ideological issues, but you must not view them as ideological arguments. Instead you should view them as exercises in contextual investigation combined with critical analysis.

Reasoning Instead of Ideology C

Take the first example I gave above about President Obama approving missile strikes in Pakistan. If you were to do an internet search for >Obama missile strikes< you would soon find a media report about President Obama approving of the mission referred to above before it was executed. You also might find his campaign pledge to take action in Pakistan to engage the Taliban and al Qaeda even if the President of Pakistan refused. [3dx87gb] [16] Think about this, gentle American. Candidate Obama was willing to make war in a supposed ally's territory and risk turning them into an enemy. Is this a liberal position? Sheesh! Most liberals didn't even agree with invading a sworn enemy's

country as with Saddam Hussein in Iraq! Even former President Bush was never so reckless as to make such a threat against Pakistan. And thanks to the chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D), it has been confirmed through her verbal slipup that Pakistan had already been cooperating with the American military, by allowing the Predator drones that killed those terrorists and their neighbors to fly from one of their own bases. [y8a9to6] [17] But then candidate Obama was willing to jeopardize America's relationship with a valued ally in the war against the Taliban and terrorism just to sound tough for votes. Of course being a liberal and appealing to liberals, Obama knew he could get away with presenting a double standard, knowing full well as President he would never send American troops to invade Pakistan based on the then current conditions.

You can see from my first two examples of liberal double standards that it is not my conservative ideology that leads my position on issues. Yes I am a conservative, but I am not a conservative simply because I have chosen this side of the argument. It is because reason drives me to it, gentle American. Reason tells me that there is more than one human rights issue here. First there are the human rights of the innocents killed by the missile strikes, and then there are also the human rights of the innocents that will be murdered by these terrorists if they are not stopped. There is a choice to be made. I choose to agree with President Obama and support killing the terrorists, and if need be their innocent neighbors, over allowing the terrorists to directly or indirectly kill me or my innocent neighbors at some time in the future. The human rights of my neighbors are paramount to the human rights of their neighbors. Do you agree with me, gentle American - and President Obama? Or do you still hold to a double standard liberal view that you can have your cake and eat it too? Somebody's neighbors are going to die. Which do you prefer, gentle American - theirs or ours? So why do you then hold against Bush what you will not hold against Obama? And if it is OK for both Bush and Obama to execute suspected terrorists in their homes along with their neighbors without due process, then why is it not OK to hold suspected terrorists indefinitely without due process in the Guamtanamo Bay detention facility, which is arguably a much lesser sentence than execution by drone? Ask yourself this: Is the quandary under your liberalism in this matter a result of mental instability or the result of a conditioned response? Hopefully you find it is the latter, gentle American. Rationally there are no other choices. If this is true, it is also true for virtually all of your liberal positions. They are all conditioned responses. So maybe you would like to reconsider your position and choose the one resulting from contextual investigation and critical analysis - the conservative position.

Whose Rights Take Precedence C

Liberals argue that the detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility are being denied their human rights. That may or may not be the case depending on one's definition of human rights and who are entitled to them in what circumstances. But again, it is about the same choice. Do I object to holding terrorists indefinitely in the Guantanamo Bay detention facility even though some may be unknown innocents inadvertently caught up in a war they wanted nothing to do with? No, I do not object. It is no less justifiable than if they would have been killed by a Predator missile directly ordered by President Obama. If there are unknown innocents in the Guantanamo Bay detention facility they

are no more unfortunate casualties than the dead neighbors of those terrorists in Pakistan - indeed, they are much better off. They are the price war extracts from civilians of one side of the battle to protect civilians on the other side of the battle. I am willing to take the chance of incarcerating some of their innocents to prevent deaths of our innocents.

So you see, the argument is less about human rights as an absolute, than it is about whose human rights under what circumstances take precedence. Former President Bush chose the human rights of my neighbors over the human rights of the terrorists. President Obama agreed with the former President in regard to the terrorists in Pakistan, but sets up his own double standard when dealing with the terrorists in the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Given the choice I would prefer that those detainees had been killed by missile strikes in Pakistan rather than being released from Guantanamo Bay by some civilian court because the soldiers and CIA operatives that apprehended them were not schooled as police officers to uphold civilian legal charges against them. Former President Bush capitulated and released many detainees hoping that they were truly innocents or that they would uphold their pledge to not return to terrorism, and yet many did return to radical Islam and the former President may yet end up with the blood of my innocent neighbors on his hands because of those erroneous capitulations to political correctness. [*yajh5jw, *yd39247, *d3op5h, *2czcaka, *25yk528] [18] (President Obama has released at least 66 detainees. If any of them go to Pakistan or Yemen, do you think, given the chance that he won't kill them with drone missiles if they again affiliate with al Qaeda? Of course he will.) If President Obama yields to the demands of his liberal supporters and some of the remaining terrorists are released by a civilian court for lack of legal evidence to convict them or because of legal technicalities, the President and those liberals supporting him will have on their hands the blood of the innocents those terrorists kill sometime in the future. You see, gentle American, the double standard has a consequence to it. No matter what the outcome, innocents will suffer. Would you rather it be their innocents or ours? Will you be one of those liberals with the blood of your own neighbors on your hands, gentle American?

Think about this, gentle American. The liberal position of granting rights to civilian trials for the Guantanamo detainees actually grants more rights to these terrorists than World War Two prisoners of war had. [*rsqx5] [19] WWII soldiers caught by either side were not granted trials of any kind. Under the subsequent Geneva Conventions they could be legally kept incarcerated until the war ended. Has the war ended against the terrorists? Well obviously President Obama does not think so, otherwise he would not be approving of Predator drone missile strikes in Pakistan. Did he not also declare that the fight against terrorism not be considered a war? Then how can these detainees be considered prisoners of war if there is no war? In fact, the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay are not actually legitimate prisoners of war under the laws of war because they were not wearing recognizable uniforms or insignia identifying themselves as soldiers on the battlefield. Because terrorists attempt to blend in as civilians they are not considered prisoners of war, but rather illegal enemy combatants. They are more like guerilla combatants in a civil war or spies in an international war. They are not covered by the Geneva Conventions as legitimate prisoners of war and need not be granted rights as such. Indeed it has not been uncommon throughout history that similar type illegal enemy combatants have been legitimately executed on the spot when captured. Of course intelligence gathering is also important - a dead terrorist can provide no intelligence, so for strategic

reasons it might be better to incarcerate them for interrogation. Indeed many other terrorists have been captured based on Guantnaamo detainee interrogations, saving dozens or maybe hundreds or even thousands of my and your neighbors' lives. [*yktm3ee, *pulfen] [20] And a lot of other valuable intelligence was gathered from interrogating Guantanamo detainees. [*4kdrr7z] [21]

This is really a zombie argument. In case you are unfamiliar with a zombie argument, it is an assertion that has been repeatedly proven invalid, but is continually raised from the dead as though it is still credible. Liberals insist that terrorist captives deserve coverage of the Geneva Conventions despite it having been repeatedly illustrated that illegal enemy combatants fall outside the jurisdiction of the Geneva Conventions.

Indeed, President Obama's choice for Attorney General has also expressed his opinion that the Guantanamo detainees are not covered by the Geneva Conventions. [6kjmrt] [22] President Obama complicated matters even more by differentiating prisoners held in Afghanistan from those held at Guantanamo Bay, declaring that the Afghan prisoners are not entitled to the same supposed rights. [*ygreg8l] [23] (Indeed, it is alleged that torture is still in play there: [*5uz3y2y] [24])

Yet liberals desire that foreign terrorists be tried in NYC. (800 pound gorilla alert!) So why do you think that WWII German and Japanese soldiers who fought according to the rules of war were not granted trials in NYC? Were they less worthy of rights to trials than terrorists who do not fight according to the rules of war? Can you not see that liberals have this whole situation turned backwards, gentle American? Terrorists deserve less rights than legitimate prisoners of war, not more.

In another huge example of liberal double standards Barack Obama authorized the assassination of an American citizen turned terrorist with drone missile strikes in a country that has not been declared or even considered a war zone. [*23pbzwl] [25] Now over a year later authorities have claimed that they have indeed executed Anwar al-Aulaqi with a drone missile attack. [5rr4gwo] [26] If this had been under Bush you know liberals would be demonstrating in the streets, gentle American. Under Obama? No big deal, but to the conservative this is not just an American citizen. He is a traitor, justifying his execution by drone.

You see, gentle American, it is not just that I automatically support the conservative side of the detainee rights argument because I am a conservative. I support the conservative argument that the detainees do not deserve civilian trials or trials of any kind because reason leads me to this conclusion. What leads you to yours, gentle American?

President Obama Pulls a Bush – Twice C

Now, gentle American, let's examine where all of this can lead. Liberals were quick to credit cowboy President Obama for a targeted assassination of an unarmed Osama bin Laden without arresting and Mirandizing him, without due process, using Dick Cheney's death squad, which until now was defending itself from giving a terrorist a fat lip in Iraq, ignoring the collateral damage of a firefight, flying from a still occupied Afghanistan, in a unilateral fashion, without congressional approval, without UN approval, under the banner of the War On Terror, in a country America was not at war with, under a deal agreed upon by Presidents Bush and Musharraf, where the intelligence originated in both

the Guantanamo Bay gulag, and through the use of abduction and extraordinary rendition and enhanced interrogation by agents being prosecuted by the Obama's Justice Department, with extensive additional information from wiretapping. What's wrong with this picture, gentle American? According to liberals just about everything (all 21 italicized items in the above sentence). There is a poster online that sums this up nicely. It's a macho photo of George W. Bush in a cowboy hat with the following caption: "VINDICATION - When the loudest critic of your policies achieves his greatest success because of them." [*3qys2uw] [27] In fact most of the credit goes to Guantanamo Bay's and other interrogators who extracted key information about a bin Laden courier from detainees that eventually led to the finding of bin Laden's Abbotabad compound. [*64qwmjd, 44dhzbn, 6g74n8q, 5u8qelz] [28] It was 9/11 mastermnind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed after rendition and enhanced interrogation who offered up information leading to the courier who has been described as a former protégé of his. But here is the real issue for liberals. Why do you think that when Osama bin Laden was located in Pakistan that a Dick Cheney black ops assassination team was directly ordered by President Obama to summarily execute bin Laden instead of capture and Mirandize him, and bring him to America to stand trial in New York City? [3wwz6dz, 4xpgcmb, 3kez22v] [29] What about bin Laden's supposed human and constitutional rights and due process, gentle American? Where was the always necessary (according to liberals) coalition? Even Pakistan was kept out of the loop. Will liberals who condemned President Bush now condemn President Obama for war crimes or crimes against humanity? Is executing Osama bin Laden not the utmost in hypocrisy for a liberal President who has condemned his predecessor for not providing terror suspects due process and trials? What about you, gentle American? Did you cheer bin Laden's execution or denounce the supposed lack of due process?

What was the alternative, gentle American? What if President Obama had captured Osama bin Laden? Isn't this what America had yearned for since 9/11? The problem is that liberals had turned this into a nightmare scenario. Instead of being a joyous and triumphant event for America (and a treasure trove of intelligence from bin Laden himself), it would have quickly dissolved into a perplexing anxiety for the country as a multitude of ACLU type lawyers and liberal human rights groups elbowed each other out of the way to 'protect' bin Laden's supposed 'rights' and set up a defense team.

At least with the rules originally laid out by former President Bush we could have been sure that Osama bin Laden would never have been released. He would have been thoroughly interrogated over a period of years. He would have spent the rest of his life in an isolated, austere incarceration, prevented from ever influencing the world in any way again. He would not have been considered a martyr by his followers. He would have eventually died in prison and his death would have been only a footnote in history, as at most it should have been.

Under the new rules of the Obama administration where bin Laden's right to due process would be paramount, the whole situation would have turned into a bloody three ring circus. Think about this 800 pound gorilla, gentle American. Think about Osama bin Laden on trial in New York city if he had decided to plead not guilty. It would have made the O. J. Simpson trial look like Sesame Street. "Send in the clowns!" The TV networks would have been filled with 'experts' all advising on how to deal with bin Laden's

captivity. The truthers would have come out of the woodwork seeing their moment to prove their supposed case that the Bush administration actually brought down the twin towers and targeted the Pentagon. How would they have even found the members for a jury of twelve who had not been influenced one way or another over the years? There would have been violent rioting with many deaths in Muslim nations and probably in many western nations. There also would have been many kidnappings of Americans to use in bartering for bin Laden. There would probably have been desperate terrorism attacks across the the world. NY City would have been the number one target. Who'd have wanted to serve on a jury and expose themselves and their families to reprisals from Muslim extremists? Would you have been willing to put your friends and family and neighbors at risk, gentle American? Do I need to go on? Chances are that there would have been no conviction. After all, there wasn't even a bloody glove. His videos could have been explained away as propaganda exploiting terrorist events perpetrated by others. There was no smoking gun from bin Laden's hands to use as court evidence. Osama bin Laden would then have filed numerous lawsuits and so would have many other detainees and former detainees, with the help of liberal groups who's only aim would have been to discredit that evil Bush. This would have been all thanks to supposedly noble liberal motivations with no forethought to their calamitous results. In fact this is another teachable moment for you, gentle American. As you will see throughout this book series, liberal good intentions more often than not end up with horrible results. Liberals have been so busy demonizing conservative/Republican policies and principles that they haven't looked ahead to see the consequences of their own actions. So Obama had no choice but to execute Osama bin Laden. And now we can see one more principle of liberalism: Contemporary liberalism is rife with unintended consequences. In fact this principle is an adage of liberalism:

~"We meant to do better, but it came out as always."~ - Russian proverb serendipitously describing contemporary American liberalism

So President Obama spared the nation the heartache and violence (and himself a giant headache) of a foolish trial of bin Laden under his own policies and liberal desires, and instead upheld the eminently more reasonable Bush doctrines for dealing with terrorism (unfortunately a multitude of intelligence had to be sacrificed with bin Laden's death). I'm just wondering when the liberal impeachment trial of Obama begins, and then the liberal trial against assassination, and then the liberal murder trial, and the liberal war crimes trail, the liberal crimes against humanity trial... Oh - and then there is the little matter of impeaching Obama over Libya. [*3dlm4pu] [30] [/sarcasm - sort of]

President Obama has flip-flopped on indefinite detention at Guantanamo Bay as well. When the Supreme Court attempted to assume jurisdiction over non-citizens, outside of U.S. soil (and failed), Obama said at the time of the decision:

~Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama described the ruling as "a rejection of the Bush administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo" and "an important step toward re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law."~ [7cwmn5j] [31]

As a presidential candidate Obama adamantly insisted that he would make the closure of the Guantanamo detention facility one of his top priorities as President, but once President he again agreed with Bush:

~President Obama signed an executive order Monday that will create a formal system of indefinite detention for those held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who continue to pose a significant threat to national security.~ [48thatj] [32]

Where are all of those liberal protests and dozens of liberal media columns against this decision that were so prominent when Bush made the same decision as President? Can you say "double standards", gentle American?

Messy Thinking C

Liberals denounced George W. Bush for invading Iraq and stopping Saddam Hussein from mass murdering up to one hundred thousand Iraqis per year, but liberals had no criticism for Bill Clinton when he could have easily stopped the majority of the genocide of 800,000 Tutsis by Hutus in Rwanda (he was warned two months in advance and later admitted on TV that 500,000 lives could have been saved with only 5,000 American troops). [ydl83k5] [33] It seems liberals don't really care about stopping genocide, whether it is through a Republican President or a Democratic President (unless of course it is against seals, owls, minnows or beetles). Then again, liberals supported Bill Clinton's war with Serbia over an invented genocide. So I guess the liberal standards on human slaughter are these: An angry NO to stopping an ongoing mass murder in Iraq, a shrug of the shoulders for ignoring a predicted and easily preventable genocide in Rwanda, and an enthusiastic YES to stopping a fictitious "ethnic cleansing" in Kosovo. What a mess liberal thinking is...

Why do you think it is, gentle American, that liberals desire that former President Bush should be prosecuted for supposedly lying America into a war with Iraq, while giving former President Clinton a complete pass for lying America into a war with Serbia based on his obvious lie of supposedly "500,000" Kosovars having been "ethnically cleansed" by the Serbs? Here's another example. Both President Obama and Vice President Biden adamantly opposed exactly what they have ended up doing in Libya. Again, will liberals hold them to account? [*4z38cwf] [34] And here is another: Why was it imperative under Bush that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who is held in the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, be tried in a civilian court on American soil with full civilian rights for admittedly masterminding and initiating the 9/11 attack, while it was OK, and even courageous for Obama to summarily execute (assassinate) Osama bin Laden when he could have just as easily been taken into custody and flown to the U.S. for trail? Of course I have already repeatedly illustrated that liberalism is based on glaring double standards. Liberals simply do not hold up their own for the same scrutiny that they hold up conservatives. Liberals can easily gloss over liberal sins, but liberals never pass over any conservative indiscretion, or any event they think they can turn into a perceived indiscretion. These are not just arbitrary decisions - there is a method here. What do you think the explanation is, gentle American? I'll provide a complete answer in the next chapter.

Deprogramming Lessons C

As we conclude this first chapter I want to encourage you to tone down your emotions and turn up your Mr. Spock demeanor, gentle American. No one enjoys having their ideological legs kicked out from beneath them, but you have to look at this as remedial, not an attack on you. That you are willing to persevere through this at all is greatly to your credit, gentle American.

The first lesson learned here in chapter one is the fundamental difference between a contemporary conservative and a contemporary liberal. Both respond to the question of whether they prefer to have as a life principle the liberty to direct their own lives or have others direct their lives with the exact same answer - both the conservative and the liberal prefer the liberty to direct their own lives. Here is the difference: The conservative attempts to live their life consistent with their answer. However, the liberal willingly accepts unnecessary and contradictory outside limitations imposed by others on their life in a direct contradiction to their core belief - they embrace a life of servitude. I want you to know that you are not alone, gentle American. Many Americans are in the very same position as you. Liberalism has stolen away liberty as the universal core value of America. Deprogramming Liberalism is about getting it back one American at a time. This week it is your turn. Next week it will be a co-worker's, a friend's or a family member.

Our first two principles of liberalism illustrate their willingness to accept these external limitations placed on them by others:

Contemporary liberalism requires a strict adherence to playing stupid.

Without irrational double standards contemporary liberalism cannot exist.

A third principle is a result:

Contemporary liberalism is rife with unintended consequences.

The process of deprogramming liberalism is about providing you with alternative choices to your liberal world view based on analytical deductions rather than ideological presumptions. Each time your choice is based on analysis over ideology you are confirming your first, core choice of this book, a desire to direct your own life, gentle American. Choosing analysis over ideology is a choice to direct yourself to reject the playing stupid (magical thinking) of our first liberal principle. For instance, by concluding that as an ethic there is no difference between President Bush holding terrorism suspects in the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and President Obama's decision to bomb terrorism suspects in remote Pakistan, you have affirmed the very real existence of the second liberal principle of double standards, and have rejected it as irrational thinking - playing stupid. Again, these conclusions were confirmed when examining the parallels between President Bush's justifications for invasion of Iraq that have been framed as lies, and President Clinton's obvious propaganda used to enter a war against Serbia - there is no difference, we are discussing the same ethic. Another confirmation is the liberal double standard demand for civil rights for terrorism suspects that even legitimate prisoners of war have always been denied. Through the choice of analysis over ideology you have had the liberal principles of playing stupid and double standards revealed to you, gentle American. This has provided you with a freedom of personal choice over that of others directing and limiting your choice through foreign

principles that contradict your core value of liberty. Continue making these choices, gentle American. The more you do so, the more you will realize that at the core of your being you are not a liberal.

A fourth principle of liberalism that is also resultant is introduced below: Contemporary liberalism is absurd.

Deprogramming Exercise C

From now on, gentle American, whenever you find yourself judging conservatives or say, viewing a liberal on television judging conservatives, use your third person analysis to observe the double standard that is very likely being employed. Be aware of the 800 pound gorilla. Continuously ask yourself, what if the issue were reversed? When judging a conservative, would I be so harsh if it were a liberal that I was judging for the same supposed failure or indiscretion? Or if a liberal failure or indiscretion is the issue, would I be so generous to a conservative in the same position? This is third person analysis. As a liberal you will find that the answer is almost always no. We'll learn some of the mechanics of this attitude disorder in the next chapter.

One more exercise. With no warning or pre-explanation go ask your liberal and conservative friends and acquaintances our core question: As a principle, would you prefer others to direct your life, or would you prefer to have the freedom to direct your own life? (Again, don't give them any hint that it is coming.) Do you think any of them will not choose the self-reliance of freedom, gentle American? Do you think any of them are actually liberal at the core of their being and will prefer the collective interdependence of being herded around like sheep? Neither do I.

(Please note: Of course I understand that conservatives and Republicans are often but not always symbiotic, as is also true of liberals and Democrats, so when I mention them as pairs or separately, please let this qualification stand throughout the book series and search out the context of what I have written to determine whether I am equating them or not. Also please realize that when I write liberals believe this or conservatives do that, although it may be written as all-inclusive, I do realize that there are often exceptions to the rule - please keep this in mind as well so I don't have to qualify every inclusive statement in the book series.)

One last thing, gentle American. I am a big believer in the direct relationship between sleep and the ability to think problems and new ideas through rationally. It is important that you go to sleep at night pondering the new ideas you have discovered here each day. This will lead to new insights and realizations the next day, or even when waking during the night. Many concepts in this book series came to me lying awake at four in the morning.

Here is a link to George Orwell's essay on playing stupid: [*5o48zg] [35]

Humor, Sort-of C

Now for a little humor to break the tension at the end of this chapter, gentle American. It is from my "And you thought Sarah Palin was stupid..." file, and is a sneak preview of another principle of liberalism: Contemporary liberalism is absurd.

In the mid-nineties "tolerance" was the ultimate liberal virtue in life. In foreign policy it was all about apologizing to America's enemies and negotiating meaningless peace agreements with the likes of Yasser Arafat, Kim Jong-il and Saddam Hussein. Along with domestic military base closings and cutbacks to the intelligence arms, catching terrorists became less de rigueur. The clandestine services had a lot of idle time on their hands and the President's CIA Director brought in a nanny to teach the operatives how to be nice and to tuck them into bed each night. Officers were required to spend countless hours sewing "diversity quilts" in order to keep their jobs (I kid you not, gentle American). And then there were the "sensitivity-training classes" and "role-playing skits to conform to politically correct social themes". Those liberals running the CIA at the time were certainly not in any way attempting to turn out James Bond type operatives that were "licensed to kill". The new liberalized CIA was learning to be "tolerant" (and how to sew). [7wkl6se] [36]

One question, gentle American - did Barack Obama enter into a "rush to war" against Libya over oil? Jus' askin'...

Chapter 2

Paranoids

Mini Critical Thinking Exercise CTo begin most chapters I will present a mini critical thinking issue to bridge the gap to the following topic. I will also introduce the predominant principles for the following chapter and an 800 pound gorilla question or two. Another reminder - it is not your job to make ideological judgments. It is your job to pick out the reasoning within each issue. Here is our first MCTE in the form of an 800 pound gorilla question: Would you describe a person that constantly imagines evil monsters all around them as deeply, delusionally paranoid, gentle American?

Chapter one focused on the principle: Without irrational double standards contemporary liberalism cannot exist. This following chapter will introduce two principles about motivation and one about paranoia.

Liberal Motives and Conservative Motives C

I, as a conservative for the most part give run of the mill liberals the benefit of the doubt for their intentions (it is mostly liberal methods and results that I question). Yes, liberals think they want to end racism. Yes, they think they want to end poverty. Yes, liberals think they want to preserve the environment, and yes possibly Bill Clinton wanted to defend what he thought was a persecuted minority in Kosovo. Yes, I believe that in general liberals think their motives are upright and desirable (I thought mine were as a liberal), but liberals do not accord conservatives the same benefit of the doubt. Liberals view conservative and Republican motives as wrong, but more than just wrong - as evil. Liberals portray conservative and Republican intentions as selfish and hateful and divisive. This is an important distinction, gentle American. 

As portrayed by liberals, conservatives are racists, desiring racism to again flourish in society. Conservatives are greedy, wanting to steal from the poor and enrich themselves

and their fat cat friends. Conservatives don't care about the environment and are willing to sacrifice anything in nature for their greed, and former President Bush only invaded Iraq to get its oil for Haliburton and Exxon and his other rich oil baron buddies. Yes, gentle American, you know it is true: Liberals see conservatives as having evil motives, and liberals as having only sincere and lofty motives, so lofty in fact, that liberals are willing to overlook any liberal failure, because in their mind, at least liberal intentions are good. Liberal intentions are about fighting the evil that motivates conservatism. So even if the results of some liberal policy or practice go terribly wrong, they can be forgiven because the motives behind the effort were honorable. But even if a conservative policy or practice is coincidently laudatory, liberals feel justified in attacking it and the conservatives behind it, because ultimately a conservative's motives are always wrong or even worse - evil.

This is why liberals cannot reason out simple issues like what to do with the Guantanamo detainees. In the liberal mind their motivation is honorable - human rights. But former President Bush's motives were wrong. From a liberal view he only wished to punish and torture those detainees, taking away their human rights simply because his intentions were evil. Liberals cannot simply accept that Bush was just trying to protect America in the best way he thought possible. That would be a noble motive, and so it could not possibly be true for a supposed conservative like Bush.

Liberal Motives are Noble C

So here is the third lesson about programmed liberal attitude (remember the first two were about playing stupid and double standards): A contemporary liberal's honorable motives and noble fight against contemporary conservatism excuses all liberal failures and indiscretions. In the mind of a liberal almost no liberal failure or indiscretion is so egregious that it cannot be forgiven or ignored or even defended. Because their motives are deemed to have been good and honorable, the subsequent actions and results are much less important when judging an event or person. In short, there is no guilt or shame in liberalism (this will be fully explored later). So 800 pound gorillas can be safely ignored. It is this twisted sense of reasoning that allows liberals to excuse all manner of liberal failures and indiscretions such as in the following list. Use your third person analysis, and if you really want to get a feel for the absurdity of excusing everything in these examples, try imagining these indiscretions as if reading about conservatives and Republicans getting away with them:

:: For years the Obama administration Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner had refused to pay $34,000 in taxes owed despite being instructed to pay, and signing an agreement to pay. Ironically the Treasury is responsible for the Internal Revenue Service. Liberals seem unfazed by this ironic and hypocritical indiscretion. [bcj3nx] [1]

:: The Democrat majority chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means from 2007 to 2010, Charles Rangel, who was responsible for overseeing taxation for the federal government, was another liberal with years of tax payment problems. Again liberals found no problem in looking the other way. No liberal hypocrisy is so egregious that it cannot be overlooked. [pwozft, 2beqssg, 88qv2h4] [2]

:: At the height of feminism a liberal President (Bill Clinton) kicked feminists in the teeth. Nothing so defined misogyny at the time as a manager or CEO type boss taking

advantage of his female subordinates. As liberal feminists smiled through their bloody, broken chiclets, they defended Bill Clinton and attacked the women he took advantage of, even though he was the arch type of CEO misogynist. One liberal reporter even went so far as to offer the President a "Monika" just for not also throwing abortion rights under the bus! [yd8whsk, ylkmfw8] [3]

:: Barney Frank had an illegal prostitution ring operating out of his house, but Democrats gave him a pass. [dzkqot] [4]

:: Who can forget Ward Churchill and his "little Eichmanns" commentary on 9/11? Liberal outrage? I don't remember any. I remember the dismissal of any criticism of Churchill. [yez3pdt] [5]

:: A liberal Senate minority leader (Harry Reid) can declare in the middle of the Iraq war surge, "this war is lost" while demanding the President surrender Iraq to al Qaeda and civil war, and liberals can completely ignore this demoralizing of the troops, encouragement to the enemy, and obvious poor judgment. [ycpr222] [6]

:: A liberal Senator (Dick Durbin) can compare American troops to Nazis, Stalin and Pol Pot and receive virtually no condemnation from liberals. [ao35a, 6ev85t] [7]

:: Washington D.C. Mayor Marion Barry went to jail for drug offenses, but that didn't stop liberals from re-electing him Mayor again. [5uz4yw6] [8]

:: Bill Clinton with his sexual escapades may have led to the administration being blackmailed by China in regard to nuclear weapons and ballistic missile technology. The House Report 105-851, otherwise known as the Cox Report, [*ybbvf8q - read the general overview] [9] exposed a stunning negligence by the Clinton administration, revealing that warnings of security lapses were deliberately ignored and sensitive missile related technology was allowed to be shared with the Chinese through private American companies. President Clinton should have been removed from office just for placing the office of the President in a position to be blackmailed. The fact that there was ample evidence that the Chinese may have actually been blackmailing Clinton is also ample evidence of the look-the-other-way attitude that liberals have for other liberals.

:: New Black Panthers in the 2008 presidential election intimidated voters outside a polling station in Philadelphia and apparently liberals have no problem with the fact that the Obama Justice Department has deliberately covered up the seriousness of the incident. [27mzp3g] [10]

:: A liberal Congressman (John Murtha) can claim Marines "killed innocent civilians in cold blood" and refused to apologize when the evidence exculpated those Marines, and still there was no outrage from liberals. [yewxspj] [11]

:: A liberal Democrat operative (Sandy Berger) can be convicted of stealing and deliberately destroying secret government documents and still be excused by liberals as being "sloppy" and that he made an "honest mistake". [858x5jf] [12]

:: A liberal Democrat House member (William Jefferson) is videotaped by the FBI receiving a $100,000 bribe most of which was later found hidden in his freezer. Were there immediate demands by fellow liberals for his resignation? No. In fact the

Congressional Black Caucus strongly backed Jefferson, even supporting his continuing on the House Ways and Means Committee. [yaml39l] [13]

:: Former President Jimmy Carter is well known for his Palestinian sympathies to the point of public anti-Semitism, but liberals generally ignore and even cheer these on. [*kmwewn] [14] 

:: With Presidential Directive 24 [yackh74] [15] what has subsequently been known as the Wall had been set up to prevent the FBI and the intelligence community from directly communicating and sharing information that might have exposed illicit Chinese money laundering that was going into the Democratic Party. PDD24 placed all decisions to do with symbiotic intelligence investigations by the FBI and various intelligence agencies in the hands of the administration, effectively allowing them control of who knew what other agencies knew. The Wall was confirmed in a 1995 Justice Department lawyer Jamie Gorelick memo that said:

~Because the counterintelligence investigation will involve the use of surveillance techniques authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance ACT (FISA) against targets that, in some instances, had been subject to surveillance under Title III, and because it will involve some of the same sources and targets as the criminal investigation, we believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations.~

This is the same Wall that prevented identification of the 9/11 hijackers as active terrorists even though the data was available - the Wall made it impossible to connect the dots. And this was the same Jamie Gorelick who was appointed to the 9/11 Commission - a huge conflict of interest. Liberals however, never had a problem with any of these things.

:: A liberal broadcaster (CBS) can knowingly use and defend fake documents to slander a sitting President with the aim of bringing about his electoral defeat, and many liberals still today accept the absurd axiom created to describe the incident, "fake but accurate". [yafy64z] [16]

:: Having committed plagiarism didn't disqualify Joe Biden from being elected to the Senate many subsequent times and eventually to the Vice Presidency. [6rn5la] [17]

:: A Democratic presidential candidate was exposed as cheating on his wife and having a love child well before the primaries were over, and the disinfecting liberal media dismissed it as a non-story, and liberals in general who loved John Edwards, collectively yawned. [6xpzfa] [18] It seems he was even considered as vice presidential material by Barack Obama, and then it turned out that his wife was in on the scam, covering up for him in order to get a chance to live in the White House. Even with a trial on misuse of campaign funds in regard to the scandal, liberals have responded with a collective yawn.

:: Despite that liberals consistently and violently riot at organizational meetings like the Republican National Convention, the G-8, G-20 summits, etc., liberals pay lip service to these events and instead attempt to cast peaceful, law abiding Tea Party events as evidence of the so-called violent right in America. A stark contrast is that no Tea Partier

has ever been arrested at a Tea Party event, whereas at the Occupy Wall Street protest in NYC hundreds were arrested.

:: The very liberal group, Association of Community Organizations for Reform (ACORN) has been involved in a multitude criminal voter incidents and funding frauds over the years with whistleblowers coming forward, and having been recently exposed as thoroughly corrupt by a series of sting videos, but liberals have been largely silent and often defensive in regard to ACORN. [*yhqkgdl, yzcl5dh] [19] Democrats were embarrassed into supporting a defunding of ACORN in some spending legislation, but the Obama administration reinstituted funding for ACORN through federal agencies instead. [yz9fee4] [20] Liberals cheer a reinstatement of ACORN.

:: Democratic Representative Maxine Waters has been accused of numerous graft business deals where she has profited personally over the years, but the Democrats in the House have blocked every attempt to investigate them. [3q5jnsm] [21]

:: Democratic Representative Anthony Weiner was exposed for lying about relationships with women online, sending them lewd photos of himself, and falsely accusing conservatives of hacking his social internet accounts, but this was not enough for top Democrats to call for his resignation. Hoping he could survive a House Ethics investigation Democratic House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi pointedly would not demand his resignation until a week later when he was perceived to have become a liability to the Party. [42mwoag] [22] Weiner must be wondering why he so quickly got thrown under the bus when Bill Clinton was raised as a hero for committing real crimes and placing the presidency in a position to be blackmailed.

:: Former Democratic Senator and Governor, Jon Corzine as CEO of derivatives broker, MF Global says he doesn't know what happened to the 1.2 billion dollars in missing client funds. Despite that liberals through the Occupy Wall Street protests are currently apoplectic with the Wall Street one percenters supposedly stealing money from the 99%, apparently have no problem with this one percenter seemingly caught in the act. According to this article, the poor dear is just a "victim of the alpha-male curse". [7rl4tlr] [23]

:: Barack Obama has had and still has many associations with extremists, terrorism justifiers and supporters, and terrorists themselves: Obama mentor Frank Marshall Davis was a communist. [4okp9ew] [24] Jeremiah Wright is an America hater who preached and taught communist Black Liberation Theology to Obama's children. [yqux9d] [25] William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn were domestic terrorists. [6b4hkr] [26] Obama worked with discredited criminal organization ACORN. [ycemzpp] [27] Cass Sunstein thinks animals should be allowed to bring law suits, hunting and eating meat should be banned, and criticism of global warming theory should be banned. [bpegyh, y9eo6r5] [28] John P. Holdren is an apocalypse nut and associate of Paul Ehrlich. [69fhrmx] [29] Chas W. Freeman Jr. is a terrorism justifier and supporter. [dyea33, ce5q54] [30] Rosa Brooks has referred to President Bush as a psychotic and called al Qaeda, "little more than an obscure group of extremist thugs." [czfwoe] [31] Carol M. Browner is a socialist. [8n3g9d] [32] Van Jones is a communist who justifies terrorism and is a truther. [69ddc92, m9vrug] [33] Dalia Mogahed supports Sharia law. [67d3ucp] [34] Anita Dunn is a communist. [yhyr7jx] [35] Ron Bloom is a communist. [yk8yuuu] [36] Malik Zulu

Shabazz is national chairman of the radical New Black Panther Party. [ybtzewr] [37] Robert McChesney is a communist. [ylz7j2w] [38] These are just a sample of literally dozens of radicals Barack Obama has associated with, all ignored by liberals as if they were just fellow chess club members or something. Then there was the real estate deal with Tony Rezko. Unsurprisingly Obama's top advisor, Valerie Jarrett was an associate of Rezko. [6fgar9] [39] 

:: Barack Obama has other scandals developing as well, like the Solydra bankruptcy, [3kaa9f4] [40] photos showing Obama affiliated with the New Black Panther Party, [5u4tscr] [41] the Fast and Furious deal selling guns to Mexican drug cartels, [3pt4yub] [42] and the Pigford payoff. [7s2zu49, clzblxl] [43] There are the non-recess "recess appointments" that break the tradition of separation of powers. The whitewashing liberal media have mostly ignored these stories, and liberals in general could care less - after all, we're not talkin' Bush here. If it had been Bush, liberals would be screaming at a fever pitch!

Now imagine when Republicans controlled the House, the Senate and the presidency during the Bush years, if they had pushed through Social Security privatization reform on Christmas eve, without giving a three day promised period for the public and opposition to review the bill, with no bipartisan support with the Democrats, after purchasing members of their own party's votes with earmark buyoffs, and ignoring a vocal majority of the voting public opposing the bill. Imagine the outrage from liberals claiming an undermining of democracy! Imagine the cacophony in the media. Imagine the marches on Washington. Imagine the riots across the country. Now realize that this is exactly what President Obama did with his Obamacare legislation. Liberals cheered. Imagine if President Bush had sold hundreds of guns to Mexican drug cartels which were then used to murder hundreds in Mexico and at least two American border agents. Liberals would have been screaming for impeachment and crimes against humanity trials with demands for imprisonment, but since the Obama administration did this, liberals yawn. Imagine if President Bush had invested billions of taxpayer dollars in risky oil companies run by Republican donors that then went bankrupt with little accounting for what happened to the money (you know - sorta like the infamous natural gas company, Enron pushing the Kyoto Protocol for their financial benefit - that Democrats supported and Bush didn't [*3ppkm7l, *d54nlh3] [44]). That is basically what Obama did with green energy companies and Democrat donors, but again liberals collectively yawn and defend his actions. The only thing liberals are really upset about with Obama is that he has not been liberal enough.

:: Above I presented you with over twenty examples of this liberal averting-of-eyes and playing stupid to liberal failures and indiscretions, but they are all just gravy, gentle American - I only really needed this one (remember to read this as if it were about a conservative Republican): The "liberal lion of the Senate" Ted Kennedy got off virtually scott-free after driving and crashing while drunk and then leaving Mary Jo Kopechne to die. But this is only one tragic indiscretion among multitudes. Ted Kennedy was about as despicable a person as has ever been elected to Congress, and liberals elected him over and over and over, holding him up as a 'liberal hero'. :: Born into wealth, and as royals do, profiting on his name and the better reputations of his immediate family members, he accomplished nothing in his life outside of his often belligerent style of politics. :: He

always compared unfavorably to his older brothers. :: He was a drunk and had four citations for reckless driving (and who knows how many he got away with because of his name). :: Though married twice he was a womanizer. :: He later made jokes about the fatal accident and named his dog "Splash". :: A Roman Catholic who was pro-life, he switched over even to the extent of supporting partial-birth abortion just to advance himself in the Democratic Party machine. :: He got into Harvard based on his family ties and was kicked out for cheating. :: He signed up for a four year term in the army and requested a placement in Army Intelligence, but was dropped from the program after only a few weeks and cut loose from the army after only two years when his father used his political pull to keep him from being sent to the Korean War. :: He rented a whole Chilean brothel. :: He met with communist revolutionaries in several countries throughout Latin America. :: He was a political force behind the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 which discouraged skilled immigration and encouraged unskilled immigration with almost unlimited family reunification. :: He contributed to extending the tentacles of the federal government into Public Education with the Higher Education Act of 1965 which was ostensibly to improve education in low income neighborhoods, but has been a complete failure with opposite results. :: He was important in getting the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 passed that was later ruled unconstitutional. :: He supported the failed, forced racial busing program for Boston. :: He cynically attempted to have the voting rules changed for his benefit at the 1980 Democratic National Convention. :: He deliberately undermined President Carter's re-election campaign in 1980. :: Jimmy Carter blames him specifically for not getting comprehensive healthcare reform legislation. :: He attempted to collude with the KGB of the U.S.S.R. to undermine President Reagan's reputation as strong on American security so he could challenge him for the Presidency, a contravention of the Logan Act. :: Unsurprisingly this was not the first time he had clandestinely collaborated with the KGB. He also attempted to sandbag President Carter the same way. :: He often opposed improvements to the military and supported appeasement toward the U.S.S.R. :: Although publicly supporting affirmative action he had Mayor Marion Barry waive a set-aside clause for minority businesses for a building purchase in DC, allowing him to rent to higher paying tenants. :: Even some Democrats thought Kennedy went over the line in his slanderous "Robert Bork's America" speech which is credited as the turning point where incendiary demagoguery escalated in late twentieth century politics. :: In a bout of hypocrisy seldom matched in American politics he called Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas "shameful" in regard to the no-evidence allegations of Anita Hill. :: He later smeared Samuel Alito in the same manner as Robert Bork. :: He was instrumental in pushing the State Children's Health Insurance Program which was supposed to be paid for by tobacco taxes, but that also turned into a failure. :: He of course defended President Clinton in regard to his "bimbo eruptions" with which he was so familiar in his own life and voted to acquit on both impeachment charges even though Clinton put the Presidency in a position to be blackmailed. :: He would become infamous for reaching across the aisle to produce legislation and then later claiming he was double-crossed by Republicans to avert criticism from his liberal fan base. :: He was instrumental in the establishment of legislation enacted under the Clinton administration that prohibited the FBI from examining the computer of Zacarias Moussaoui in August 2001 (the since-named 20th highjacker), a month before 9/11. :: He ardently opposed a proposed wind

turbine farm where he liked to go sailing, while insisting other Americans sacrifice for his liberal interventionist views. :: He accused the Hillary Clinton campaign of using racism against the Obama campaign in the 2008 presidential primaries. :: It was reported in the Washington Post that the Clintons believed he endorsed Obama over Clinton based strictly on his own misogyny. :: His family's money was sheltered in foreign trusts so as to be protected from the very tax laws he supported for other Americans who were not so fortunate to have a father who knew how to avoid paying taxes. :: Publicly he was an ardent critic of the oil industry while privately he had large investments in oil projects he left out of his criticisms, and drafted tax laws that his plays avoided. :: Although seriously ill at the end of his life, apparently his belief in his own indispensability led him to refuse to resign his Senate seat, thus denying Massachusetts voters either a present representative or the opportunity to replace him. :: He was often rated as one the most liberal Senators in Congress. :: He was an ardent supporter of incremental liberalism and very effective as a legislator at it. :: Imagine - this man came to be known as the patriarch of the Kennedy clan and as a "liberal icon" (try a Google search of >ted kennedy "liberal icon"< and you'll find tens of thousands of results). As an icon of liberalism, who can disagree - his documented history screams LIBERAL! :: Newsweek described Kennedy as "the living symbol of the family flaws". :: He even colluded with the Soviet communists against his own country (more than once) despite that his oldest brother was assassinated while President by a defector to the Soviet communists. :: At his death never in a free society has such an epic failure of a man been lauded as such a success. :: A Huffington Post writer went so far as to justify Ted Kennedy's perverse career in a reference to Mary Jo Kopechne's death with, "Who knows - maybe she'd feel it was worth it." How twisted must an ideology be to lionize such a man of monumental failings? [*6662k5j, *6dwqfu6, *37ssm6] [45] Nixon was a piker compared to this man! Can you imagine if Ted Kennedy had been a Republican, gentle American. His political career would have stopped just as dead as Mary Jo Kopechne's life did at the Dike Bridge. He would only be a small footnote in history. Instead liberals lift him up as an icon above all other icons.

What if our above list of liberal "indiscretions" was about conservatives, gentle American? We both know that liberals would never allow conservatives to skate on any of those issues. Liberals would have demanded disqualifications, apologies, resignations, retributions and in some instances jail time. Liberals simply do not judge their own the same way they judge conservatives. In fact it is not uncommon that what conservatives are condemned for, liberals are lauded. As with Ted Kennedy, the more despicable the character, the higher the regard by liberals. Again we see: Without irrational double standards contemporary liberalism cannot exist. And just to make sure you've got it, here again is the third lesson about programmed liberal attitude: A contemporary liberal's honorable motives and noble fight against contemporary conservatism excuses all liberal failures and indiscretions.

Conservatives are Motivated by Evil C

But why do liberals see their fight against conservatism as noble? Noted psychiatrist and political commentator Charles Krauthammer once observed:

~Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil.~ [mbc2n8] [46]

In effect it is this insight that we are exploring in this book series. I don't think liberals are inherently stupid (although they often play stupid), having already posited my observations about the genesis of the liberal condition being the result of societal programming. However I now would like to add some detail to Charles Krauthammer's "Liberals think conservatives are evil" statement. You see, gentle American, someone can do evil, but be motivated by fear, rage, ignorance, etc. For instance, the men operating the gas chambers and ovens at Auschwitz during the Holocaust were most certainly operating in an evil way, but some may have been motivated by fear of what might happen to them or their families if they did not follow orders. I heard an interview on the radio with a man who was charged with documenting the suffering at the camps by the U.S. military after the end of the war. He said the men who operated the ovens basically stayed drunk everyday to cope with the stress. Sure we think of those men as evil, and while their actions were most certainly evil, their personal motivations for those actions may not have been explicitly evil. Given a choice, most if not all probably would have wanted nothing to do with that job. This is not what liberals think of conservatives. Liberals view conservatives as much more than just benignly evil. In a liberal's mind conservatives want to do evil. Liberals see conservatives as motivated by evil.

This leads to our fourth lesson about the programmed liberal attitude: A contemporary conservative's evil motives justify their destruction by any means necessary. (This also includes moderates that align with conservatives in any way. [89qs76e] [47]) Liberals view themselves as nobly fighting evil, so they will read-in to any situation the evil they are looking for, but of course, liberals will openly deny they view conservatives as evil. After all, they also view themselves as 'tolerant'. But their words belie their claims of tolerance, and of course there is always that double standard thingy. Following is a list of 800 pound gorilla quotations about conservatives/Republicans by prominent liberals. As you read each of the following quotes, gentle American, keep in mind the blatantly apparent attitude behind the remarks towards conservatives/Republicans. It is not just that liberals view conservatives as doing evil things because they view conservatives as dumb, angry, fearful, or just plain wrong. It is that liberals view conservatives as doing evil things because they view conservatives as motivated by evil to do evil things. This liberal attitude would only see the men operating the gas chambers and ovens as enthusiastically enjoying what they did, with no possibility that even some some may have been reluctant pawns. The assumption by liberals is ALWAYS that conservatives have evil motivations as the foundation of their principles and actions. Put on your detached Mr. Spock demeanor with your third person analysis and see for yourself, gentle American. Remember it is not your purpose here to judge whether you agree which each of the following statements - your agreement or disagreement is irrelevant. The purpose is to discover the motive each speaker is attributing to their target (the quotes in square brackets will be explained later):

:: ~ "The evil is in the White House at the present time. And that evil is a man who has no care and no concern for the working class of America and the future generations of America, and who likes to ride a horse. He's cold. He's mean. He's got ice water for blood."~ - Democrat House Speaker Tip O'Neill about President Ronald Reagan [4ust9dn] [48] Reagan had no compassion for the working man or the future of the country apparently. Only someone viewed as motivated by evil could be thought of as this callous - and that despite stewarding the creation of eighteen million jobs from 2002

to 2008 for that same "working class". ["heated exaggeration" "a perfect model of malice" "luxury-loving"]

:: ~ "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for."~ - Howard Dean [893b8k7] [49] If I thought of Republicans as motivated by evil I too would hate them and everything about them. ["a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil" "the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable"]

:: ~ "Do you know what the basic Republican anti-inflation policy has been? To put people out of work."~ - Jimmy Carter [ydtacly] [50] Hard to imagine a deliberate policy like this, but if I thought of Republicans as motivated by evil... ["conspiratorial fantasy" "makes crises" "then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced"]

:: ~ "For twelve years, Republicans have tried to divide us--race against race--so we get mad at each other and not at them."~ - Bill Clinton campaigning in 1992 [yqak58] [51] Yup - I guess if I saw someone as motivated by evil I might think this about them. ["heated exaggeration" "conspiratorial fantasy" "a perfect model of malice" "makes crises" "he [the enemy] has a new secret for influencing the mind (brainwashing)" "then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced"]

:: ~ "Republicans want smaller government for the same reason crooks want fewer cops; it's easier to get away with murder."~ - James Carville [y8nbkj5] [52] Certainly seeing a desire for smaller government as a policy to make corruption easier could stem from a conclusion that Republicans are motivated by evil. ["conspiratorial fantasy" "sinister" "a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil"]

:: ~ "This President is never going to do the right thing. I think somewhere deep down inside him he takes a lot of joy about losing people, if he thinks they vote Democrat or if he thinks they're poor, or if he thinks they're in a blue state, whatever his reasons are not to rescue those people..."~ - Radio host Randi Rhodes about Katrina [79ktfhy] [53] This is truly a description of someone seen as motivated by evil. ["heated exaggeration" "a perfect model of malice" "cruel" "manufactures disasters" "then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced"]

:: ~ "Moderate Republicans can't stand these people (conservatives), because they're intolerant. They don't think tolerance is a virtue. I'm not going to have these right-wingers throw away our right to be tolerant!"~ - Howard Dean [yjxop7b] [54] Since "tolerance" is certainly considered a top liberal virtue, considering conservatives as wishing to throw it away could originate from seeing them as motivated by evil. ["a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil" "he [the enemy] has a new secret for influencing the mind (brainwashing)" "he [the enemy] has a special technique for seduction"]

:: ~ "It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."~ - Barack Obama on heartland conservatives [y9l3seb] [55] If one sees people as bitter because they disagree with you, one likely sees their disagreement not as legitimate, but as motivated by evil. ["heated exaggeration" "suspiciousness" "sinister" "ubiquitous" "cruel"]

:: ~ "Under this administration, America’s middle class has been abandoned, its dreams denied, its main street interests ignored and its mainstream values scorned by a White

House that puts privilege first."~ - John Kerry on Bush 43 [ydplnt7] [56] Classic liberal thinking about Republican Presidents being motivated by evil to benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. ["conspiratorial fantasy" "a perfect model of malice" "makes crises" "then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced"]

:: ~ "While President Bush likes to project an image of strength and courage, the truth is that in the presence of his large financial contributors he is a moral coward - so weak that he seldom if ever says 'No' to them on anything - no matter what the public interest might mandate."~ - Al Gore [ybfclfc] [57] Seeing a President as putting his rich buddies above that of public interest certainly fits with seeing him as motivated by evil. ["suspiciousness" "luxury-loving" "the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable"]

:: ~ "A pro-life Democrat, unlike a pro-life Republican, cares about kids after they're born, not just before."~ - Howard Dean [yaen4pa] [58] This goes hand in hand with this often claimed Republican 'war against women' that could be only seen as motivated by evil. ["heated exaggeration" "conspiratorial fantasy" "sinister"]

:: ~ "Working people have been shut out by this president because he values only one thing; wealth."~ - John Edwards about Bush 43 [ydr568r] [59] Same old, same old. A President seen as fixated on wealth can only be seen as motivated by evil. ["heated exaggeration" "suspiciousness" "conspiratorial fantasy" "a perfect model of malice" "sinister" "ubiquitous" "cruel" "luxury-loving" "makes crises" "manufactures disasters" "then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced"]

:: ~ "George Bush has a health care plan - pray you don't get sick."~ - John Edwards about Bush 43 [ydr568r] [59] How could someone seen as so callous not be also seen as motivated by evil? ["heated exaggeration" "a perfect model of malice" "a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil" "the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable"]

:: ~ "The right wing has a way of always having an enemy, whether it be immigrants or Arabs or brown-skinned people, black-skinned people, homosexuals, women."~ - Janeane Garofalo, Hollywood 'pundit' [yc92mub] [60] Seeing your opponents as seeking out enemies of minority peoples would definitely qualify as seeing the "right wing" as motivated by evil. ["heated exaggeration" "suspiciousness" "conspiratorial fantasy" "a perfect model of malice" "sinister" "ubiquitous" "cruel" "a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil"]

:: ~ "Unfortunately, a lot of the people in the right-wing base are not the most intellectual people in the world, not the most savvy people in the world, and they are definitely quick to anger, and quick to blame other people. [...] It’s part of the human nature of a personality type that tends to identify as Republican or conservative. And it’s an unfortunate part of our society. It’s a scourge on our society."~ - Janeane Garofalo [yc92mub] [60] Seeing your opponents as unintelligent, angry people looking to blame their problems on others likely comes from seeing them as motivated by evil. ["heated exaggeration" "suspiciousness" "the enemy" "ubiquitous" "he [the enemy] must be totally eliminated"]

:: ~ "Republicans don't believe in the imagination, partly because so few of them have one, but mostly because it gets in the way of their chosen work, which is to destroy the human race and the planet. Human beings, who have imaginations, can see a recipe for disaster in the making; Republicans, whose goal in life is to profit from disaster and who don't give a hoot about human beings, either can't or won't. Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they cause any more harm."~ - Michael Feingold, Village Voice [3uwuzaq] [61] Apparently written as serious political commentary - and self explanatory concerning evil motives. ["heated exaggeration" "suspiciousness" "conspiratorial fantasy" "the enemy" "a perfect model of malice" "sinister" "ubiquitous" "cruel" "luxury-loving" "makes crises" "manufactures disasters" "traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds" "then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced" "he [the enemy] must be totally eliminated"]

:: ~ "BUSH IS MORE EVIL THAN BIN LADEN"~ - Sign at San Francisco anti-war protest. Portraying President Bush as Hitler and a Nazi was standard fare for liberals during his two administrations (more later). [cmkjwt (see photo)] [62] Again - self evident. ["the enemy" "a perfect model of malice" "sinister" "ubiquitous" "cruel" "traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds" "a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil" "the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable"]

:: ~ "You could argue that even the world's worst fascist dictators at least meant well. They honestly thought [they] were doing good things for their countries by suppressing blacks/eliminating Jews/eradicating free enterprise/repressing individual thought/killing off rivals/invading neighbors, etc. ... Bush set a new precedent. He came into office with the attitude of "I'm so tired of the public good. What about my good? What about my rich friends' good?" ... They. Don't. Even. Mean. Well."~ - Huffington Post blogger Peter Mehlman [5wlxzaz] [63] Self evident again. ["heated exaggeration" "suspiciousness" "conspiratorial fantasy" "the enemy" "a perfect model of malice" "sinister" "luxury-loving" "makes crises" "manufactures disasters" "traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds" "then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced" "a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil" "the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable"]

:: ~ "When we were out of power, we organized to win the next election. Conservatives, apparently, prefer to talk 'revolution' and kill cops."~ - Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas [dm5xjm] [64] How else to explain this? ["heated exaggeration" "suspiciousness" "conspiratorial fantasy" "a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil"]

:: ~ "If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly. That's right. The Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick."~ - Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) [y9dwala] [65] What other attributed motivation could explain this view? ["heated exaggeration" "suspiciousness" "conspiratorial fantasy" "a perfect model of malice" "sinister" "a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil"]

:: ~ "[T]he Republicans lie! They want to see you dead. They'd rather make money off your dead corpse. They kind of like it when that woman has cancer and they don't have anything for her."~ - MSNBC talk show host Ed Schultz [yesm6qv] [66] Yikes! Apparently they're all monsters! ["heated exaggeration" "suspiciousness" "conspiratorial

fantasy" "the enemy" "a perfect model of malice" "sinister" "cruel" "luxury-loving" "makes crises" "manufactures disasters" "traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds" "then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced" "a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil"]

:: ~ "It appears that the Republican Party leadership in the Congress has made a decision that they want to deny President Obama success, which means, in my mind, they are rooting against the country, as well."~ Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) [nvvmz4] [67] If one sees any opposition to policies as opposition to the country, one could only see the Republican Party as motivated by evil against the country. ["heated exaggeration" "suspiciousness" "conspiratorial fantasy" "the enemy" "a perfect model of malice" "sinister" "a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil" "the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable"]

:: ~ "The Republican Party ... is a mindset, like Hitler Youth, based on hatred — religious hatred, racial hatred ... they're fascists."~ - Liberal Essayist Gore Vidal [yh2en7w] [68] Another self explained statement. ["heated exaggeration" "suspiciousness" "conspiratorial fantasy" "the enemy" "a perfect model of malice" "sinister" "cruel" "a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil" "the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable" "he [the enemy] must be totally eliminated"]

:: ~ "And this is exactly why the conservatives keep harping on spending, spending, spending as the problem: because they know spending, spending, spending is the solution, and they don't want this solved! They don't want this solved because they hate government! They hate teachers. They hate police officers. They hate first responders. They hate firemen. They hate EMT workers. They want it all to be privatized! That's when you gonna get the haves having police protection and excellent schools and the have-nots having no police protection and no schools! And therein is the dreamworld for them. This is nirvana for them!"~ - Radio host Randi Rhodes [39awcyh] [69] Oh my... ["heated exaggeration" "suspiciousness" "conspiratorial fantasy" "the enemy" "a perfect model of malice" "sinister" "ubiquitous" "cruel" "luxury-loving" "makes crises" "manufactures disasters" "traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds" "then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced" "a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil" "the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable"]

:: ~ "The Republican Party has been on a crusade against the middle class and the poor for the last 30 years."~ - Ed Schultz [2ae75vl] [70] Of course to a liberal crusaders are motivated by evil. ["heated exaggeration" "suspiciousness" "conspiratorial fantasy" "the enemy" "a perfect model of malice" "sinister" "ubiquitous" "a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil" "the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable"]

:: ~ "Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.'"~ - Harry Reid about Republican opposition to Democratic healthcare reform, comparing them to Democrats prior to the Civil War defending slavery.

[6spx2do] [71] To equate a defense of slavery with opposition to a health care plan one must surely think of Republicans as motivated by evil. ["heated exaggeration" "suspiciousness" "conspiratorial fantasy" "the enemy" "a perfect model of malice" "sinister" "makes crises" "manufactures disasters" "traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds" "a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil" "the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable"]

:: A Washington Post blog included Supreme Court judge Clarence Thomas and Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele on a list "Black Folks We’d Like To Remove From Black History", along with former Haitian dictators "Papa Doc" and "Baby Doc" Duvalier, mass murdering Ugandan despot Idi Amin, Zimbabwe despot Robert Mugabe, and "DC Sniper" John Allen Muhammad. [ybu85vv] [72] A thinking of moral equivalence I guess... ["heated exaggeration" "the enemy" "a perfect model of malice" "a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil" "the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable"]

:: President Obama's official website Organizing for America in soliciting support for a phone campaign on of all dates, September 11, 2009, described citizens opposing his healthcare reform as "Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists" and encouraged followers to, "---* RECLAIM OUR LAND FROM THE HEIRS OF, YES: BIN LADEN *---* YOU KNOW IT'S TRUE *---" [7zxjlu3, ya39wn9] [73] On the President's own website opponents of his health care plan were described as "Terrorists" - obviously motivated by evil. ["heated exaggeration" "suspiciousness" "conspiratorial fantasy" "the enemy" "a perfect model of malice" "sinister" "a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil" "the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable"]

:: ~Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' blood is on Sarah Palin's hands after putting cross hair over district~ - NY Daily News headline the day after the shooting [2vpxdrt] [74] Just the result Sarah Palin wanted, apparently... ["heated exaggeration" "suspiciousness" "conspiratorial fantasy" "the enemy" "a perfect model of malice" "sinister" "a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil" "he [the enemy] has a new secret for influencing the mind (brainwashing)" "he [the enemy] has a special technique for seduction"]

:: ~ "[I]f you go back to the year 2000, when we had an obvious disaster and - and saw that our voting process needed refinement, and we did that in the America Votes Act and made sure that we could iron out those kinks, now you have the Republicans, who want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws and literally - and very transparently - block access to the polls to voters who are more likely to vote Democratic candidates than Republican candidates. And it's nothing short of that blatant."~ DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz [3jy5zww] [75] How could this kind of rationalization not be the result of thinking of one's opponents as being motivated by evil? (By the way, gentle American, Bush legitimately won the 2000 election. [*4ewkyl] [76]) ["heated exaggeration" "suspiciousness" "conspiratorial fantasy" "the enemy" "a perfect model of malice" "sinister" "makes crises" "manufactures disasters" "traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds" "then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced" "a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil" "the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable"]

:: ~ "[T]he rest of them are taking money from the Koch brothers who are Iranian arms sellers…But [Koch] traded arms with our enemies [and] I think that’s a lot worse."~ - Democratic operative, Bob Beckel using a lie to smear the Koch brothers and Republican politicians with supposedly evil motivations. [*7hgl6jk] [77] ["heated exaggeration" "a perfect model of malice" "conspiratorial fantasy"]

:: ~ "This is a struggle of good and evil. And we're the good."~ - Howard Dean referring to differences between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party [y8sap87] [78] Democrats = good. Republicans = evil. For them all to be evil, they must be motivated by evil. ["heated exaggeration" "suspiciousness" "conspiratorial fantasy" "the enemy" "a perfect model of malice" "sinister" "a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil" "the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable" "he [the enemy] must be totally eliminated"]

:: ~ "We as one nation must stand together, must fight the forces of evil, the conservatives in this country."~ - MSNBC host Ed Schultz at the 2010 One Nation rally in Washington DC [34vgb4s] [79] Liberals = good. Conservatives = evil. Ditto previous. ["heated exaggeration" "suspiciousness" "conspiratorial fantasy" "the enemy" "a perfect model of malice" "sinister" "ubiquitous" "makes crises" "manufactures disasters" "a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil" "the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable"]

:: ~ "The budget deficit is an excuse for the Republicans to undermine government plain and simple. They don't just want to make cuts, they want to destroy. They want to destroy food safety, clean air, clean water, the department of education. They want to destroy your rights."~ - House minority leader Nancy Pelosi during the debt ceiling debates of 2011 was determined to portray Republicans as America-wreckers - "plain and simple". [4yqhdjl] [80] Apparently Republicans are so motivated by evil that they actually want to eat tainted food, breath polluted air and drink dirty water. ["heated exaggeration" "suspiciousness" "conspiratorial fantasy" "the enemy" "a perfect model of malice" "sinister" "ubiquitous" "cruel" "makes crises" "manufactures disasters" "traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds" "a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil" "the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable" "he [the enemy] must be totally eliminated"]

It is not like it is only liberal leaders that display this liberal principle of conservatives being motivated by evil. Here is an article with a list of liberal columnist responses to a single issue that also observes this principle in action: [*4td8bjc] [81] And notice in the following quotation the self-projection of this commenter's own hate and demagoguery onto those he targets. This is an elaborate but not untypical sentiment from a liberal in the comment section of an internet article about conservative talk radio hosts and their listeners being crazy and hateful:

~All talk radio hosts are. Same as Fox. None of these people actually beleive what they say. Their all just paid shills who know their audience are a bunch of stupid hicks looking for an excuse to hate anything different then them and they'll ride it all the way to the bank. Their all frauds. I'm also willing to bet none of the teabaggers beleived their own shit either. It's all about being a sore loser. ... I have a theory, I think cons know their wrong but don't care. Hating and greed are just too much fun. They know global

warming is real or at the very least they don't care because they hate Al Gore (or more specifically, they just hate democrats) and "liberals" more then they care about anything else. Those fake tears Beck squirts? It's a wink to his audience: "Let's see what liberal feathers we can ruffle this time". Same with everything else he does. Same with everything all these people do. The conserviatve movement needs an enemy to survive, without it, they collapse. Most of these idiots don't have anything in common otherwise. Hence the reason the teabaggers are all splitting up. ... I think there are those who genuinly want a theocracy and to see gays, "liberlas", muslims, and anyone else they disagree with dead. And I think they know they are hypocrites for claiming to beleive in "less government". That too is also a ploy to get under the skin of "liberals". I think most of what they do, outside of the stuff that actually makes a buck, is done just to get the goat of "liberals". Even the teabaggers protesting healthcare reform know they would benefit from it. But they hate liberals more then they love thier own lives. These people want to undo all the freedom that came out of the sixties, and they're more then willing to destroy civilization just to do it.~ [sic] [79t2csb] [82]

This is self-evident regarding evil motives. The following is another example from a Daily Kos "Diary" referring to Tea Partiers and Republicans. I suggest that you go to the link and read the whole column. It is also a lesson in liberal projection where this author's obvious hate is projected onto to those he disparages. The irony is so thick you need a snow plow to get through it:

~That the primal scream of angry, hate filled, incoherent savagery on display is destroying the fabric of this country. [...] These people want our President, the legitimately elected President of the United States, the man who leads our armed forces and heads up our executive branch of government, dead. [...] They are the pitchfork wielding ignorant witch-hunting crazies who would tear this country apart if they could to seek vengeance for their bloodlust. [...] They are the betrayers of the very thing they claim to love, the United States of America, precisely because they have given in to the dark forces of rage, of racism, and of incoherent fear and paranoia. [...] These people are the crazed stalkers who would rather kill someone they claim to "love" then to see them not act exactly the way they want them to. They are unhinged. [...] The republican party has embraced treason, racism and anti-American violence directed at the President of the United States.~ [sic] [*yzwqpkt] [83]

Talk about "dark forces of rage"! Does this guy see a black hole when he looks in a mirror? Maybe not a typical liberal, but far from unusual. Want another example, gentle American? This was posted at Daily Kos on the day of the Arizona shooting on January 8, 2011:

~curse them all to hell every damn last one of them sarah palin. glenn beck, michelle bachmann, john bohner all the rest ... curse them all to hell a plague on ther families. let them all burn in hell for eternity.... im serious. its time to get serious with this human garbage. these people are human garbage... its time to take out the trash.. its time to refuse to tolerate this crap its time to take a stand against human garbage that has been avocating killing democrats for years. its time to say no NO NO NO NO you do NOT deserve to exist.. inciting people to MURDER 9 year old girls????? what the fuck damn it ... when are people going to grow some balls against this crap. these people are nazis,

racist bigots, human garbage, they are NOT human beings ... its time to stand up and start kicking ass...~ [sic] [32oh377] [84]

Obviously this guy is completely blind to the incredible irony in his own post. (You can see it - can't you, gentle American?) This guy is more outraged at Republicans and conservatives than at the guy who actually pulled the trigger. This is because in his deluded mind Republicans and conservatives are more responsible than the shooter himself. Those liberal leaders I quoted above are aiming their statements at liberals that sympathize with thinking just like this. Indeed, they encourage it. Notice that liberals never say to their liberal leaders, "You went over the line with that statement." Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Carter, Gore, Clinton and the rest of them frame conservatives as motivated by evil, and they know their liberal supporters do as well. This is how liberals can sleep peacefully at night with no moral conscience keeping them awake over liberal indiscretions. They are completely oblivious to the 800 pound gorillas in the corner of their bedroom. In a liberal's mind their motives are honorable, and that excuses any failing or indiscretion. Liberals can say anything about conservatives and Republicans, because in their minds they are fighting raw, unmitigated evil. Apparently for the conservative, "Hating and greed are just too much fun." Even President Obama's official administration website has no qualms about describing Tea Party opposition to his policies as "Domestic Terrorists". It's like liberals are their own vision of Joe McCarthy and to them all conservatives are McCarthy's 'dirty communists'. For liberals it is never just what a person does, but of what motives liberals attribute to each person. Because a liberal's motives are always noble a liberal can get away with murder (or at least negligent manslaughter) and be upheld as an icon, whereas because a conservative's motives are judged as evil, they are guilty just for breathing. Once again so that you get it, the fourth lesson about liberal attitude is: A contemporary conservative's evil motives justify their destruction by any means necessary. [*3axkyks] [85]

(Sorry to have put you through reading all of those nonsensical liberal quotations above, gentle American, but with this sort of analysis, authenticity and volume are the only ways to convincingly get the message across. Thanks for putting up with them. [happy smilie face with two thumbs up])

List of Evils C

It all begins with this liberal attitude, gentle American:

:: "This is a struggle of good and evil. And we're the good." - Howard Dean referring to differences between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party (and by extension anything that does or does not fall under the umbrella of liberalism.) [y8sap87] [78] Liberals see their world as divided between good and evil. One is either a good liberal or one is evil and very likely motivated by evil:

:: There are good liberals and there are evil oil companies. :: There are good liberals and their are evil racists. :: There are good liberals and there are evil misogynists. :: There are good liberals and there are the evil rich. :: There are good liberals and there is that evil Fox News. :: There are good liberals and there are evil global warming deniers. :: There are good liberals and there are those who are evil because they think government employees are overpaid. :: There are good liberals and there are evil SUVs. :: There are good liberals and there are evil opponents to embryonic stem cell research. :: There are

good liberals and there is the evil logging industry. :: There are good liberals and there are evil home schoolers. :: There are good liberals and there is evil Christmas. :: There are good liberals and there are those evil believers in morals. :: There are good liberals and there are evil medical insurance companies. :: There are good liberals and there is evil offshore drilling. :: There are good liberals and there are those who are evil because they believe in free trade. :: There are good liberals and there are evil tungsten light bulbs. :: There are good liberals and there those evil people who would rather arrange all of their own retirement funding. :: There are good liberals and there are those who are evil because they oppose cap and trade. :: There are good liberals and there are evil tax cutters. :: There are good liberals and there are evil coal companies. :: There are good liberals and there are evil Christian fundamentalists. :: There are good liberals and there is evil Anwar drilling. :: There are good liberals and there are evil pro-gun supporters. :: There are good liberals and there is evil fast food. :: There are good liberals and there is that evil Sarah Palin. :: There are good liberals and there is evil talk radio. :: There are good liberals and there are those who are evil because they see Medicare and Social Security as threats to the American economy. :: There are good liberals and there are the evil Ten Commandments. :: There are good liberals and there is evil Halliburton. :: There are good liberals and there are those who are evil for opposing a carbon tax. :: There are good liberals and there are those who are evil that promote abstinence. :: There are good liberals and there are those who are evil for opposing gay marriage. :: There are good liberals and there are those evil believers in American exceptionalism. :: There are good liberals and there is evil Wall Street. :: There are good liberals and there are evil pro-lifers. :: There are good liberals and there is evil shale oil and natural gas drilling. :: There are good liberals and there are evil soft drinks. :: There are good liberals and there are those who are evil because criticize public education. :: There are good liberals and there evil opponents of partial birth abortion. :: There are good liberals and there are evil free markets. :: There are good liberals and there is the evil Tea Party. :: There are good liberals and there are evil oil pipelines. :: There are good liberals and there are evil black Republicans. :: There are good liberals and there is the evil Pledge of Allegiance. :: There are good liberals and there are evil banks. :: There are good liberals and there are those who are evil because they point out that the green economy is an economic failure. :: There are good liberals and there are evil war-mongers. :: There are good liberals and there is evil, union-free Walmart. :: There are good liberals and there is evil fracking for oil and natural gas. :: There are good liberals and there are those who are evil because they oppose Obamacare. :: There are good liberals and there are those evil believers in a strict adherence to the Constitution. :: There are good liberals and there are those who are evil for wanting a Fair Tax. :: There are good liberals and there are evil patriots. :: There are good liberals and there are those who are evil for being anti-illegal immigration. :: There are good liberals and there are those who are evil who support torture. :: There are good liberals and there are evil Republicans. :: There are good liberals and there are evil conservatives. Hopefully you get the idea - in short, there are good liberals and good liberalism, and then there is everyone and everything else with which liberalism finds fault. They are all evil. As Ed Shultz explains, all of the above evils can be summed up as follows:

:: ~ "We as one nation must stand together, must fight the forces of evil, the conservatives in this country."~ - Ed Schultz at the 2010 One Nation rally in Washington DC [34vgb4s] [79]

The strategy that liberals use to paint everyone not like them as evil is to pretend (that playing stupid thing again) that EVERYONE knows that liberalism is always correct, but those who publicly disagree are doing so only because they have evil motives, not because they actually think they have better solutions. For instance, conservatives don't believe in tax cuts because they think they are prudent. They know that liberal tax increases are the better solution - the only reason conservatives want to cut taxes is because they are motivated by evil greed. Here is another example: Global warming deniers know full well that global warming is caused by mankind, but oppose doing anything about it because they are motivated by evil, not because they honestly believe it to be a waste of resources. And here is another: Pro-lifers don't actually believe that a fetus is fully human - they just say so because they are motivated by evil to harm women. This warped reasoning allows liberals to avoid having to argue the substance of any issue - they can pretend (play stupid) that just about anything they don't like is a result of evil. They simply proclaim that any opposition must be willfully rejecting what is right (liberalism), because of course any opposition must be motivated by evil. This is the simple world of no-substance-necessary, good-and-evil liberalism.

Mock Your Enemy C

You can tell when two rivals cross swords which one has no respect for the other. Disapproval and disdain will soon show themselves through how they treat their opponents. There will be mocking disrespect. This is a deliberate Saul Alinsky strategy (more later). Except for entertainers and journalists no one else is normally excused for mocking others. Mocking is generally considered a classless and childish action of a bully, but mocking is also the last resort of a person who thinks he is fighting willful evil. In a politician it is generally associated with an autocrat or elitist. It is certainly something no President should be known for, but will inevitably be accused of doing occasionally, sometimes legitimately. Of course, if the majority of the press has a bias against a President one would expect the accusation of elitist mocking to be inflated where even marginal cases would be magnified when manufactured indignance is included. But if a President has the majority of the media biased in favor of him one would expect any accusations of mocking to be reserved only to extreme cases with a pass for anything marginal. So I ran a little test to see which President relatively shows respect to his opponents and which one doesn't. I did Google searches for >"Bush mocks"< and >"Obama mocks"< (the only two Presidents of the blog era of the internet). [ya8knub] [86] Naturally one only "mocks" one's opponents.

Of the two Presidents, on a level playing field Obama has the most likelihood of garnering the smallest number. After all there is only one of his name who is prominent in the media and he has not been around that long, whereas there are three Bushs, all of which who have been in the public spotlight for decades. And as for media bias, they are practically slavish toward Obama and hate the Bushs with a passion. So quite naturally one would think that >"Bush mocks"< should garner many multiple the amount of hits that >"Obama mocks"< would. Here are the Google results for April 14, 2012:

>"Bush mocks"< = 12,500 This result includes three prominent Bushs (George H.W., George W. and Jeb) in the news over a period of decades with an almost universally opposed media.

>"Obama mocks"< = 473,000 This result is just for Barack Obama over a period of just a few years with a majority sycophantic media.

Given the tilted playing field one would expect that the Bush number would be ten or twenty times that of the Obama number, but what we see is a complete reversal of what one would expect, especially given the fact that the field actually tilts against the Bush name and in favor of Obama. President Obama is described as mocking other people forty times more than the Bushs. So what can we conclude? George H.W., George W. and Jeb Bush must be pretty classy people. Whereas Barack Obama is obviously a boorish punk. He is surely petty and childish to achieve such an astronomical number compared to the Bushs when every consideration is tilted in his favor. Truly, President Obama lives up to his reputation as an autocratic bully. [*249sxmj] [87]

Again we see that it is liberals who show no respect for their opponents. It is quite obvious as to why this is, don't you think, gentle American? Obama and other liberals think of their conservative opponents and their ideas as motivated by evil and thus not worthy of any respect, but only of loathing, which is naturally reported in the media and the blogs as mocking their opponents and ideas. Why do liberals think President Obama is such a good speaker? Because he is a very smooth and accomplished mocker - liberals' favorite kind of speech. Here we can see our latest liberal principle illustrated in irrefutable numbers: A contemporary conservative's evil motives justify their destruction by any means necessary. Including classless mocking. (With no accomplishments to brag of in the November, 2012 election, look for President Obama to use his ace-in-the-hole mocking strategy against Mitt Romney in every speech.)

The Paranoid Style In Contemporary Liberal Ideology C

An understanding of the liberal belief that conservatism is motivated by evil can arguably be traced back to an essay written in 1964 by historian Richard Hofstadter called The Paranoid Style in American Politics. [6d4qrn] [88] This pictured the then rightwing as paranoids, supposedly seeing communists crawling out from under every rock. Of course the spread of communism was a serious threat in the sixties over which President John F. Kennedy almost started a world war, but the purpose of the paper was to paint the rightwing as detached from reality, and to an extent it worked. Partly based on this perception Republican Barry Goldwater was soundly defeated in the 1964 presidential election. However, this paradigm would not continue indefinitely, and indeed Hofstadter conceded that the paranoid need not only be rightwing, having found many different groups in history fitting his definition of the paranoid. The paranoid is known for his anger and fear of the enemy. By the late sixties the left had supplanted the right as the paranoid in America. Hofstadter never agreed with the student liberal radicalism of the late sixties (the New Left) despite having been a student, communist radical (the Old Left) in his youth. Apparently without explicitly stating it, Hofstadter saw these early liberals as the new Paranoid Style in American Politics (and if he didn't, he should have, as you will see, gentle American). The then budding contemporary liberals of the late sixties began to portray any who opposed the nanny state of the Great Society as desiring to

deny the presumed owed benefits for the underprivileged. This they saw as an assault on society that could only come from an enemy of evil motivation. Along with this came the demagoguery of painting conservatives as racists. Then, of course, there was the Nixon administration and Watergate combined with the perceived injustices of the Vietnam War which finally pushed liberals over into a permanent paranoid style about supposed evil conservative motives. Hofstadter wrote:

~I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind.~

Think back to earlier in the chapter of our list of liberal quotes about conservatives by liberals, and our list of evil entities perceived by liberals to saturate American society. Can you not see the "heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy" in their accusations, gentle American? Liberalism now perfectly fits the "paranoid style" that Hofstadter had seen recurrently in history, which at the time he wrote of it led him to define the then rightwing as the paranoid, but it is now liberals that see evil monsters crawling out from beneath every rock and lurking in every corner of society, whether it is in the spheres of politics, business, the environment, race, gender, the media, the rich, education, healthcare, retirement, taxes, Wall Street - the list goes on and on and on. Apparently the monsters with evil conservative motives have infiltrated every nook and cranny of American society, gentle American.

Be aware that the following quotations were written by Hofstadter as a generic description of what he saw as a paranoid style of world view. I ask you to read these as descriptions of the thinking of a contemporary liberal about a contemporary conservative "enemy" and see if they don't comfortably fit:

~The enemy [the conservative] is clearly delineated: he is a perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman—sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving. Unlike the rest of us, the enemy is not caught in the toils of the vast mechanism of history, himself a victim of his past, his desires, his limitations. He [the conservative] wills, indeed he manufactures, the mechanism of history, or tries to deflect the normal course of history in an evil way. He [the conservative] makes crises, starts runs on banks, causes depressions, manufactures disasters, and then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced.~

This is what the paranoia of contemporary liberalism thinks about contemporary conservatism this very day, but as described in a parallel from 1964. Reread that last sentence and think of liberalism's conclusions about the 2008 financial crisis, gentle American. The Bush administration is universally seen by liberals as having caused the 2008 financial crisis, supposedly producing a close equivalent to what Hofstadter described as a run on the banks and a near depression. And who benefited in liberals' eyes? Why those evil Wall Street fat cat bankers and industry CEOs who are synonymous with conservatism in the liberal mind. Conservatives supposedly produced the misery and enjoyed the profits of it. Or think about global warming. Evil conservatives have caused global warming with their evil free markets recklessly producing carbon dioxide, profiting off the destruction of the world while the poor of the world suffer at their hands, and even worse, evil conservatives are the "deniers" preventing noble liberalism from fixing this calamity. How about the Iraq War? Why did President Bush and conservatives

want to invade Iraq? Well obviously, to get Iraq's oil for Bush's buddies and of course, Halliburton, and to enrich the military manufacturing complex. "Bush lied - thousands died!" simply meant that the Iraq invasion was the result of evil motivations. Hofstadter goes on describing the "paranoid" directly, but again we will look at it from today's eyes:

~The paranoid [liberal] spokesman sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms — he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He [the liberal] is always manning the barricades of civilization... he does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician.~

Does this not describe Al Gore and global warming? Does this not describe virtually every liberal? Liberalism is fixated on the supposed apocalypse of global warming. Al Gore has been their hero is this regard, but almost any liberal will tell you of the supposedly upcoming inevitable cataclysm if America does not completely surrender to liberalism as the salvation for the "whole world". And what about Medicare and Social Security? Liberals see conservatives as conspiring to remove Social Security and destroy Medicare in order to throw seniors out on the street. Ditto when some natural disaster like Katrina hits, liberals jump to the conclusion that conservatives only see it as an opportunity to kill liberals and crush a liberal state. Or oil exploration. Conservatives don't care about the environment - they just want to plunder the land and the sea for greedy profit. Abortion isn't about children - conservatives just want to punish women for their carelessness. Then there are taxes. Conservatives don't want to lower taxes because they honestly believe it is beneficial for the country - that is just their excuse. Really they just want to further impoverish the poor and enrich their wealthy benefactors. And conservatives don't want smaller government because of some imagined benefits - they just see government as an impedance to furthering their own greed. Of course there is also racism - conservatives are just plain racist, because they are. Almost anything a conservative says can be taken as an insult by a liberal. In fact, conservatism itself is considered an affront to liberalism. These are all deeply seeded paranoid delusions in liberalism, gentle American. 

~Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish. Since the enemy [the conservative] is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he [the conservative] must be totally eliminated — if not from the world, at least from the theatre of operations to which the paranoid [the liberal] directs his attention.~

This why liberals do not wish to engage conservatives - they wish to destroy conservatism. Think about this, gentle American. What do liberals resent the most about Barack Obama? That he has compromised even a little bit with Republicans. Remember, "This is a struggle of good and evil." How can one "compromise" with evil? What about Glenn Beck? Did liberals want to debate his ideas when he was on Fox News? No, they wanted to shut him up. Same with Pat Buchanan MSNBC, same Lou Dobbs on CNNHN, same with Andrew Breitbart at the Huffington Post, and Dana Loesch on CNN. The list goes on and on - don't' forget about Rush Limbaugh. They want to destroy Fox News and get it taken off the air. To liberals this is not a battle of ideas - it's a terrifying war of good versus evil.

~The paranoid’s [liberal's] interpretation of history is distinctly personal: decisive events are not taken as part of the stream of history, but as the consequences of someone’s will. Very often the enemy [the conservative] is held to possess some especially effective source of power: he controls the press; he has unlimited funds; he has a new secret for influencing the mind (brainwashing); he has a special technique for seduction...~

Is this not what liberals now think of conservatives? Conservatives are brainwashed and controlled by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. They're financed by Wall Street and the Koch brothers. Katrina wasn't only a natural disaster - someone blew up the levies! 9/11 wasn't Islamic terrorism - it was a conservative conspiracy. Jared Loughner wasn't just crazy - he was controlled and directed to kill. The Tea Party isn't a grass roots movement - it is a corporate creation to seduce the ignorant and terrorize the nation. Opposition to anthropogenic global warming theory is not based on genuine doubts - skeptics have evil, conspiratorial motives directed by big oil. Look at our list of liberal perceived evils above - there are dozens of them! Liberals are paranoid that just about everything is evil, and they see this universal evil as embodied in conservatism. Indeed, Hofstadter may have had some prophet in him:

~This glimpse across a long span of time emboldens me to make the conjecture—it is no more than that—that a mentality disposed to see the world in this way may be a persistent psychic phenomenon, more or less constantly affecting a modest minority of the population.~

Well he got that right - except that it has not been the rightwing which he was vilifying at the time that has persisted with these beliefs, but the left through its then new contemporary liberalism that supplanted the supposed rightwing paranoids of the sixties, developing into Hofstadter's "paranoid" of the contemporary era. Whereas Hofstadter saw the rightwing of his day as paranoid about evil communism everywhere, it is now liberals that are paranoid about evil conservatism everywhere - they see evil conservative motives as monsters crawling out from under every rock. But not indefinitely. Hofstadter obviously could not foresee this book series, gentle American.

The classic case of mass paranoia in the world is that of Muslims toward the Jews and Israel. In the modern vernacular Muslims are Judeophobic and/or Israelphobic - they fear and despise Jews and Israel just for existing. They fantasize that Israel is the major cause of the world's ills, and certainly their own. It is no different for liberals. Liberals are paranoid of anything that is outside of their liberal ideals or the control of liberalism. In this sense liberals are phobic - anyone or anything other than liberalism is viewed as an enemy motivated by evil. It is beyond that of seeing conspiracies, though no doubt conspiratorial undercurrents are imagined frequently. The liberal sees the world as made up of good (liberalism) and evil (anything other than liberalism). There is no gray area in the contemporary liberal world view. This is our seventh revealed principle of liberalism: Compulsive paranoia is the foundation of contemporary liberalism.

In a moment I am going to ask you to return and reread the above list of liberal quotations in the section, Conservatives are Motivated by Evil, gentle American. Now you will understand what is contained in the square brackets following each quote. They are Hofstadter's descriptions of a paranoid, how they view the "enemy", and what they view the "enemy" as doing. Now go back and reread the list of liberal quotations above

with your third person analysis. See for yourself if they do not fit like a hand in a glove with Hofstadter's descriptions noted in the following square brackets, then come tell me you can't see the severely delusional paranoia saturating every quotation. (We'll further examine Richard Hofstadter's The Paranoid Style in American Politics in a later chapter.)

Deprogramming Lessons C

So here are the lessons we have learned about programmed liberalism so far (remember, third person analysis):

:: Former President Bush deserved criminal prosecution for denying suspected terrorists undeserved rights even beyond what is granted by the Geneva Conventions, because as a conservative his motives were presumed evil.

:: President Obama can be given a pass for denying suspected terrorists and their neighbors basic human rights, and instead executing them with Drone missile strikes, because as a liberal his motives are presumed honorable.

:: Former President Bush deserved to be prosecuted for supposedly lying America into a war with Iraq, because as a conservative his motives were presumed evil.

:: Former President Clinton can be given a pass for lying America into a war with Serbia, because as a liberal his motives were presumed noble.

:: Former President Bush need not be given any credit for stopping continuous mass murder in Iraq, because as a conservative his motives were presumed evil.

:: Former President Clinton can be given a pass for ignoring the genocide in Rwanda, because as a liberal his motives were presumed noble.

:: Liberals think of everything that is not liberal or benign as evil.

:: Because liberal leaders think of conservatism as motivated by evil they relentlessly and childishly mock it.

:: Liberals are perpetually paranoid of anything that is not liberal as a threat to liberalism and the "world".

Liberal Principles so far:

:: Cause: Compulsive paranoia is the foundation of contemporary liberalism.

:: Symptom: A contemporary liberal's honorable motives and noble fight against contemporary conservatism excuses all liberal failures and indiscretions.

:: Symptom: A contemporary conservative's evil motives justify their destruction by any means necessary.

:: Symptom: Contemporary liberalism requires a strict adherence to playing stupid.

:: Symptom: Without irrational double standards contemporary liberalism cannot exist.

:: Result: Contemporary liberalism is rife with unintended consequences.

:: Result: Contemporary liberalism is absurd.

Contemporary liberalism is an ideology of paranoia, gentle American. In the minds of liberals their world is populated with monsters - evil conservatism and anything or anyone who are at odds with liberalism. So let's go back to our MCTE question from the beginning of this chapter: "Would you describe a person that constantly imagines evil monsters all around them as deeply, delusionally paranoid, gentle American?" Yeah, I would too. This phobia of anything other than liberalism being evil is expressed in our principle: Compulsive paranoia is the foundation of contemporary liberalism.

In the first chapter we had learned that liberals live their lives in direct contrast to their core desire to have the liberty to direct their own lives. They do this in part by adhering to the self-imposed foreign principles of playing stupid and accepting irrational double standards. In this chapter we have learned how liberals can hold to playing stupid and to irrational double standards without losing a wink of sleep agonizing over them through a pattern of self-justification that includes a narcissistic/paranoid belief that liberal motives are always pure, and opponents' motives are always evil. It is on this base of compulsive paranoia that the liberal programmed mind embraces the principles of playing stupid and accepting irrational double standards, that are justified by generating the principles of a war between noble liberal motives and evil conservative motives, that then reinforce the paranoia. It is virtually circular - each step perpetuates the other, but the key to understanding liberalism is the compulsive paranoia. (Compulsive is constant, constraining behavior or thought, whereas impulsive is occasional, reactionary behavior or thought. Liberalism is compulsive in its world view and impulsive in its application by individuals.) So liberals live their lives in a direct contradiction of their core belief. It is the paranoia of evil monsters out there everywhere that leads liberals to give up directing their own lives just to keep from being eaten up. Everything is out of control. Monsters are ruining everything. Somebody must take control. So the liberal voluntarily and incrementally gives up the control of directing his own life to a life of indenture so that the monsters can be kept at bay. But when liberalism demands of you, gentle American, to be phobic of everything outside of liberalism as evil, leading you to cumulatively cede to others the decisions in your own life, how does that provide you with the freedom to accurately analyze your world and direct your own life? I wouldn't describe a perpetual, compulsive state of paranoia as liberating. Would you?

So, what do you think is the primary difference between a contemporary liberal and a contemporary conservative, gentle American? It is paranoia. Liberals are afraid of almost everything. The sooner a liberal realizes that paranoia drives their life, the sooner they will want to get rid of that paranoia. Quite simply, separate the foundational paranoia from a liberal and you end up with a conservative. That is what the process of deprogramming liberalism is all about, gentle American.

I hope you don't see me as an enemy motivated by evil, gentle American. I don't hate you and I don't want to destroy you. Remember, I was once in your position - I sincerely desire to help you. If you can accept this, I am grateful for the benefit of the doubt you allow me, or at least the opportunity you are giving me to make my case. [tip of hat]

Deprogramming Exercise C

Use your third person analysis to judge things in your everyday life, gentle American. Make your life about analysis instead of ideology. Watch out for your own motives when

doing, thinking and saying things, and watch for the motives you attribute to others. Make your decisions based on analysis. By choosing analysis instead of reactionary ideology you are choosing to direct your own life. Beware of labeling things outside of liberalism as enemies or evil. Maybe try a little so-called liberal tolerance first. Beware of liberal paranoias clouding your thinking (here is a partial list of common liberal paranoias: [*clsfqog] [89]). And here is a good column of comparisons between conservatives who are guilty just for existing, and famous liberals who can do no wrong. Double standards, anyone? [*csqlg78] [90]

With this chapter we have discovered the explanation for how liberals can so effortlessly play stupid and accept and apply irrational double standards to virtually any issue with no hint of regret. Ponder what you have learned in this chapter when you go to bed tonight, gentle American. In the following chapter we'll look at the mental mechanism that allows liberals to preserve the above principles.

Humor, Sort-of C

Here again is a little end of chapter humor break from the "And you thought Sarah Palin was stupid..." file under the liberal principle: Contemporary liberalism is absurd.

If I were to tell you that under the Obama administration the Treasury Secretary, who is responsible for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), was testifying before the head of House Ways and Means Committee, who is also responsible for the IRS, about the Secretary's objectives for the IRS in tracking down tax evaders, you would probably think, "Good! Go get those tax cheats like Joe the plumber!" But if instead it was you that was telling me the exact same thing I would surmise that one liberal tax evader who also happens to be the Treasury Secretary was meeting with another liberal tax evader who happens to be the head of House Ways and Means Committee, to discuss how to reign in other liberal tax evaders like the White House Chief of Staff, or the liberal nominee for administration Health and Human Services Secretary, or the liberal considered for the administration Chief Performance Officer, or the liberal nominee for the administration Secretary of Labor, or the liberal for the administration U.S. Trade Representative position, or the liberal nominee considered for the administration undersecretary for International Affairs, or the liberal nominee for the administration Health and Human Services secretary, or the liberal administration choice for chief of protocol for the State Department, or the new liberal Senator from Minnesota, or the Democratic Senator for Missouri, or the "many members" of the Democratic Party in Congress who according to Maxine Waters (D-California) have also made "mistakes", or the liberal union members that make up the civil service. [dech28, yjcdb4r, pwozft, 7tfgc6d, dk6m2l, b2mr9t, cmwukw, ygcp2wv, akmagk, yju2cqt, mp8kuy, 4vpfzc3, yazgkfx, 2fc9nez] [91] Additionally, as of September 10, 2010, I might think of the 41 people working directly for the White House that also owed back taxes. [2arhd54] [92]

Here's the punch line: President Obama has called out what he labels as "deadbeat companies" - those that are awarded government contracts while still owing back taxes. He claims they are "gaming the system". [yj7j5zz] [93] I thought it was a Democrat's patriotic duty to pay their taxes - at least according to Joe Biden (I guess he only meant that for Republicans). Maybe some liberal could explain to me how these above listed Democratic politicians, administration appointees and government workers weren't also

unpatriotically "deadbeat" for "gaming the system", and shouldn't they be asked to resign or be dismissed? (Of course I am sure all of their motives were purely honorable. [/sarcasm])

Chapter 3

Self-interest

Mini Critical Thinking Exercise C

We have all experienced the rebellious fourteen-year-old teenager. They are narcissistic, egotistical, know-it-alls that can't be told anything. They are never wrong. Everyone else is a moron if they don't agree with them. All of their problems are someone else's fault, and it is always someone else's problem to solve. They are sure that everything desirable is achievable if everyone would only listen to them. They are quite simply, completely irrational, but don't bother to tell them that - they think all adults are brain dead idiots! Many of us have gone through that stage - some have never grown out of it. Have you grown out of your rebellious fourteen-year-old stage, gentle American? Jus' wonderin'...

This chapter will introduce principles regarding the intellectual mechanics of how a liberal can consistently and systematically play stupid. Tell me, gentle American, whether these numbers are progressively becoming smaller or larger: 5,413, 5,526, 5,656, 5,674.

Liberal Defense Response C

So what is your response to the first two chapters of this book, gentle American? Have I appealed to your intellect? If we could converse directly on the issues presented, could we have an intellectual exchange of ideas? Could we co-examine the reasoning within each issue and leave out the ideology? Or has your liberal defense response been activated? Of course, I don't expect you to respond to that last question, because obviously you don't even know what a liberal defense response is, so let me explain.

First though, it is a very good sign that you are reading this book at all. Your curiosity is a positive signal that you may have developed, or are beginning to develop beyond the typical programmed liberal defense response stage. That would mean you are capable of rational dialog. We could actually have a civil discussion. This is very encouraging evidence that your liberal conditioning is not deep and can be completely removed.

But if your instinctive response is to simply wave off what I have presented and reject it with a scoff, this is a sure sign of your liberal conditioning and resultant paranoia, and it obstructs our ability to interact on an intellectual level. On a philosophical level this is known as being an ideologue (as used in a negative connotation). An ideologue always hears what he wants to hear, but never hears what he does not want to hear. You are an ideologue when you refuse to allow yourself to examine that which challenges your own beliefs. Any ideology can produce ideologues, but liberalism is saturated with them. In fact, liberalism cannot exist without them. The scoff reflex is a base instinct of liberal self preservation triggered by an ingrained paranoia to prevent facts and reason from upsetting the liberal conditioning they suffer from. Let me repeat something I wrote in chapter one, gentle American:

"I sincerely wish to help you understand how programmed liberalism hampers your life. I will presume that you are at least somewhat aware of most current and historic political and societal issues. I will appeal to you as a critical thinker. As a critical thinker I will presume you are intellectually capable of following reasoned arguments. I will also presume you are not a scoffer who simply waves off counterarguments with no analytical assessment. Basically a scoffer is a know-it-all who thinks he has nothing to learn - sort of like a rebellious fourteen-year-old who can't be told anything. I am afraid I have nothing to offer liberal scoffers and feel sorry for them. Unfortunately, as is true with dogmatic scoffers of any kind, without an attitude adjustment both rebellious fourteen-year-olds and liberal scoffers are beyond reason or help."

Now, I admit that my conclusion was a little harsh. It was for shock value, hoping to get you to concentrate on my arguments instead of skimming over them with the glazed, upturned eyes of a scoffer or rebellious fourteen-year-old. Let me repeat, I want to appeal to you as a critical thinker:

~ "Critical thinking is self-guided, self-disciplined thinking that aims to take the reasoning we all do naturally to a higher level. It is the art of analyzing and evaluating with the goal of improving thought. When making a decision, it is the difference between weighing information to come to a logical conclusion and making snap judgments without understanding the information."~ [yetdfgv, 3bh4wx] [1]

A scoffer or ideologue is the opposite of a critical thinker. Ideologues are lazy and fearful. They don't invest in the ideas they embrace and defend. Whereas critical thinkers earn each doctrine they hold through hard work. You are scoffing when you respond to any particular issue with a snarky, holier-than-thou attitude that shuts down dialog. [*7lq8ww4] [2] You and I must be able to interact as mutually respected equals, gentle American. If you cling to this defensive attitude that smacks of self-righteousness, your ability to genuinely relate to what you are reading will be irreparably hampered. You know when you are being a scoffer, gentle American. You certainly know when you are being snarky. This is your decision to make. Can we have a pleasant intellectual interaction? Do you have this ability, gentle American? Unfortunately my experience with liberals is that many are just not capable of civil intellectual discourse. (This by itself should make a huge statement to you about the deficiency of the affected liberal mind, gentle American.) It may take an extreme amount of conscious exertion on your part. You will have to concentrate on resisting your conditioned instinct-like scoff reflex. Do you think you can do this, gentle American? A hint that may help is for you to check your emotions at the door, so to speak. Focus on the text to the exclusion of your emotional reactions to what you read. Focus on your Mr. Spock demeanor. Mr. Spock is not an ideologue and he never scoffs. He is a critical thinker. Remember your third person analysis. Think of yourself as an alien who has come to earth on a mission to critically examine America's ideological arguments. Your assignment is not to pronounce which ideology is correct, but to dispassionately and analytically assess the evidence of each issue. When I present you with an ideological dilemma it is not your job to prove your liberal ideology. It is your job to determine what the contextual investigation combined with critical analysis of the issue demonstrates. A contextual investigation involves discovering all relevant circumstances and evidence pertaining to an identified issue. Then critical analysis provokes questions whose answers will lead to a conclusion.

Focus on developing these results, not the ideology. Each time you allow your liberal ideology to intrude into our discussion you are acting like an ideologue and are obstructing your deprogramming. Scoffing off counterarguments is just another sign of compulsive liberal paranoia: Compulsive paranoia is the foundation of contemporary liberalism.

Avoiding the Scoff C

If you find you have read a paragraph and realize you have lost your focus on the issue being discussed and are instinctively scoffing it off, go back and read it again. If you find yourself skimming over text, stop, check your emotions, and go back and purposely and carefully read what you skipped. Skimming or skipping over text is a sign of fear and non-commitment. Again, focus on your Mr. Spock persona and third person analysis. I am assuming you are committed to reading this book series for your own benefit. (But again, if you are here on some noble quest to somehow prove that I am wrong and/or motivated by evil, then go right ahead - playing stupid with yourself is a sure sign of a deficient liberal mindset.)

Don't be afraid to think through the evidence and reasoning presented. It is the only way to learn and genuinely progress. Be honest with me, gentle American, or at least be honest with yourself. Be aware of how you read this book (remember, this book series is about attitude). Do you just gloss over the challenging parts of an argument? If on an issue we have just discussed I asked you to make my argument for me in your own words without any sarcasm or spin, could you dispassionately do it? This will address whether you have paid attention and understood my points, and whether your are serious or not. Can you specifically pick out the points you object to? Can you write out your objection in a reasoned, methodical counterargument without any 'tude? If you can't and you must resort to snarky rebuttals, you don't have a reasoned counterargument. Be aware that the scoff reflex will also attempt to cover itself by rationalizing that it does not exist - and by extension that my reasoning is not worthy of being considered. This is the very definition of an ideologue! By thinking this way you are not being honest with yourself, gentle American. You are simply acting like a programmed liberal. Have you scoffed at previous parts of these first three chapters, gentle American? Did you read every point about Ted Kennedy in the previous chapter? Or did you skip ahead sneering it off as boring, unnecessary or "all lies"? Did you read every motivation quote by liberals about conservatives and Republicans? Or did you dismiss them as trivial or distortions? Did you persist through the whole list of liberal evils? Or did you just scoff them off as irrelevant or "garbage"? Then go back and reread them, gentle American, reread from the beginning. Check your emotions at the door and start again. You are not here to be entertained, and you are not here to pass judgment, but to learn. Remember what I said above: Critical thinkers earn each doctrine they hold through hard work. Do some of my points or lists create anxiety in you? Good - they should. Deal with it! Sometimes my points must be made with large volumes of examples - I don't want you to think my points are trivial because I only use a few examples. You must read every last word. If you allow yourself, you will learn more from this book series about yourself and the world around you than any other books you will read in your entire life. (But of course if it is a rebellious fourteen-year-old reading this book that is not here to seriously read and learn, or that thinks they are special and some sort of exception, then I don't expect them

to bother with my advice. They are obviously much smarter, much more read, much more thoughtful, much more observant, and much more researched about all of this than me - I'll be looking forward to reading their book series on how liberalism is so great when they get around to putting down their Game Boy and writing it. [/sarcasm])

So we have now discovered another principle of liberalism: Contemporary liberalism relies on a programmed, instinct-like scoff reflex to preserve itself from the consequences of critical thinking.

Are you even now chafing at this discussion, gentle American. Are you offended? Do you think I am talking down to you? This too would be part of your programmed instinct-like scoff reflex. It will tell you that I have been condescending and you have been insulted and therefore a civil and reasoned response is unnecessary. Remember, gentle American, I did say that even though this book deals with many important societal issues, they are only the tools that I use to illustrate the errant principles of liberalism. Let me repeat, gentle American, this book series is primarily about liberal attitude, and liberal attitude has a certain amount of ugliness to it. Unfortunately, when I hold a mirror up to you this ugly liberal attitude will occasionally display itself. It will do neither of us any good if you go stomping off in a scoffing huff. Really, it all boils down to whether you view yourself as a civilized person or not. By civilized I mean, can you be civil? So, are you civilized, gentle American? Earlier I promised to be civil to you throughout this book series. Can you reciprocate?

You must be willing and able to ignore and overcome your scoff response in order to continue with the attitude of a critical thinker - remember Mr. Spock and your third person analysis. I am going to explain how programmed liberalism originated, how it came to dominate society, how you were afflicted with it, how to recognize it in yourself and others, how it hampers your life, and how you can instead embrace your core value of liberty. You have been bewildered with misinformation that has produced in you a bad attitude - a contemporary liberal attitude. I am going to deluge you with undeniable reality, gentle American. I am going to overwhelm you with facts and reason to the point where your liberalism goes b-zzzt and self-destructs. This is why it is important that you read every word - intently! After all, as we concluded in the first chapter, it is highly likely that you are not actually a liberal, but just think and act as though you are a liberal because of your societal conditioning. Can you be a critical thinker and reject your naturally ingrained scoff reflex? If so, this book series can definitely help you. And I will encourage you throughout as well, gentle American. You won't be alone in your fight. Good luck...

(So if you are serious about this I salute you, gentle American. I know this is not easy. Serious learning is serious work, and having your deficiencies so blatantly pointed out to you makes it all the more difficult. Remember this is not your fault and I am not here to attack you - I'm here to help. You're here to get help. At the end of the book series I am going to ask you if you have read every word in Deprogramming Liberalism. You simply must be able to honestly answer, yes. Go back and reread whatever you may have skimmed over in the first couple of chapters. Make an asterisk in the margin or a line so you know where to rejoin our discussion after you have caught back up. Here, I'll do it for you.)

*****

Self-interest C

Do you know what self-interest is, gentle American? For our purposes it is a measure of each person's personal tipping point between liberalism and conservatism. How you treat yourself (your self-interest) defines whether you are a contemporary liberal or a contemporary conservative. The strength of your self-interest is the basis of your personal motivation. This gets back to our original question from chapter one about whether you prefer to have the freedom to direct your own life or not. Even as you see yourself as a liberal you likely answered that you would prefer to direct your own life, but in effect as a liberal you have actually given the direction of your thinking over to others. See for yourself, gentle American.

Everyone lives their lives with self-interest. It is for a healthy self-interest that a person reaches out in friendship. It is self-interest that drives a person to go to college and to pursue a career. It is for self-interest that one seeks a mate. It is even for self-interest that one rakes the leaves in the fall, and regularly brushes one's teeth. Quite simply, a healthy self-interest is about preserving, maintaining and bettering one's self.

In the 1950's Princeton social psychologist Solomon Asch illustrated in a study that many people will conform to a group viewpoint even if they disagree with that viewpoint and it is against their own self-interest to do so. [yaul9ks, b2f4z] [3] A group of collaborating participants and one unwitting subject who was unaware that the other participants were collaborating, were asked to identify two lines of equal length drawn on cards mixed with other lines of differing lengths. The collaborating participants in each test group were first secretly instructed to choose two lines of unequal length and insist that they were the equal lines. Asch found that only about one third of the singled out subjects consistently stood up for the plainly obvious conclusion that the collaborators were wrong in their choice of lines. In other words, two out of three subjects could not consistently stand up for the self-evident truth that was clearly on the board in front of them when pressured by the other secretly collaborating participants in each group.

This capitulation is known as Uncle Tom Syndrome [y9t8wmz] [4] where a subject feels threatened and submits to demands in order to thwart the threat (exacerbated by the 800 pound gorilla in the corner that the two selected lines don't match). In this case the subject complies with the group to alleviate the threat of being singled out. In a more practical sense this is a description of group-interest over self-interest, gentle American. A healthy self-interest would be for the subject to preserve their own integrity by standing up for the self-evident truth against the group pressure to accept what is obviously untrue. Many subjects willingly sacrificed their own integrity to remain harmonious with the group and so willingly allowed themselves to be manipulated. They each became their own Uncle Tom. Each capitulating subject made a political decision to conform (play stupid) along with the group by aligning with what the group purported to be correct. Politically the majority's decision made it feel correct even though this was at odds with the plainly obvious reality. This is how programmed liberalism works. Through an abandonment of healthy self-interest to unhealthy group-interest what is obviously untrue can be comfortably accepted as truth. This directly relates to our first liberal principle that states: Contemporary liberalism requires a strict adherence to

playing stupid. Think about this, gentle American. In Solomon Asch's study two out of three subjects capitulated to the collaborating group at some point. That means that just on the societal odds alone there was a two out of three chance you and I would be born to end up as an Uncle Tom to some extent. And look at me - I was a liberal. And here you are - a liberal. The luck of the draw was against us, gentle American.

Conducting Our Own Study C

So let's conduct some critical thinking exercises with our own little study, gentle American. Put on your Mr. Spock demeanor and third person analysis. First we must define a budget deficit, a budget surplus, and debt. For our purpose the Wikipedia definition will do:

~A budget deficit occurs when an entity spends more money than it takes in. The opposite of a budget deficit is a budget surplus. Debt is essentially an accumulated flow of deficits.~ [6mat3yp] [5]

Here is a little more detailed explanation from the University of Colorado at Boulder under Principles of Macroeconomics:

~A deficit refers to the difference between what the government spends each year and government revenues. If annual spending exceeds revenues then a deficit is present. The national debt refers to the accumulation of deficits over time. If there is a deficit, the debt will increase, while a surplus will reduce the debt.~ [6wp6xtu] [6]

Pretty simple, huh? You run a government. Your tax revenues amount to $10 for the first year, but you spend $11, so your deficit and debt is $1. You do the same thing in the second year. Your deficit is again $1. When you add the deficit of $1 from the first year to the $1 deficit of the second year you now have a debt of $2. So let's say your debt after five years is $5. In the sixth year you have a $1 surplus. You subtract that $1 surplus from your $5 debt and now the debt goes down to $4 after six years. So, if you have a deficit your overall debt increases by the amount of the deficit. If you have a surplus your overall debt decreases by the amount of the surplus. So let's look at some real world numbers: [38nmoq, 2werbr] [7]

Graph #1 :: Graphs & Tables: [83svvqf]

Here we have 800 pound gorilla lines representing the amount of national debt in trillions of dollars for the American government as the deficits were added to it each year. I have employed some liberals to play the role of the collaborating group and you will play the role of the subject, gentle American. As a collaborating group the other liberals have been secretly instructed to insist that the three lines representing the years 1998 to 2000 are actually getting progressively shorter because supposedly there was a surplus for those years. (Remember, surpluses reduce the debt.) You as the subject of our little study must now make your choice. Do you agree with the collaborating liberal group (will you play stupid along with them) or do you accept what your own eyes plainly tell you, gentle American? Are the lines 1998, 99 and 00 getting progressively longer or shorter? Is the debt going higher or lower each year? How important to you is your self-interest, gentle American? Will you hold on to your integrity and resist the pressure to conform to group-interest, or perhaps what might be better thought of as groupthink? Or will you submit to the pressure, and sacrifice your integrity for the sake of conforming with your liberal soul mates and allow yourself to be manipulated by them? Perhaps a specific definition of groupthink will clarify the situation:

~Groupthink being a coinage — and, admittedly, a loaded one — a working definition is in order. We are not talking about mere instinctive conformity — it is, after all, a perennial failing of mankind. What we are talking about is a rationalized conformity — an open, articulate philosophy which holds that group values are not only expedient but right and good as well.~ - originator of the term, William H. Whyte [6omfc] [8]

I will add to clarify that groupthink does not necessarily demand that group values be right and good, only that they be seen to be right and good. But let's drill down a little

deeper. Groupthink is a result of a decision to conform with the group, so groupthink is a resultant condition. Often the groupthink of liberalism is a result of deception, but more often it is a result of playing stupid - a deliberate decision to lie to oneself. It is the decision to knowingly and willingly accept two unequal lines as equal (or longer lines as shorter), but it is not a sort of a wink and nod decision where everybody in the group is in it for a lark. It is a calculated perversion of one's own thinking to accept a lie as truth at any cost - even one's self-interest. No one in the group ever acknowledges that anyone in the group may be playing stupid. To be in the group one must play along with the lie accepted as truth without a hint of acknowledgement that one knows that the two lines are unequal.

I am sure you are well aware that our little study is no fictitious example, gentle American. The Clinton administration claimed to have had surpluses in each of the three years from 1998 to 2000. President Clinton himself claimed in September of 2000:

~ "This represents the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States" ... Clinton also announced the federal government paid down the national debt by $223 billion this year, and by more than $360 billion since 1998, the largest debt reduction in U.S. history.~ [2c7wnh2] [9]

It seems that even Bill Clinton accepts that a surplus reduces debt, but my question is this: Where are the reductions? For over a decade the orthodox media and contemporary American liberals have accepted this groupthink claim and carried the water on this fallacy, and unfortunately many conservatives have been fooled into acquiescence as well. In fact I have only ever heard or read of two liberals ever objecting to the claim of Clinton surpluses (more later). You can see this is a fallacy, can you not, gentle American? The debt went up EVERY year. There were NO surpluses. Go back and look at the definitions given above. See for yourself what government debt means. If you still have doubts, I challenge you to find a definition of surplus where the total debt goes up. Debt is an accumulation of deficits, minus any surpluses. Bill Clinton used this very definition. But once again, the debt NEVER went down. There were NO surpluses. Read these links: [*5u7zvo, *mx3yjo, *363mw7o, *252bpxg] [10]

Oh sure, you can go find innumerable liberal and orthodox media websites (sorry for the redundancy) that insist that Bill Clinton produced surpluses (and even some conservative sites). The Wikipedia page referred to above later contradicts its own definitions of deficit, surplus and debt with a chart supposedly showing surpluses for 1998 to 2001. The FactCheck.org website provides succinct definitions:

~The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus.~ [2ufnnu] [11]

This exactly parallels Bill Clinton's statement and our definitions above. Knowing that they have this definition and without looking at their linked page, one would naturally figure that FactCheck.org probably has a chart posted similar to ours with the "total amount the government owes" from their definition for each year of the Clinton administration, clearly illustrating that the debt increased each and every year and so concluding that there were no surpluses. But (surprise!), FactCheck.org drank the groupthink Kool-Aid as well. They actually turned their own definition into an 800 pound

gorilla. Instead they post some self-serving, meaningless CBO chart that by itself tells only a fraction of the story, and concludes that there were indeed surpluses, but who are you going to believe - Wikipedia and FactCheck.org who wittingly or unwittingly drank the groupthink Kool-Aid and ignored there own 800 pound gorilla definitions, or what you can see for yourself, gentle American? Here is some wisdom that may help: 

~ "A heretic is a man who sees with his own eyes."~ - Gotthold Ephraim Lessing

I would add that a heretic possesses a healthy dose of self-interest and is more than willing to stand up to unhealthy groupthink. The heretic can see the 800 pound gorilla in the corner of the room and acknowledges it. I defy you to find a website that claims surpluses and also shows the national debt totals going down for those years. The Wikipedia page doesn't. And FactCheck.org certainly doesn't. Both are testaments to how incredibly effective and blinding liberal programming is. No doubt the authors and editors think of themselves as quite objective, factual and intellectual in their assessments, but they cannot see the 800 pound gorillas that they themselves have created that are virtually beating them over the head to get their attention! I have searched through many sites claiming surpluses, but not once have I seen any of them display the national debt totals as going down (although some make the claim without displaying the numbers, like FactCheck.org and Wikipedia). Right about now you should be asking yourself this, gentle American: Using FactCheck.org as a canary in the coalmine, do you think that they are just so damned incompetent that they can't follow their own definitions to an accurate conclusion? Or do you think that they are trying to bamboozle you into accepting that their two unequal lines that have been selected in secret are actually equal? But does it really matter which is the case, gentle American? Either way if you listen to them you will have to sacrifice your own personal self-interest and integrity to their selfish manipulations.

Go ahead and do your own internet search for >Clinton surplus< [34xlhav] [12] and you'll find thousands of websites claiming surpluses, but notice that they conveniently NEVER show you a chart of the national debt totals for those years. Do not be confused when plain "public debt" is referred to - it is only the "national debt" (also known as "gross federal debt" or "gross national debt" or "total federal debt" or "total national debt" or "outstanding public debt" or "national public debt") that matters for this issue. (Remember our definitions.) For reasons unknown these terms have been mixed together. What is important to distinguish is that plain old "public debt" is only a fraction of "national debt". The numbers I listed above are "total federal debt" which include all intragovernmental debt obligations ("public debt" does not - I'll explain more about this later.) For instance FactCheck.org attempts to justify their position with this explanation:

~The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton~

The "public" debt, or what FactCheck.org refers to as "debt the government owes to the public" is NOT the "total amount the government owes" from their very own definition! Again - "public debt" only refers to a fraction of the "national debt". All that matters is the TOTAL national debt - if that doesn't go DOWN there was NO surplus. (If FactCheck.org changes its linked page above without reference to their previous error here is the same page with the definition, and also the last claim that I quoted from them as collected by the Internet Archive [2eft85v] [13]) Think about this, gentle American.

Using FactCheck.org's claim of a surplus (and liberals' and the CBO's) using only the fractional "public debt" for their rationalization, the American government can end up producing a "Clinton surplus" while still borrowing itself into further total debt! How irrational is that? Or looked at in our vernacular, how playing stupid is that?

Truisms Versus Liberalisms C

Do you know the difference between a truth and a truism, gentle American? A truth is something that is purported to be true, but a truism is more. A truism is a truth that is self-evident. (I am not referring to the cliché side of the definition, but instead to a determinative action leading to a conclusion.) If I tell you that there is a stack of twenty sheets of paper on the table, the asserted truth is that there is a stack of twenty sheets of paper on the table - according to me. It becomes self-evident for you - a truism - when you count the stack and confirm that there is indeed a stack of twenty sheets of paper on the table. You then have determined a conclusion. Before you do this my 'truth' is but an assertion and nothing more. My 'truth' may or may not be true. In law this is known as a simplex dictum; an unproved or dogmatic statement. You can only be sure when you turn my truth into a truism for yourself by counting the number of sheets. However, there is no precise antonym for the word truism, so here I would like to coin a new definition for the word 'liberalism' and fill a gap in the English language. In a loose sense of the word, a liberalism would be to take a liberty with something, usually meaning to stretch something beyond its reality, like a little white lie, or even a full blown malicious fraud. For instance, you ask me for the score of the baseball game last night. As a Yankees fan I taunt you as a Red Sox fan with a response that the Yankees slaughtered the Red Sox last night, when in fact they only beat them by a couple of runs, but I know you don't know that. I take a liberty with the score to get in a friendly dig at you. This is, in the vernacular of this book series, what I call taking a liberty with the truth, a 'liberalism' (it is just a happy coincidence that it parallels the ideological word 'liberalism' as well). But more than that, a 'liberalism' is the opposite of a truism. Whereas a truism is an examined claim that turns out to be self-evident truth, a liberalism is an examined claim that turns out to be a self-evident fallacy. The precise truth is that the Yankees did win but it wasn't a slaughter. I took a liberty with the truth and produced a liberalism. The self-evident fraud, or liberalism, becomes evident to you when you later look at the box score of the game.

Now my little white lie about the score of the game - a liberalism - was of no important consequence, just a bit of fun, but a liberalism can also be more serious. Imagine if those supposed twenty sheets were copies of an important document for a presentation to a board meeting and I only made you fifteen copies because we were both competing for the same promotion and I wished to make you appear incompetent. You would look like a fool when you went to pass out your important documents to those twenty board members during your presentation. It would have been better for you to have confirmed my claim of truth as a truism before walking into that meeting rather than discovering my truth was a liberalism only when it was time to distribute them.

The truth is that there are two lines out of many that are equal in length, but the collaborators insist that two unequal lines are the equal ones. This is their 'truth' - they have all agreed to play stupid together. The truism is that when you examine all of the lines you can determine for yourself which two lines are self-evidently equal and that

they are not the two lines that the collaborators have chosen as their 'truth'. After examining all of the lines their 'truth' has now for you become a 'liberalism' - a fraud. It is self-evident to you that their two lines are unequal. We can then surmise one of two things about a liberalism. Either a liberalism is a deliberate fraud where the collaborators agree to defraud the subject, or the collaborators themselves have been deceived into thinking that their two lines are equal (or it could be a mix of knowing and ignorant collaborators). In either case though, they are promoting a liberalism as though it was true and are either playing stupid or aren't playing.

In life truisms are always more reliable than truths, because truisms are self-evident and truths are simply taken on faith. When a supposed truth is presented to you from a source you do not have absolute confidence in, it is always in your self-interest to discover what is self-evident. Only then, by fulfilling your self-interest (preserving, maintaining and bettering one's self) can you confirm whether the so-called truth is actually a truism or a liberalism. It is in your self-interest (the preservation of your integrity) to judge for yourself which lines are equal in length and not just take the word of the collaborators as truth. (Incidentally this is why I use internet links for my citations in this book series and insist that you at the very least examine the ones identified with an *. I don't want you to have to rely on my claims as truths. I want you to investigate for yourself and see that my truths are also truisms. This is where your Mr. Spock demeanor with third person analysis again shows its benefit.)

We have recently learned that liberals have motives that encourage them to take a liberty with the truth:

Liberal attitude: A contemporary liberal's honorable motives and noble fight against contemporary conservatism excuses all liberal failures and indiscretions.

Liberal attitude: A contemporary conservative's evil motives justify their destruction by any means necessary.

There are two elements of why liberal truths when examined turn out to be self-evident frauds. The first is because they are deliberately created to be frauds. The second is that often for liberals, the truth is what they want to be true. They desire that the truth lines up with the above two principles, and many more. Remember, liberal truths are created by collaborators and manipulators. They insist that two lines that are self-evidently not equal are equal. Collaborators are radical leftists who consider the advancement of their goals more important than any honest, self-evident truth. Saul Alinsky, a most noted radical manipulator who literally wrote the book on strategies for the left, said this in his book Rules for Radicals (the organizer he refers to is the head collaborator):

~ "An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth -- truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing.... To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations."~

~ "The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of

ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work."~

~ "The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means..."~

Or in other words, the collaborator should lie (play stupid) as need demands when fighting the war against evil. Although Alinsky's book was aimed at community activism, many of his principles have been wholeheartedly embraced by the liberal elite in America. For example, Hillary Clinton wrote her college thesis on Saul Alinsky, and Barack Obama was mentored by acolytes of Alinsky. It is hardly a coincidence that Alinsky's radicalism surfaced into contemporary liberal thought about the same time that liberals were evolving into the defining group described by Richard Hofstadter's The Paranoid Style in American Politics. It then should not surprise us that liberal truths when inspected turn out to be self-evident frauds, or as I term them, liberalisms. So when liberals claim that there were surpluses from 1998 to 2000 and they use this so-called truth as a demagogic political weapon, it would probably be a good idea to do a little research to see exactly what is self-evident. As is usual with practically all liberal so-called truths, when scrutinized they turn out to be liberalisms, and as mentioned above, it is not unusual for conservatives who do not search out the self-evident truth for themselves to be hooked into the liberal assertion as well, also touting it as a so-called truth, or at least unchallengingly accepting it as such. This is another reason why this book series is beneficial for more than just liberals. We are also examining truths and determining truisms from liberalisms, something even many conservatives have not done with many issues. Here is an interesting, parallel explanation with examples of our new meaning for the word liberalism: [*782x4z3] [14]

Illustrating Our Study C

How are you doing fighting your scoff reflex, gentle American? Have you just scoffed off what I have shown you? The collaborators are a group of scoffers. Groupthink depends on the liberal scoff reflex. They are relying on you to drop your self-interest and this silly Mr. Spock logic stuff, scoff at those increasingly lengthening lines and instead conform to their fallacy - a liberalism. In fact their selfish desire for power over you demands that you play stupid and allow yourself to be manipulated by them. Perhaps your decision might be easier if I were to explain how groupthink came up with these supposed surpluses, and how in the real world there were no surpluses, only more deficits and increasing debt.

You have an annual income of $100,000.

You spend $80,000 of your $100,000 budget and are left with an apparent surplus.

$100,000 - $80,000 = $20,000 surplus

But you also spent $30,000 from your line of credit on your house. 

Total incoming money: $100,000 + $30,000 = $130,000

Total outgoing money: $80,000 + $30,000 = $110,000

So it still seems like a $20,000 surplus: $130,000 - $110,000 = $20,000

But you still owe the $30,000 line of credit: $20,000 - $30,000 = -$10,000

So what at first seemed like a $20,000 surplus actually turns out to be a $10,000 deficit.

Now, gentle American, if you were to go to some snake oil salesman with your budget numbers I am sure he would more than gladly agree that you do indeed have a $20,000 surplus, "Just the right amount to buy this here Brooklyn Bridge." But if you were to go to any eighth grader they would give you the bad news that there is no surplus and that you actually have a deficit of $10,000.

The government plays the same sort of game as the snake oil salesman with the federal budget and trust fund obligations (money borrowed from the trust funds - also known as intragovernmental holdings or intragovernmental debt). Essentially they have two sets of accounting books. One is the book with the phantom surpluses. It is this book that they use for talking about the budget to the American people where they do not include the trust fund obligations that are in their second book. It is this sort of deceptive government accounting that Bill Gates said was “so blatant and extreme,” that “Enron would blush”. [5s6asat] [15] The Clinton administration claimed it had surpluses when in fact it was no more than accounting tricks. That's like you not including what you owe on your line of credit in your end of year budget - you just put it in your second accounting book and claim a $20,000 surplus from the first book. When you look at both Clinton era accounting books so that all government income, borrowing, spending and trust fund obligations are taken into account at the end of every year the overall national debt increased. Notice that the CNN article quoted above described Clinton's statement as:

~Clinton also announced the federal government paid down the national debt by $223 billion this year, and by more than $360 billion since 1998, the largest debt reduction in U.S. history.~ [2c7wnh2] [9] [my emphasis]

The "national debt" which includes both accounting books most certainly DID NOT go down. Did Clinton actually say this, or did CNN put words in his mouth? I couldn't find the direct quote through Google, but does it matter which is the case? Not really. This is the story we were given and liberals unquestioningly believe it. However the numbers illustrate otherwise. Every year there was a deficit, gentle American. That is why the "national debt" numbers increased every year. The following numbers are the total approximate amounts just owed to trust funds by the federal government. Whatever surpluses there might have been in one accounting book were erased by these obligations and other "off-budget" items in the other book. [*22rx7rs] [16] The increase of approximately $200B from one year to the next is the equivalent to your line of credit debt in our above illustration: [5u7zvo, 252bpxg] [10]

1998 - $1.8T     1999 - $2.0T     2000 - $2.2T     2001 - $2.4T

To be fair, this is not just a Clinton administration accounting trick. All administrations since Lyndon Johnson began the policy have played the same game. It's all about politics as usual - manipulation. The only difference is that the Clinton administration numbers worked out to some apparent surpluses and they attempted to capitalize on these so-called surpluses for political advantage, lauding Clinton economics as superior to those of other administrations, but as you will see in book two of the series, gentle American, Clintonomics was not at all what liberals and the media filter made it seem once the

truisms have been separated from the liberalisms. (And to be more fair, Republicans attempted to stop this sort of fraudulent accounting, but were thwarted by Democrats. [23u3hdp] [17] A few years later Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings attempted to expose the fraud in the administration's budget numbers as well. [29ngx74 - scroll down] [18])

Let's get real here, gentle American. National debt is national debt. It doesn't matter where it comes from - it is still national debt. The government plays games with its money numbers every year. If you were to do the accounting for your business the same way with two sets of books, you would be called Enron, be convicted for fraud, and go to jail. Conservatism is about honesty. It is conservative to yell out that the emperor has no clothes. It is liberal to play along stupid with groupthink and allow yourself to be manipulated with a claim that the Clinton administration had three years of surpluses when it is just plain untrue. It is a liberalism - when their supposed truth is examined and it becomes exposed as a self-evident fraud.

How are those national debt lines from our above study looking to you now, gentle American? Can you live with the fact that they get longer every single year? If you can admit to this and resist the pressure of liberal groupthink, then you have taken another step in your liberal deprogramming. Congratulations, gentle American! You have just put your own self-interest ahead of the programmed liberal pressure of groupthink! (And you have just put yourself at odds with virtually every liberal in America.)

Through our little critical thinking exercise combined with some judicious self-interest we have dispelled an erroneous assertion of selfish liberal groupthink. This leads to our next conclusion and principle of liberalism: Self-interest and critical thinking are enemies of contemporary liberal groupthink.

Passive Groupthinkers and Aggressive Groupthinkers C

Well that was fun, wasn't it, gentle American? I enjoy solving problems using contextual investigation and critical thinking, don't you? Groupthink is so pedestrian, so yesterday, so e-a-s-y. You don't need to think for yourself, you just let the collective do your thinking for you. But where is the challenge in that? Even children enjoy games that stretch their minds. Let's do another one!

Oh, wait! Is my enthusiasm a little misplaced here? I feel like a little league dad whose Johnny in the deciding playoff game just hit his first ever grand slam in the top of the ninth inning so his team could take the lead. It looks like his son will be the hero of the game! But his team ended up losing the game! The Liberal Giants got beat in a come from behind, Tebow-like bottom of the ninth victory by the rival Conservative Rangers! Nobody else is sharing the dad's joy. Even little Johnny is conflicted. I'll try not to let my exuberance get the best of me. I am just happy for your grand slam, is all, gentle American.

There are two kinds of liberals, gentle American, alpha liberals and beta liberals. The first are the collaborators. These are ideologues in the most accurate sense - deliberate manipulators. They are programmed liberals that insist that two lines of unequal length are equal because to them this is how the game is played. These are the aggressive groupthinkers or alpha liberals. Ignore the reality - 800 pound gorillas don't exist. In fact,

don't even look for the reality, just push, push, push the liberal mantra (which is of course a liberalism, but thought of as a truth). After all it is a quite well known axiom that if a lie is repeated enough it becomes a self-actualizing truth to those who come to believe it. They perpetuate our next liberal principle: Contemporary liberals embrace the strategy of the noble lie. Plato originated the idea of the 'noble lie' (a liberalism related to the 'big lie' [*3m5gpgm] [19]) to describe how the elite fool the masses into supporting them. The previously mentioned liberal attitudes insisting that liberals are in a fight against evil and that liberal motivations are always honorable, are used to excuse their use of the noble lie as a tool of persuasion and weapon of demagoguery. Aggressive groupthink alpha liberals propound the noble lie of Clinton creating budget surpluses to convince voters that contemporary liberal politics works and to demagogue their opposition. Reasoning doesn't work with the alpha liberal. In fact reasoning is their enemy. Reasoning and critical thinking expose their fraudulent claims. Let me repeat the liberal principle we found above: Self-interest and critical thinking are enemies of contemporary liberal groupthink.

The other kind of liberals are those that passively accept that two lines of unequal length are equal even though they can see with their own eyes that they are not equal (the 800 pound gorilla). These are passive groupthinkers or beta liberals. They agree with what the aggressive groupthink alpha liberal's proclaim. They turn their head away (play stupid) so they don't have to look at the unequal lines. They don't want to rock the boat. Best just to play along and get along. This is where the mother robin analogy comes in handy. If you ever come across a robin's nest with eggs or chicks the mother Robin will flop around on the ground squawking and making like it has a broken wing. It is all a distraction to divert the threat from the nest. Passive liberals often protect noble lies this way. They often know it is all a scam, but they see themselves as protecting something noble and fighting evil. This again directly relates to our first principle of liberalism: Contemporary liberalism requires a strict adherence to playing stupid. It begins with lying to oneself. Liberals are often aware that what they espouse is a lie, at least in the beginning, but continue to play along even with truisms staring them in the face. They think it is noble to perpetuate the noble lie, because in their minds they are fighting evil. Eventually - and it may not take long - they will not even remember that their new truth began as a lie (or has since been proven to be a lie). Playing stupid becomes their identity on that issue. This is often the tipping point in transition from being a beta liberal on an issue to becoming an aggressive alpha. Even though liberals can be divided between these two groups of aggressive and passive groupthinkers (alpha and beta), each occasionally fall within the other group depending on the issue or situation. It is quite usual to begin as a passive groupthinker beta liberal on an issue and progress into an aggressive groupthinker alpha liberal once one is comfortable with a liberalism (but thought of as a truth of course). Most liberals, however, can be predominantly pegged in one group or the other. Which kind of liberal were you, gentle American? Were you an aggressive groupthinker alpha liberal or a passive groupthinker beta liberal?

The Awakening C

On second thought don't answer that, gentle American. It doesn't matter, because now there is a third kind of liberal; the conflicted, transitional liberal. That is you right now, gentle American. You can see the lines of the 800 pound gorilla in the corner staring right

at you. Your eyes are locked. I know that feeling. I know that anxiety - when something you have believed and promoted has had the legs kicked out from under it and you can no longer play stupid about it. You were proud as a liberal to be able to think to yourself that a liberal President was able to produce surpluses when even conservative presidents like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush couldn't do it. You loved it when liberals made that argument - maybe even you made it. It validated your liberalism. It made you feel superior, and now you feel deflated. Sorry, gentle American, but you had better get over it quickly, because if you have the stomach to continue reading this book series, that anxiety is going to return again and again as your groupthink ideology of playing stupid is turned on its head by self-evident reason and reality. No longer will ignorance be an excuse for you. Each time, you are going to be forced into a corner surrounded by 800 pound gorillas, where you will have to decide how to respond to them. To continue with your liberal groupthink you will have to knowingly and deliberately make a calculated decision to continue playing stupid on each issue. Or you can accept the truisms I present and distance yourself from liberal groupthink, reclaiming your self-interest.

But here's the good news, gentle American. After a while those anxiety moments will instead turn into relief. Sooner or later you are going to learn to naturally embrace your newfound ability to acknowledge that those two groupthink lines are indeed unequal in length. By combining your new understanding of liberal principles with critical thinking you will begin to strengthen your own self-interest against the pressures of selfish liberal groupthink and develop an honest relationship with yourself. You will transform into a beta conservative where common sense and your own self-interest lead you to say no to the assertion that those two unequal groupthink lines are equal.

This is what I call the awakening. The awakening is when you realize that your life has been run by beliefs that were never your own. They were someone else's truths implanted in you. Not only were they someone else's beliefs, they were frauds masquerading as truths. At the awakening, you will realize that these fraudulent beliefs have enslaved you to an ideology of subjugation that is a matrix of lies, half-truths and manipulations, but it is even more than this. It is not just what you believe - it is how you think that is repaired with the awakening. It is a realization that you have been playing stupid by lying to yourself for a very long time. Your current anxiety is a positive sign that deprogramming is taking hold in you, gentle American, so let's continue and capitalize on it.

Deprogramming Lessons C

The so-called Clinton surpluses are emblematic of almost everything that is wrong in America - liberalism. If there is one thing that I want you to get out of this book series, gentle American, it is that liberalism is about willingly and actively playing stupid. Liberals think that because they have been given a talking point that seemingly could not be easily refuted that they had a winning argument, but it is only because they have been directed not to listen to the counterarguments. They have been conditioned to think like a rebellious fourteen-year-old. Liberalism has convinced Americans that from 1998 to 2000 the government wasn't still in the process of bankrupting the country, when in fact it was. The only way one can believe the government debt wasn't still going downhill financially is to childishly ignore the reality and pretend it wasn't so (play stupid). When almost the whole country is pretending, it is a playing stupid game on a massive scale - a societal dysfunction - liberalism. Where do you now stand on this surplus issue, gentle

American? Have you grown out of your rebellious fourteen-year-old stage, gentle American? Can you get past your scoff response and stop lying to yourself?

We have discovered in this chapter three new, important liberal groupthink principles:

Attitude:    Contemporary liberalism relies on a programmed, instinct-like scoff reflex to preserve itself from the consequences of critical thinking.

Result:    Self-interest and critical thinking are enemies of contemporary liberal groupthink.

Attitude:    Contemporary liberals embrace the strategy of the noble lie.

These principles are all about how liberals are able to hold on to unreasonable assumptions and dismiss reasonable counterarguments - play stupid. It is all about preserving selfish group-interest and preventing self-interest. Liberals live in a world of liberal 'truths' that when examined turn out not to be truisms, but liberalisms - self-evident frauds. Aggressive groupthinkers (alpha liberals) promote these noble lies and passive groupthinkers (beta liberals) swallow them whole. Playing stupid becomes so normal that it is experienced as genuine everyday life - one lives as a liberal despite having a core belief that is antithetical to it (the mechanics of this will be thoroughly explained in a following chapter).

Deprogramming Exercise C

"Libberls! They're so dadgum smart ya can't tell 'em nuthin'! They don't need no stupid context or critical thinkun'! They jus' always knows what's right is all!" I expect that is how I am supposed to think when a liberal just up and brushes aside good clean reasoning as if it were nothing more than crumbs on the breakfast table. They've done no research, haven't thought the issue through, don't have a clue about the counterarguments. But hey! Katie Couric says so! Or they read it on the Huffington Post or Daily Kos a thousand times! What the hell else does a good, right-thinkun libberl need to understand the world?!? Anyone arguin' aginst those two unequal liberal lines surely must be a brain dead moron! "Pass me my Game Boy!"

It's time to grow up, gentle American. You can't remain fourteen years old forever. It is time for you to pledge that you will no longer accept that two unequal lines are equal when selfish liberal groupthink demands it. There is nothing noble about the noble lies of programmed liberal groupthink. At least be honest with yourself, gentle American. Stop playing stupid. Make a commitment to yourself to defend your own self-interest and integrity, and apply critical thinking to every groupthink mantra. Don't allow yourself to be manipulated. Accept no liberalisms as so-called truth. Your self-interest is about you directing your own life, gentle American. As long as you continue to capitulate to groupthink is as long as you are allowing others to direct and manipulate your life.

Do you think you will be able to sleep tonight without your scoff reflex kicking in to high gear as you ponder the things you have learned in this chapter, gentle American? Remember your third person analysis, and tomorrow we will deal we the origination of contemporary liberalism.

Humor, Sort-of C

Once again we come to our little end of the chapter humor (well not really humor, but a joke - a sick joke - or maybe just sick) but still based on the principle: Contemporary liberalism is absurd. And frightening:

Using fraudulent budget numbers the Clinton administration in 1999 projected a completely ridiculous and laughable budget surplus of $5.9T over the next 15 years. [yctknx2] [20] Of course Clinton wouldn't be President any longer, and any blame for its failure would fall on his successors - how convenient. Even his former budget director, Leon Panetta responded, "Any time you get out beyond a few years, you're in never-never land." If Clinton was in "never-never land" what the hell do you call what is happening today with trillion dollar plus deficits for as far as the eye can see and a President that is so alpha liberal that he doesn't seem to even care?!? I don't think he is even playing stupid. He seems so out of touch with reality he is certainly well beyond that...

Chapter 4

Origin

Mini Critical Thinking Exercise C

~Our public education institution is like the mushroom farmer. It keeps the students in the dark and feeds the student manure.~ [28a4bbz] [1]

As you might have guessed, this chapter is about the origin of liberalism in America. The liberal principles to be introduced have to do with a liberal's view of society. Ask yourself this, gentle American: Is the foundation of your belief system the equivalent to a classical liberal? Also consider this: As a principle, would JFK have preferred his government to direct each citizen's life, or would he have preferred them to have the freedom to direct their own lives?

Alpha-Beta Scale C

To understand the Alpha-Beta Scale you need to understand this, gentle American: Liberal ideology is about being seen to be right. Conservatism is about getting it right.

Alpha Liberal :: Beta Liberal :: Transition :: Beta Conservative :: Alpha Conservative

At the end of chapter three we discussed alpha and beta liberals, and touched on beta conservatives. I want you to understand these terms, as they will be our scale to judge your deprogramming progress as you proceed through this book. The scale is a measure of agenda versus reason.

<--- Agenda - Tipping Point - Reason --->

or

<--- Liberalisms - Truths - Truisms --->

As you first picked up this book you were either predominantly an alpha liberal or a beta liberal, gentle American. We have already defined an alpha liberal as an aggressive groupthinker and a beta liberal as a passive groupthinker. Basically alpha liberals enjoy being in charge of the agenda, whether it is the current President of the country or just

some anonymous liberal telling a conservative to f-off on an internet message board. They think of themselves as "high-information voters" despite the fact that their information is only that which they share with each other. Exploring opposing viewpoints is beneath them. After all, what's to explore? Conservatism is about evil and no one need get their hands dirty over that. The uber-liberal Daily Kos social website, of which I read often, is filled to overflowing with alpha liberals who are blindingly ignorant about the conservatism they think they are despising - they have a completely caricatured view of conservatism. Even when they watch Fox News or listen to rightwing talk radio their ingrained scoff response distorts what they hear and prevents them from accurately understanding the issues from a conservative viewpoint. They are at war with an army of straw men that Genghis Khan would fear (more later). [75l4l] [2]

Alpha liberals also enjoy directing other peoples' lives through manipulation. At the top, alpha liberals decide which two lines are truth, and further down the scale lesser alphas promote and defend the two unequal lines declared as truth. Alpha liberals could care less about reason and reality - the agenda is the only thing. They are always on the lookout for convincing arguments that they can use to present their agenda issues as liberal truths - which almost always turn out to be liberalisms. They research issues to find supportive sophistic arguments for their agenda or they parrot other alpha liberal arguments. If on occasion an argument actually agrees with reality it is simply a happy coincidence, but here is what is important to understand about alpha liberals and their arguments: They believe they are so right that they don't need to legitimately prove it to themselves or anyone else. 800 pound gorillas could not be more irrelevant. In this sense they are narcissists. All they are concerned with is convincing everyone else to believe that their two chosen unequal lines are of equal length. Manipulation is their game, and because they are convinced that they are battling evil with their own honorable motives and that their beliefs are absolutely unimpeachable, they can manipulate every day and still sleep well every night without a hint of pause or regret. Most liberals have at least a little alpha in them that occasionally surfaces, and sadly to many, manipulation defines their life.

All liberals have been or are beta liberals who blindly or knowingly support whatever two lines are defined as truth by alpha liberals. Beta liberals are basically yes-men. They are not brave. They can often see that the two chosen lines are not equal, but in their mind they have chosen their side and they will stick with it (playing stupid). They feel safe in numbers and protected by the herd who all nod their heads in unison. 

One-on-one, most liberals when presented with contextual evidence and critical analysis will back down, but publicly, and privately in their own mind, they will again stick to their guns, feeling protected by the likeminded herd and scoff reflex. This is why I am confident I can counsel you out of your liberalism, gentle American. It is just you and me - and you have to answer to yourself at bedtime each night. You will have to answer whether you wish to continue playing stupid with yourself. Or to be blunt - will you continue to lie to yourself?

The beta conservative is a step over the tipping point, gentle American. The beta conservative may not fully understand the issue being discussed, but they are willing to decide where they stand on which two lines are equal based on their own common sense. They are certainly brave enough to say no to the alpha liberals' bullying assertions of two obviously unequal lines being equal. The beta conservative knows where their self-

interest lies and they will defend their integrity. They may not be able to argue the issue with the alpha liberals, but they won't take any drivel from them either.

The alpha conservative is at the opposite end of the scale from the alpha liberal. He is the liberal's worst enemy. The alpha conservative knows the issues because he has thoroughly researched them in search of truisms, refusing to draw conclusions outside the boundaries of his research. He is the one who takes out his pen and marks out on the edge of one card the length of the first alpha liberal line and then places the marks beside the second alpha liberal line to illustrate that they are not equal in length - liberalisms. This is the point where the alpha liberal scoffs and the beta liberal gets nervous, seeking protection in the herd. Feeling nervous, gentle American?

Groupthink = Presumptions C

The groupthink thought process is dominated by presumption. It is presumed that whatever the groupthink propagates must be correct. Even though their two lines don't exactly match up, for a liberal that is not a problem, because despite the mismatch, their presumption is that they are indeed the two equal lines. Therefore no contextual investigation or critical analysis are necessary. This is how liberals can always see themselves as the smartest person in the room. But I would much rather be the most researched person in the room (an alpha conservative), wouldn't you, gentle American?

For instance, the smartest person in the room might declare that President Clinton was an economic genius for producing budget surpluses. But, the most researched person in the room will just shake their head as groupthink self-congratulations swirl around, intoxicating each of the other smartest and wannabe smartest people in the room. Unfortunately, if you were to ask any of these smartest persons in the room if they had actually researched the numbers to verify their presumption, they would probably insist that they had and you are an a-hole just for asking. If you were to ask them to define a surplus, do you think they could do it, gentle American? I think they could probably get pretty close to a correct definition. The problem for them is that they have never actually applied it to the Clinton years to see if those supposed surpluses actually fit their definition. They just presume there is no conflict.

Let's look at another example. Ask a liberal how the Great Depression ended and they invariably credit President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal economic policies. FDRHoover became President in 1933 (I call Roosevelt, FDRHoover because he and Herbert Hoover were joined at the hip, blood brothers - more later). The depression was already well under way for two years, so, you would think that a successful strategy to end the depression would have worked within a year or two, three at the most. The more severe but brief depression of 1920-21 was cut short by President Warren G. Harding through drastic government spending reductions, a reduction in the size of government, removal of government regulations and tax cuts - the exact opposite of FDRHoover's supposed solutions. The Great Depression did not end for another thirteen years until after the end of WWII when FDRHoover was already dead! (This will be thoroughly dealt with in book two.) Liberals just presume that FDRHoover fixed the Great Depression, because those are the two lines they are told are equal, but, even FDRHoover's own Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau admitted utter failure in May, 1939:

~ "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong . . . somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. . . . I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot."~ [yea7hpd] [3]

Not only did FDRHoover's policies fail to stop the Great Depression, they prolonged it (remember - the 1920 depression only lasted 1 1/2 years - much more later). Do you see that liberal presumptions trump reality, gentle American? Never presume that a so-called liberal truth is also a truism. In all likelihood it is a liberalism, and with a little contextual investigation and critical analysis it will indeed be exposed as a self-evident fraud. I will present many examples in the following chapters, but first let's examine the history of liberalism.

The Father of Liberalism C

So how did America end up in this unfortunate state where liberalism is infused throughout society? And you are probably wondering how you were personally programmed into liberalism, gentle American. The answer to one is also the answer to the other. But let's first deal with the most pressing question about liberalism. Is liberalism a giant conspiracy? Well, it mostly started that way, but then its handlers lost their grip on the leash of their little pet Frankenstein and it took on a life of its own. Let's start at the beginning.

What is now known as contemporary American liberalism began with arguably the most famous (I would argue infamous) educational philosopher of the past century, John Dewey. He was a progressive utopian dreamer who lived from 1859 to 1952 and is known as the "Father of Modern Education", which is hardly different from saying the "father of contemporary liberalism". Although Dewey was a philosopher, his means were educational and his goal was decidedly political. [Essay: Why History Matters, *ydfvufq] [4] John Dewey first became directly associated with the National Education Association in 1918 and was granted an Honorary Life President position in 1932. Dewey dreamt of a new world order of freedom from individual responsibility, and with a complete dependence on others:

~ "Independent self-reliant people (would be) a counterproductive anachronism in the collective society of the future [...] (where) people will be defined by their associations."~ [ye56v5p] [5]

Dewey saw the individual as an enemy of the "collective society". He saw his purpose as a "mission" to convert the great unwashed from their supposed prisons of traditional thought and morality. John Dewey was an original signatory of the first human manifesto in 1933. [28lk7e5] [6] Its aim was to create a new secularist "religion" that was little different from raw Marxism. Dewey even deigned to call his message "the gospel". He would have his mission do away with such base concepts as fault and blame. There would be no more gender stereotypes where boys did boy's things and girls did girl's things, and no such judgments as good and evil, no more right and wrong. Poor choices like criminal behavior were no longer an individual's sole responsibility, but the result of a faulty society producing this behavior in individuals. All choices would now be equally

valid. Morality would be disposed of as an encumbrance to reaching the "true selves". This man was truly delusional in historic proportions - and the educational establishment loved him! John Dewey's philosophy is also known as moral relativism, a branch of secular humanism.

Out of a total thirty books considered, John Dewey's foundational literary work, Democracy and Education was voted as the fifth most harmful book of the 19th and 20th centuries by fifteen conservative scholars and public policy leaders. [p6rw3] [7] Ranking just behind monsters like Adolf Hitler and Moa Zedong, this places Dewey with 'interesting' company. Though few know his name today, his vast influence over North American society cannot be overstressed. 

Before we continue I want to clarify something. John Dewey was not a liberal by contemporary standards - he was not a paranoid. In other words, liberals today would probably not agree with John Dewey on many points, and he would probably be horrified with much of contemporary liberalism's reactions to their paranoia. Nevertheless, he is the father of contemporary liberalism. Remember our liberal principle: Contemporary liberalism is rife with unintended consequences. Well, John Dewey's progressive utopianism as the genesis of contemporary liberalism was also saturated with unintended consequences, and contemporary liberalism is the all-encompassing label for his unintended consequences. It is what happens when utopianism inevitably goes paranoid. Remember our paranoid principle: Compulsive paranoia is the foundation of contemporary liberalism.

Other influential predecessors of modern liberalism include President FDRHoover and Roman Catholic Priest, Father Charles Coughlin who both preached the utopian values of collectivism during the Dirty Thirties. FDRHoover established the Democratic Party as collectivist (although they did reject FDRHoover's collectivist Second Bill of Rights fearing a return of the Great Depression after WWII), and Coughlin, through his charismatic radio program converted the Roman Catholic Church in America. [69vpxhg, 7mrw5r4] [8] Margaret Sanger and John Maynard Keynes were two other collectivists of note. However, John Dewey more than any other historic figure converted the masses to the temptations of collectivism, and no doubt influenced the others mentioned above.

Utopian Dreams C

Utopianism assumes that humanity and society can be perfected. This is what John Dewey believed, and liberals also believe this for the most part. ("Our union can be perfected." - President-elect Obama, November 4 ,2008 [6do5jw] [9]) But Dewey thought that as society was perfected politicians would become less and less necessary as this new utopian society would naturally function with little governance necessary. This is the goal of an idealistic communist state where each person supposedly desires to work and live for the good of all at the expense of himself - no self-interest, only group-interest with little management necessary. 

This of course is the first major contrast between Dewey's utopianism and contemporary liberalism. Liberals are paranoid of anything that might provide resistance to achieving utopia, so government control is central to liberalism. Under liberalism, to reach utopia, limits must be imposed on a society. This of course requires a guiding hand - the hard rule of big government. You see, gentle American, there are two types of utopianists. The

Dewey model places faith in a bottom-up progression with a nurturing of the cultural base through the education system. The second type of utopianist is contemporary liberalism's top-down model where utopian ideals are both indoctrinated from the bottom and forced onto the nation from the top by unopposed elite visionaries. Liberalism demands an ever expanding ruling class to coerce society in the 'proper' direction. To a liberal, utopian ideals must first be imposed on a resistant society. This explains America's ever burgeoning government. Whereas John Dewey saw government as virtually unnecessary in a utopian state, liberals see ruling government control as the central tenant of a utopian state. (This did not make John Dewey a minimalist, which we will discuss later. He still favored limitations to individual liberty - he was more of a progressive with Trotsky-like democratic/communist ideals.)

There are two kinds of contemporary liberals in this regard. One aspires to control the reigns of power, or at least influence them, so as to implement the government's laws and regulations in order to perfect society. The other supports these goals and desires to be nourished by this nanny state. Both positively view having restrictions put on those that disagree with liberalism's utopian methods and goals.

Deweyism and contemporary liberalism differ from contemporary conservatism in that conservatives do not believe society can be perfected, but with a set of limited moral and legal restraints a balance can be found between the coercion of government power to restrict a society's natural immorality, and the liberty necessary for people to live their lives as they wish. This is why liberals tend to become bureaucrats, politicians, journalists, educators and teachers more so than conservatives. Liberals gravitate towards societal control positions - they wish to rule and be ruled - whereas conservatives have a natural suspicion of controlling government and institutions. To liberals one can seldom have too much control (this is why liberals can embrace thugs, dictators and socialists like Che, Castro and Hugo Chavez). Liberals view ruling government control as essential and efficacious, or at least benign in leading towards a perfected, utopian society. To conservatives a limited amount of government management is barely more than a necessary evil.

Utopia = Top Down Injustices C

Despite liberalism's utopian goals, history has proven that societies always produce certain injustices. It is how these injustices are viewed and dealt with that also separate liberals from conservatives. There are basically two types of societies. The first is a liberated society with included and inevitable unjust traits mostly outside the direct control of government. The second is a government controlled society with its own inevitable unjust traits as a result of that government control. For example, the conservative prefers the unfortunate injustice that some people will fail in a free society and accepts that as the price of freedom for all. The liberal embraces government intrusion into society and the marketplace in an illusory attempt to keep everyone from failing (utopia), and is willing to give up a substantial amount of individual freedoms to government control to reach for this goal. Remember our question from chapter one about whether you would prefer the freedom to direct your own life, gentle American? Do you see the connection? If you prefer the freedom to direct your own life you disagree with the basic liberal foundation of a coerced utopia.

The conservative chooses the first preferring to accept the unjust traits produced by a society with liberty, whereas the liberal chooses the unjust traits of a society controlled by government with substantially reduced liberty. But here is the real difference. The premise of conservative thought realizes that in spite of which choice is taken some unjustness is inevitable in a society that can never be perfected into a utopia. So if we must live with some societal unjustness the conservative says let's at least live under the maximum liberty apart from intrusive and overbearing government. For instance, the conservative prefers a free market healthcare system where everyone is responsible for themselves with some minimal government help for those who by their life circumstances are not able (I am not talking about the status quo before Obama's healthcare reform, but a much more liberated system like healthcare savings accounts - more later). Of course those who can, but refuse to act responsibly may fall through the cracks. That is the price of a liberty based system. Here is an example:

During a Republican presidential debate a theoretical situation was proposed where an employed young man who had chosen not to purchase health insurance would become deathly sick after six months. The question was asked, "Who's going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example?  ... are you saying that society should just let him die?" To this a handful of audience members yelled out "Yes". [67bk8dq] [10] Naturally liberals pounced on this as proof that conservatives are motivated by evil. Let's however, step back a bit first, before pronouncing guilt. This man made a life choice. No doubt he would have chosen otherwise if he had better realized the predicament he was making possible for himself. In a society where self-reliance and responsibility were held up as the pinnacle of societal moral standards, it is very unlikely he would have had no health insurance. Also in such a society charity would be a much larger institution than with present day society where the nanny government attempts to provide a soft landing for all who slip through the cracks by taxing away disposable income that might otherwise go to charity (this will all be thoroughly explained in book two). In such a self-reliant society there is no doubt that the young man's health treatment would be paid for by a charitable church or probably by charities specifically set up for that rare purpose. He would not die.

Of course liberals see utopia where this young man is taken care of by the government despite what the peripheral consequences might be, like significantly higher taxes necessary to support such a government system (yes, despite what groupthink proclaims, "universal healthcare" like that in Canada is much more expensive than Obamacare and the American health system preceding Obamacare - and our self-reliant system would be significantly more efficient than all of them - more later). In fact, the young man would likely get much better treatment from charity at the beginning of his illness than the minimal treatment offered by a financially hamstrung government system. The real price however is the liberty lost to support such a government system, from less charity, to poorer quality healthcare, to limited or no available alternative treatments, to ever more restrictions on what are termed to be risky behaviors that might produce such dire circumstances for young men where the government must pick up the tab for the consequences. Liberals want to convince society to voluntarily give up an ever growing list of liberties so that supposedly no one falls through the cracks and the cost of filling those cracks is kept to a minimum. Unfortunately the results are an inefficient system

with less liberties, the system is much more expensive, and the cracks are only shifted and mostly enlarged.

~ "The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion."~ - Edmund Burke

The liberal is willing to sacrifice everyone's individual liberties for the unjust traits of government control in the futile hope of reaching a utopian goal where supposedly no cracks exist. This is important, gentle American: For the liberal, imposing government control is more important than any detrimental unintended consequences and resulting corruption. Liberals cannot live for the present moment because of their long term goal of utopia. It is their utopian ideals that justify their every move in the present despite the fact that they often produce immediate, destructive unintended consequences. So the liberal demands government control over everyone's healthcare and is willing to sacrifice everyone's liberty and the overall quality of healthcare to hopefully reach for a future utopia with the illusory dream of no one falling through the cracks, when in fact the whole system becomes one giant liberty crack where everyone falls through - the unintended consequence and 800 pound gorilla in the corner.

~ "The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse."~ - Edmund Burke

In other words, for the liberal it is control first - "We'll clean up the mess later." Except the intended benefits are seldom realized and the resultant mess is never cleaned up. (This is how trillion dollar stimulus packages, cap and trade, and healthcare reform bills are written by agenda driven nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and then passed without legislators even reading or knowing what is in the bills. This is how NGOs can corrupt elections while being supported and funded by the same government they are corrupting.) In fact, liberals see intrusive and overbearing government as progress toward their utopian goal. Liberty from government then naturally becomes a hindrance to achieving utopia. This is why conservatism is seen as evil by liberals. It is the conservative promotion of liberty - resistance to ever expanding government - that liberals see as a hindrance to reaching their utopian goals. So anyone motivated to preserve liberty has an evil motive, because to a liberal mind the promotion of liberty is subversive to achieving their utopian dream which by necessity needs ever increasing control to implement.

You see, gentle American, liberals can't live in the present, but only for an imaginary future. Liberals demand utopia for all. Until that is achieved liberals judge society based on its failure to live up to their utopian dream. So for the liberal every day that does not live up to utopia is always a failure of society - the basis of their paranoia. Liberals are like a dog chasing its own tail. Every unintended consequence of their manipulation of society to reach utopia is a reason for even more manipulation. They are determined to catch that tail, but the harder they try the dizzier everything becomes, and of course they never do catch their tail. That is infuriating for liberals. It turns them into angry, bitter, critical and most importantly, paranoid beings where society never lives up to their expectations and every opposition is evil (more later). Frustration in not reaching utopia turns liberals into compulsive paranoids, seeing evil resistance to their utopia under every rock. What humor they possess is ugly humor. Consequently, conservatives who oppose their goal of utopia are to blame for the failure of society to reach utopia and therefore must be motivated by evil. In fact it is their paranoia that separates liberals from John

Dewey. Dewey was bold in his vision of utopia and confident of its realization. Liberals are forever insecure about reaching utopia, and paranoid of evil monsters attempting to derail its realization. 

Questions for You C

Gentle American, using your third person analysis you should be asking yourself if this is all true? "Do I as a liberal believe that society can be perfected by more and more government control?" As a liberal your answer must be yes, because if it is no, then you are barely a liberal. Think about it. If you are a liberal, you want more government control in order to achieve liberal ideals. For a liberal there is no other way. Liberals believe that the human condition can and must be regulated toward perfection. To think otherwise is to think conservative. (The mechanism of this hidden liberal belief system will be dealt with in a subsequent chapter.)

Here is the pertinent 800 pound gorilla question for you, gentle American: Do you believe in liberal utopianism? If you do not believe that utopian ideals can be achieved, why do you support ever increasing government control, gentle American? Why do you wish to give up more of your liberty to government control if you do not believe this control can and will produce a more just society than one with liberty from government control? Do you see, gentle American? One is either for liberty or against it. More government control is a contradiction to more liberty. They are black and white, hot and cold, yin and yang. Beyond the most basic fundamentals of preserving a civil society, additional government control is anathema to liberty. So do you believe in liberty or do you believe in utopia? If you believe in utopia you are a resultant, conditioned product of John Dewey, an unintended consequence, a liberal. But if you are thinking, since you now understand the dichotomy between government control and liberty, that you no longer wish to believe or participate in liberal utopianism, you have taken another significant step in your liberal deprogramming. (Be confident in your decision, gentle American! You will have your decision repeatedly affirmed as you read subsequent chapters illustrating the horrible unintended consequences of liberalism's attempts to impose its utopian ideals on society.)

How to Indoctrinate a Society C

Through no fault of your own you have been programmed with liberalism. Here's how it came about. John Dewey surmised that the most efficient way to transform a society was to indoctrinate the young so they unwittingly grow up to be progressive proselytes. He also surmised that in order to be able to indoctrinate the young he would first have to control their teachers. This he did through the educators - those who train teachers. Through eager education faculties across the nation John Dewey's utopianism was implemented by teaching the teachers who would teach the children. Of course, it was a gradual process and it was not entirely successful in its implementation. Although Dewey never witnessed the disaster he created, his utopianism mutated into what we now know as contemporary liberalism. (Incidentally, this all happened in my own country of Canada as well.)

Dewey was a progressive - a collectivist. He called this "the new individualism". This is like Newspeak from George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four novel where black is white, up is down, and collectivism is "the new individualism". Why would Dewey call it this?

Because collectivism had lost favor in society through repetitive international failures of communist countries and needed to be camouflaged. Critical thinking can't be done by a collective, as John Dewey asserted before collectivism lost its favor:

~ "Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming where everyone is interdependent."~ [ye56v5p] [5]

Children are taught to think of the world in a linear fashion that proclaims a proper way and an improper way, not alternative ways. So, for instance, when teaching on the environment the green orthodoxy is of course proper, whereas opposition is of course improper. No alternatives are presented as legitimate considerations. This is not teaching kids how to think, but teaching them what to think - Deweyism, or indoctrination. Why is it do you think, gentle American, that kids today cannot sit quietly with their thoughts. They fidget and squirm, they simply must have a Game Boy or Xbox to keep their mind occupied. It is because to sit quietly is to think, and thinking is not something they are educated to do. Creative and contemplative thinking is foreign to them. Children must now be occupied with what to think. Liberal programming neither desires nor leaves room for quiet, contemplative thinking. Collectives simply regurgitate what they have been taught. They thrive on hidden liberalisms - unexamined, self-evident frauds thought of as truths. And one cannot be a good liberal attack dog if one abides by manners. So liberalism does not teach manners. My wife is a retired elementary public school teacher. She told me one year about twenty students with July birthdays receiving a small gift and card at the end of the school year in June. As each of them came up to receive their gift and card, not one of them said thank you. Not even one. It starts young. I remember hearing a story on the radio of a logger coming home only to have his five-year-old daughter burst out crying. When he asked her what was wrong she replied through her tears, "Daddy, you murder trees!" Naturally, she learned this from her Kindergarten teacher. (I can tell you that hearing that story was very emotional for me. I was so angry I literally blew up, yelling at the radio and swinging at phantoms in the air! HOW COULD A KINDERGARTEN TEACHER DELIBERATELY TURN CHILDREN AGAINST THEIR PARENTS?!? It made me want to write a book or something. And then I got determined, so here we are. Besides writing this book for you, gentle American, I am also doing this because I don't want some indoctrinating teacher turning your children or grandchildren against you.)

Only individuals can think critically, and the last thing John Dewey needed was a nation of critical thinkers questioning his utopian dreams. So thinking for oneself must become verboten, and the masses should then be assured that what they had been conditioned with was 'individual' to them. After all, it would not do if the proselytes ever understood that they were being conditioned not to think for themselves, or as Edmund Fairfield warned in 1853:

~ "The more the ignorance, the better the slave."~ - Edmund Fairfield; President, Hillsdale College; July 4, 1853 [ye56v5p] [5]

John Dewey thought of individuals and society as essentially innocent in their core, but outwardly corrupted by the traditions and moral expectations of society. He naively thought that if these supposed encumbrances could be eliminated society would naturally gravitate toward his utopian ideals, so he and his educational establishment followers set

about to eliminate the teaching of history, because history proved the folly of his progressivism. Dewey encouraged replacing it with social studies, which meant teaching only that of history which promotes "relevant" issues relating to current social causes. [*6cvo5nr] [11] So when learning about civil rights, the only history to be taught would be about the evils of slavery and segregation, and when learning about women's causes, only the history of the subjugation of women would be taught. When learning about America's industrial and technological advances, the negative environmental consequences would be highlighted. When learning about war only the devastation, persecution and suffering are "relevant". The heroes of American history were to be replaced with the demons of America's past. (No wonder liberals have such a negative view of America.)

The purpose of education would become making kids feel good about themselves no matter how poor their work habits, grades, attitude or misbehavior. That way they would acquiesce to the new progressive/collective ideological system and not question it. This would be accomplished in two ways. First, teach them to think of themselves as superior to Americans of the past. This of course is done by portraying America's past as flawed and rotten to the core. The second part of the equation would be done by passing kids onto the next grade irrespective of whether they could perform at the current level. Learning would be no more important than socializing. Self esteem would be paramount. Teachers would be denied the use any sort of real disciplinary actions. Students would never be disciplined for poor attitudes or misbehavior with anything that would approach what would be necessary to curb or correct the problem. Moral judgments were to become the new taboo. Assigning blame and responsibility would be derogatorily seen as 'judgmentalism'. Students would be taught that judging others is wrong. They were to be indoctrinated with social causes. 'Critical thinking' would be turned on its head with more Newspeak influence, defined as questioning and challenging the assumptions of the past. Someone who still respected the old moral models would be someone not thinking critically - so Nineteen Eighty-Four. Further, they were to be taught that they should expect to acquire whatever they desire irrespective of their ability to attain it. Personal obligations of responsibility would be discarded - the community would be responsible. And they must not think that there are serious consequences for a person's actions, particularly concerning the law. Truth and morals would become relative to any circumstance. "Hypocrisy" would be the only true moral crime - holding to silly old moral values and then breaking them. And of course, students would be taught that today's America is a result of a shameful history of judgmentalism, victimization, greed and imperialism. This was the strategy that John Dewey saw as the future for a utopian America. The goal was to produce self-satisfied and ignorant young adults that would naturally demand more utopian ideals of their leaders and society at large. [*7u4ksgp, *ybddeuw] [12]

Invasion of the Mutant Liberals C

The mutation of John Dewey's methods began in the sixties with the earliest of the Baby Boomer generation. State by state the National Education Association (NEA) was in the process of becoming what is now the largest union in America. They are the face of public education representing public school teachers and personnel, and college and university faculty and personnel. The 1960s NEA was equivalent to the demented Ygor's

brain accidentally implanted in John Dewey's Frankenstein experiment. Naturally with its membership being full of unwitting Dewey proselytes the union membership gravitated towards the Democratic Party who agreed with its utopian goals. It soon became one of the largest financiers of the Democratic Party and liberal nongovernmental organizations. [y42gexz] [13] If you do not think that the NEA is an ideologically driven organization, think again. [*cnbhbo] [14] General Counsel Bob Chanin who recently retired after over forty years at the NEA, while explaining conservative criticism of the NEA in a farewell speech, confirms the timing of the politicization of the union:

~ "Why are these conservative and rightwing bastards picking on NEA and its affiliates? [laughing and standing ovation] I will tell you why. It is the price we pay for success. NEA and its affiliates have been singled out because they are the most effective unions in the United States. And they are the nation's leading advocates for public education and the type of liberal social and economic agenda that these groups find unacceptable. When I first came to NEA in the early sixties it had few enemies and was almost never criticized, attacked or even mentioned in the media. This was because no one really gave a damn about what NEA did or what NEA said. It was the proverbial sleeping giant, a conservative, apolitical do-nothing organization. But then the NEA began to change. It embraced collective bargaining. It supported teacher strikes. It established a political action committee."~ [yyo8eep] [15]

The NEA became a political machine advocating a "liberal social and economic agenda". Terry Herndon, the NEA Executive Director in 1973 confirmed this:

~ "The NEA's ultimate goal is to tap the legal, political and economic powers of the U.S. Congress. We want leaders and staff with sufficient clout that they may roam the halls of Congress and collect votes to re-order the priorities of the United States of America."~ [y6jq39n] [16]

The NEA and the Democratic Party became synonymous, dedicated to a "liberal social and economic agenda". Together they saw themselves as a benevolent Big Brother, empowered to shape society to their wills, so why would they not indoctrinate their students into their beloved liberalism?

~ "Schools will become clinics whose purpose is to provide individualized, psycho-social treatment for the student, and teachers must become psycho-social therapists." -  January 1969, NEA, Today's Education, 'Education for the '70s' [yybvmd8] [17]

Does this sound like education to you, gentle American? This sounds more like it is something right out of the science fiction horror novel Nineteen Eighty-Four! To me it sounds more like an edubabble description for conducting psychological manipulation on school children, or more plainly put, it sounds like they intended to program America's children with their liberalism.

The NEA and the Democratic Party wanted control of education and society, not the diminishment of government as Dewey envisioned, so the above listed Dewey goals for education were mutated into judgmentalism is bad unless one is judging conservatism. Traditional morals are prejudiced judgmentalism, but political correctness is moral. Free market capitalism is bad and government intrusion into the marketplace is good. Traditional religion is bad - environmentalism and secular liberalism would be the

new religions. Dewey's vision of a utopian, self-governing populous was supplanted with liberal government tyranny. The end goal would remain the same, except that the guiding hand of Big Brother would now be the new path to utopia.

Because judging right behavior and wrong behavior became taboo, student misbehavior became the result of psychological illness, and outlawed school discipline was replaced with drugs like Ritalin. 1960s Baby Boomers were also to be taught that sexual promiscuity would not be subject to disapproval. Libertine self-indulgence would no longer viewed as selfish. Unrealistic expectations would be entrenched with an entitlement attitude that contradicted the American tradition of self-reliance, with an additional approval for the ignoring of manners, morals, rules and laws. To realize these perceived entitlements Boomers would be encouraged to play the victim card. They should demand that other people's money be made available for their use through the coercive hand of the government. This would be especially true for higher education, healthcare, welfare and retirement. This gave birth to the 'entitlement mentality'. And more importantly, it empowered liberal elites.

Liberalism assumes an incompetent populous burdened with misery is in need of 'benevolent' government control in order to function properly. To be sure of a incompetent populous needing and desiring this helping government hand, what better strategy than to dumb them down with programmed liberalism in an enforced public school and college system? [*2enzjvt] [18]

Conservatism on the other hand, assumes a competent population. It assumes that given the opportunity and proper schooling (real critical thinking as opposed to liberal conditioning) the vast majority of the populace can make right decisions and fend for themselves without the supposed 'aid' of the 'benevolent' guiding hand of big government. This dichotomy between the liberal view of society as generally incompetent, and the conservative view of society as generally competent is another of the foundational principles of liberalism: Contemporary liberalism views society as generally incompetent and in need of the guiding hand of a controlling government. This is not how the founders envisioned America. Their assumption was that if government intrusion could be kept limited, Americans could take care of themselves with churches and charity mostly filling the void for those in need, and where necessary, state government provisions, not the federal government. Unfortunately, for two centuries the country has increasingly drifted away from the founders' prescription for America. 

By the the end of the sixties the contemporary liberal mutation of John Dewey's utopianism had become irreversible. Dewey's dreams would never be realized (not that they ever could have been). Instead of Dewey's envisioned utopian ideals, a malevolent virus had developed that quickly saturated American society. The education system, the political establishment, the orthodox media, the entertainment culture and the church were soon infected with this new liberalism. Large, intrusive government along with a parallel political NGO industry devoted to it became the remedy for every ill in an America viewed as filled with needy incompetents. Traditions became an enemy of the new, post-traditional society. Societal progress became only that which was deemed to be progressive. "Political correctness" became the true judge of character. Reason and facts were discarded for an ends justifies the means attitude - the end being a liberal utopia.

The Essence of Contemporary Liberalism C

As the power and influence of the teachers unions grew their students' grades fell for reasons that have become obvious. Right now on the NEA website they have, for recommended reading two books by Saul Alinsky, probably John Dewey's most prominently known proselyte, even though Alinsky may have been completely oblivious to this. Alinsky was a radical counter-traditionalist, communist sympathizer, and friend of the Chicago mob who advocated an ends justifies the means type of community agitation with the amoral, relativistic, blame-others, entitlement attitude of Marxism. [*7jtreao, *ye2lswz] [19] Alinsky's Rules for Radicals has become the tactical textbook for reaching liberal utopia even though he wrote it to obtain a Dewey utopia. The Dewey dumbing down of American society has metastasized as inherent to the indoctrination process called Public Education. Good little children would be molded into good little liberals. [*yado5ko, *75y2kwv, *yau8z56] [20] Good little liberals are always satisfied with their view of themselves (strong self-esteem, but actually bordering on narcissism), but never satisfied with their view of society. Good little liberals do no wrong, and so when wrong things happen in their life they are taught to blame society. Liberalism teaches that everyone is a victim of society. So as long as people have problems society will be to blame, and this naturally leads to a demand for government to 'fix' the problems - that liberal elite empowerment thing again.

This liberal attitude is important, gentle American, and perhaps the most acute principle in understanding the basis of liberalism: The essence of contemporary liberalism is that the individual is blameless and society is always guilty. The bitter irony is that liberalism itself is a result of a societal dysfunction.

Ideologically egocentric people (liberals) do not look to themselves for fault or remedy, but view themselves as perpetual victims of a deficient society, always looking to government for solutions (be aware we are talking doctrines here, not absolutes - and of course liberals do not identify their liberalism as a societal problem). And likewise, they see others as victims of society, so naturally the solution to their problems is also in liberal government control. This is the difference between this book and liberal utopia: Liberals view utopia as a top-down system where government fixes and orders society, and dispatches evil monsters, so the few attempt to fix the many through coercive laws. However, the conservative sees society as fixable only to the extent that each person can be taught to fix themselves - personal responsibility. Deprogramming Liberalism is about helping you fix yourself, gentle American. Your responsibility to society is to be your own personal responsibility.

Among the many flaws in liberalism's theory of utopianism there is one that stands out. Utopianism can only ever end up with corrupt, authoritarian government control. Leon Trotsky was just such an idealist as John Dewey, believing that after Lenin's death, Soviet Marxism would develop into a fair and equitable democratic society where everyone lived for the sake of everyone else. But all it takes is for one person with power to insist that they know better what is right for everyone. Joseph Stalin figured that he knew best and soon put a stop to Trotsky's utopian dream, turning the Soviet Union into an extremely harsh, totalitarian dystopia known as Stalinism. [*crhl9, *9xcdp] [21] John Dewey is America's Trotsky. Deweyism was designed as a bottom-up societal programming, with the goal being a collective, everybody-for-everything utopia (a sort of

western Trotskyism). But Lyndon Johnson became America's Stalin with his grand scheme of the Great Society, wrecking all of John Dewey's carefully laid plans for a benevolent utopia, and instead coercing America toward dystopian unintended consequences through a government-knows-best social engineering. Liberalism's mutation of Deweyism kept its bottom-up societal programming, but added governmental control to a redefined utopia. Contemporary liberalism (which probably should have been labeled Johnsonism) is a top-down, anything-for-the-cause, soft tyranny, whose goal is a utopia of "fairness" and "equality of outcome" - Stalinism-light. Unfortunately the results of the Great Society and its subsequent liberalism have been worth much less than the amount paid (and owed). Apparently JFK was prescient about a Johnson presidency, fearing he would ruin the country. Unfortunately JFK was correct. [4xyrnso] [22]

You see, gentle American, every person must first own up to their own sorrows in life (again, we are talking basic principled doctrine here, not absolutes). A capable, responsible and resourceful citizen looks first to himself to solve his own problems, and only reluctantly looks to others for help. This attitude is the conservative way and is a very real obstruction to liberalism which seeks an empowerment of a governing elite to implement the utopian goals of the collective to slay society's monsters and fix everyone's problems. A good little liberal proselyte with a self-satisfied attitude that accepts no responsibility for life's predicaments and is paranoid of evil all around them, holds only the ubiquitous "them" responsible (see the List of Evils in chapter two), and will always look to liberal government or liberal NGOs to correct their or their neighbors' problems. Liberals seek others to solve their sorrows. Naturally this is a system that guarantees empowerment of a liberal elite. So the myth (noble lie) is perpetuated that even though society supposedly does many terrible things to individuals, if the people would only give the great and compassionate governing liberal elite the support to right these wrongs through coercive government control we could all end up with a collective utopia. Clever, huh? It is a self-perpetuating recipe for producing ever-growing government intrusion into society with a built-in liberal cheerleading squad, but it is terrible for the country which ends up with a population half-filled with egotistical brats ruled by a narcissistic liberal elite who naturally disdain those they govern as stupid and dependant, promising them the moon while knowing they can never deliver it (well, some think they can), while assuming that the populous is too stupid to notice anyway. (Obamacare as an example anyone?) This is Lyndon Johnson's legacy - and John Dewey's Frankenstein.

Sophistry and Demagoguery C

Dewey's and subsequently contemporary liberalism's educational conditioning, although effective for much of the populous, has proven to be far from exhaustive. The only educational way to achieve liberal utopia is for government to convince society as a whole of its (the government's) beneficence, but, because Americans are not homogenous in their opinions of what constitutes utopia (or that it is achievable or even desirable), when society inevitably resists the leading edge of the government's implementation of utopia, the liberal elite must either give in to society's objections or coerce its utopian ideals on the country (like passing Obamacare on Christmas eve with no Republican support and a majority of the American people objecting). In fact this is our next liberal principle: For its own good a resistant society must have utopian ideals forced upon it. (Examples will be discussed in following chapters, but for a taste, remember the

President-elect Obama quote from above: "Our union can be perfected." His next sentence was: "And what we have already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow." To a liberal like Obama the necessity of achieving perfection (utopia) for America is a "must". [6do5jw] [9]) It is this sort of elitist thinking in the minds of liberals that validates an ends-justifies-the-means attitude, and so a liberty-based American society is slowly transformed into a corrupt and increasingly government controlled tyranny.

Because liberals see themselves as nobly fighting against a conservative evil that is intent on preventing utopia for America, they find sophistry an acceptable strategy, with propaganda their tool. [852o3m2] [23] This is related to their use of the noble lie, where selective, specious and often deceitful reasoning is used to demagogue an issue or opponent. Often, it plays to the preconceived conceptions of the intended liberal audience, targeting their known prejudices and hot button responses while obfuscating rational reasoning and facts. The issue of budget surpluses from the previous chapter is a prime example. While liberal leaders will emotionally charge the issue with proclamations of liberal prudence and accusations of conservatives driving up the deficit, we have seen that their reasoning is illogical and unsupported by the facts. The budget surplus issue is a textbook example of liberal sophistry and will be expanded upon in a later chapter.

In fact this is our next lesson on programmed liberal attitude: For the contemporary liberal groupthinker, sophistry and demagoguery are the weapons of choice against critical thinking. So that we can be clear on the meaning of this principle let's define sophistry and demagoguery.

Sophistry: ~"A subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning. A false argument."~ [yy3keh] [24]

Demagogue: ~"To treat or manipulate (a political issue) ... obscure or distort with emotionalism, prejudice, etc."~ [y9oacxv] [25]

Because facts and reason generally debunk the supposed justifications for the liberal agenda it is not really surprising that liberals resort to sophistry and demagoguery. It's all they've got, gentle American. It is not so much that liberals want the public to believe individual sophistries or incidents of demagoguery, it is that with the massive volume of both they hope to persuade the public to their side. This is why they are relentless in their sophistry and demagoguery. Sophistry and demagoguery are warning bells and alarms signifying the last and often only defense of a fallacious position, and an additional interesting observation to be alert for is that often when liberals resort to sophistry and especially demagoguery, they tend to project themselves, providing valuable insight for the astute observer (more on this later). Here's a list of some liberal sophistry and demagoguery: [*3mm9y66] [26] And of course don't forget chapter two!

Liberalism - the Giant Fail C

Liberalism rejected Dewey's principle of there being no right and wrong, and turned it into liberalism is always right. Provoked by their paranoia they contemptuously believe that liberalism is right and everything opposing liberalism is so wrong that it is evil. Liberalism mutated John Dewey's no right and wrong principle, to say anything can be

right that upholds liberalism - any lie, any demagoguery, any deceit, any corruption. In other words, a liberal argument need not be honest, follow logic, or stand up to contextual investigation and critical analysis. As long as the argument bolsters liberalism any sophistic argument is acceptable, and equally, any sophistic argument that tears down conservatism is also acceptable. Ignored 800 pound gorillas are all a part of the game. Liberals simply need to play stupid to play this game.

In fact, liberalism is portrayed as so correct that any opposition must be demonized to illustrate how wrong and evil that opposition is. So, as we will see in book two, in a liberal's eyes conservatives cut taxes not because it is good for the country, but because they are greedy and are wishing to steal from those below them. If liberals were to allow a legitimate debate on the merits of tax cuts they would have to engage it with factual substance, and, as we have seen with the 'Clinton surpluses', the facts are not friendly to liberal arguments. So liberals demagogue conservatives as evil thieves to stifle a debate that would inevitably end in a liberal defeat. Evil can be a conservative's only motive for tax cuts, and that means there is no need for a debate on the merits of tax cuts (and if tax cuts by a liberal politician are considered expedient, they can be justified as coming from an honorable motive - how convenient).

You see, gentle American, liberalism has proven John Dewey to have been thoroughly wrong. Instead of creating a society where right and wrong have become incidental, his utopianism-turned-resultant-liberalism has imposed a hyper judgmental and selective political correctness (thoughtcrime) on America which begins with the first and foremost wrong being the questioning of the ideals and methods of liberalism. This is the origin of liberalism's condemnation of conservative motivation as evil. Liberals are utterly convinced (conditioned) that anyone who does not share their liberal goals and agree with their liberal methods, simply must be out to undermine society (Hofstadter's Paranoid Style and the paranoid principle: Compulsive paranoia is the foundation of contemporary liberalism.). This is why liberals desire to rule rather than govern. It is not just that no opposition can be legitimate in liberalism's eyes. It is that no motivation for opposition can ever be legitimate. An example here is the liberal accusation of racism against any opposition to President Obama's agenda. No opposition can be legitimate, so the easiest sophistic argument is the accusation of racism. It really just boils down to saying, "You are evil because your opinions are motivated by evil, otherwise you would be with us." Again, how convenient. (Of course liberals are exempt - because their motives are good - so when the extreme left turned against Obama over the Bush tax cuts they of course were not considered racists.)

Liberalism eventually leads to a kind of political anarchy through chaos where sophistry and demagoguery are used to justify any function or goal. This directly relates to our next liberal principle: Contemporary liberals employ chaos as a political strategy to destabilize society so that liberal solutions can appear more palatable. Liberalism demands utopian ideals and when liberals become frustrated with being unable to institute their utopia through following the rules of society, they search for ways around the rules, a compulsively paranoid attitude that sees both rules and opposition as evil, intent on stopping liberal utopia. This is also why liberals are not content with attaining power and implementing their utopian dreams. They also feel the need to destroy their opponents. After all, in a liberal's paranoid eyes, opposition is evil, and it is righteous to

destroy evil. This kind of self-righteous attitude with no toleration for dissent is the basis for a growing and eventual inevitable authoritarianism, otherwise ideologically known as a managed utopia, or more plainly known as a dystopia.

Classical Liberalism and Contemporary Conservatism C

I always find it humorous when I come across liberals who claim that their contemporary liberalism (they just think of it as liberalism or progressivism) extends from the classical liberalism of the early twentieth century. In reality there is only a little truth to this. As will be seen later, contemporary liberalism is a hybrid of early to mid-twentieth century progressivism and Euro-fascism, with a contradictory smattering of classical liberalism and modern corporatism mixed in. But first let's deal with classical liberalism. It is a philosophy that grew in America from an amalgamation of the founder's vision of liberty and Adam Smith's free market principles. From Wikipedia:

~Classical liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.~ [k9hpx] [27]

I cannot in one short sentence define contemporary conservatism any better than this. Of course, the contemporary liberal will superficially agree with freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly, while at the same time attempting to stifle them with as much government regulation and political correctness as possible in an attempt to perfect them for the coming utopia (remember from our definition of liberalism in chapter one that the submission itself is believed to be an individual liberty - and up is the new down, and black is the new white, etc.). However, for the contemporary liberal, limited government, the liberty of individuals, and free markets are anathema to reaching utopia. We have seen that the sixties was the transition period where John Dewey's benign utopianism was replaced by Lyndon Johnson's managed utopianism, where government was seen by Dewey as virtually unnecessary for utopia, but where Johnson saw big government as imperative to enforcing and maintaining utopia. In this sense John F. Kennedy was the last President of the Dewey era. So I have a question for you, gentle American. Would you consider yourself a JFK liberal? Or maybe better put, do you think you share the same liberal values as JFK? At your core I bet you do. In a 1960 campaign speech to the New York Liberal Party, JFK described his liberalism (a descent from classical liberalism, diluted in other parts of the speech with some progressivism of the first half of the twentieth century):

~I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas.~

Notice all this without the mention of government. This statement is all about the individualism of classical liberalism. It is the individual, not collective government control where Kennedy placed his faith:

~It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith.~

But contemporary liberalism has no such faith in the individual, instead replacing faith with a suspicion of the individual that needs to be forcibly reformed and integrated into a collective utopia. Kennedy continued:

~For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.~

Notice here, he goes a step beyond a benign exclusion of government to active denial of its inclusion. Also notice that Kennedy sees self-reliance as leading to the benefits of justice, freedom and brotherhood. His faith is in the individual, "in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment". The contemporary conservative embraces this as his own. This completely contradicts the contemporary liberal view of government providing a collective reasoning and judgment for society.

~I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind.~

This is almost Reaganesque in vision, hardly how Dewey envisioned America, and certainly a stark dichotomy from the distain for America that contemporary liberalism embraces. For the contemporary liberal, America is not at all close enough to utopia to generate such pride and satisfaction, and certainly was much less so when JFK made this assertion five decades ago. America's history is not something of which to be proud, but to be ashamed. Until utopia is reached the contemporary liberal sees America as arrogant and imperialistic, at most a beacon signaling others to stay away from its perceived draconian failures. (Of course liberals will express patriotism when need be, but this is nothing more than easy sophistry - true patriotism to a liberal is only generated when the country apologizes for its wrongs.) However, here is where Kennedy conclusively repudiates the central tenant of contemporary liberalism:

~I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well.~ [w7t4] [28]

Magic to my ears, gentle American - and those of every conservative today, and not just platitudes. JFK was no fan of redistribution of wealth ("tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned"). In book two we will examine President Kennedy's very real tax cuts and his very contemporary conservative/classical liberal reasons for them. But this quote is poison to the ears of the contemporary liberal who sees nanny government intervention, taxation and regulation as the correct path to their promised land. For it is the "superstate" that Kennedy abhorred that the contemporary liberal yearns for - a managed utopia. President Kennedy was the last Democratic President to stand for such liberty, unwittingly repudiating the contemporary liberalism that followed his presidency. It is contemporary conservatism that is the modern equivalent of classical liberalism, whereas contemporary liberalism is actually a devolutionary step in the pursuit of utopia from progressivism toward authoritarianism (much more on ideologies

later). So tell me, gentle American, is that last JFK quote magic or poison to your ears? Remember our MCTE question: "As a principle, would JFK have preferred his government to direct each citizen's life, or would he have preferred them to have the freedom to direct their own lives?" (Now you know why JFK was so fearful of a Johnson presidency.)

Deprogramming Lessons C

Liberalism is the failed consequence of a grand pursuit in social engineering. Yes, gentle American, you are the result of a horrible societal experiment gone terribly wrong (as was I). In this chapter we have discovered five additional liberal principles:

Contemporary liberalism views society as generally incompetent and in need of the guiding hand of a controlling government.

The essence of contemporary liberalism is that the individual is blameless and society is always guilty.

For its own good a resistant society must have utopian ideals forced upon it.

For the contemporary liberal groupthinker, sophistry and demagoguery are the weapons of choice against critical thinking.

Contemporary liberals employ chaos as a political strategy to destabilize society so that liberal solutions can appear more palatable.

So do you now have an answer for our other MCTE question, gentle American: "Is the foundation of your belief system the equivalent to a classical liberal?" Since you answered our first chapter question that you would prefer to have the freedom to direct your own life, the answer is yes, your foundational beliefs are equivalent to a classical liberal - and a contemporary conservative.

Contemporary liberalism is a mutated variation of John Dewey's original plan to incrementally implement a Trotsky-like collective utopia, but just as Stalinism drove Trotskyism off the rails, so has Johnsonism (liberalism) driven Deweyism into the ditch. Contemporary liberalism is just incremental authoritarianism by another name. Liberalism preserved the best parts of Deweyism; a dysfunctional public school system that deliberately produces a society of dumbed down, dependant citizens with an entitlement attitude. Liberalism also added some of its own accoutrements; an elite to force utopia on the masses, and crisis politics to convince the masses to support their forced utopia and to destroy their opponents.

~ "A demagogue tries to sound as stupid as his audience so that they will think they are as clever as he is."~ - Karl Krauss.

And of course none of this would work without a compliant liberal media filter to talk down to the proselytes' level. [*37jmeax, *34nfa6e, *2vqv99v] [29]

Deprogramming Exercise C

I have one question for you, gentle American? Have you figured out whether you still believe in utopia? Liberal groupthink demands that you sacrifice your self-interest for it. Will you continue to do it? Do you think of American society as incompetent and in need of the guiding hand of big government to reach that ever elusive liberal utopia? Or are

you beginning to see that liberalism is not the answer, but the problem? Kudos if you are beginning to see through the veil.

Do you think liberals are unaware of how the public school system dumbs down American children, gentle American? [*34y29d8, *5voen3k] [30] Even many public school teachers who are NEA members know how bad it is. Watch this short video and see for yourself: [*y49wj9d] [31] For an insider's view of the NEA I want you to read this enlightening interview with a former NEA administrator from 1985, gentle American. It is a bit of a long read, but it is eye-popping! (Remember, this is a liberal saying these things.) [*d2myuoz] [32]

Deweyism and its subsequent, unintended consequence of liberalism are both about denying you the liberty to direct your own life, gentle American. Utopia is not where everyone lives in bliss. It is where all individual choices are usurped by collective rules that coercively direct your life. That is not liberty, gentle American. That is a type of subservience. Sleep tonight with liberty on your mind.

Humor, Sort-of C

Instead of humor we have a profound witticism to end this chapter. From the man who has taught us more about totalitarianism than any other, the author of Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm:

~ "In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."~ - George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)

Chapter 5

Arachnophobia

Mini Critical Thinking Exercise C

~ "An unexamined life is not worth living."~ - Socrates

For the liberal an unexamined life means living a life that is not their own. It is imaginary and false with a twisted view of reality instilled by societal conditioning. This chapter is particularly important for understanding your awakening, gentle American. Read it carefully and digest it fully. It explains how the liberal mind works to subvert your view of the world. The last three liberal principles are introduced and illustrated, with all eighteen liberal principles listed near the end of the chapter. Answer this first, gentle American: Is it normal for person to think he believes one thing, but constantly act as though he believes another without ever realizing it?

Two Belief Systems C

You may remember, gentle American, that in the first chapter I said this:

"I want you to know that it is OK for you to admit that you have been implanted with a lifetime's worth of societal conditioning (we all have to some extent). You weren't given a choice. Neither was I. Neither has anyone. The unfortunate result has been that, through little fault of your own, you have been unwittingly instilled with a contemporary liberal mindset."

Please allow me to expand on this. You think you are a liberal, gentle American, because you lack the confidence to think otherwise. You have been conditioned to accept that in order for your world to be symbiotic with what you have been programmed to believe reality should be, you must be willing to bend and manipulate your thoughts and your life around this erroneous presumption, no matter how absurd the day to day outcome. More than anything else Deprogramming Liberalism is about one thing - removing your deep-seated fear. Liberals are terrified of reality. They are afraid that their carefully manufactured world view doesn't actually work in the real world, so they live in a fantasy world where unsettling conflicts are not allowed to exist, and are willing to go to great lengths of absurdity to avoid them. Liberals will lie to others, they will lie to themselves, they are willing to corrupt themselves and others, some will break the law, they will make themselves look the part of the fool, they will destroy themselves, those around them, and damage the country itself. Liberals are willing to go to almost any length to avoid what they fear most - a realization of reality.

~ "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."~ - Philip K. Dick

A person's belief system is based on what a person has lived. Obviously, if you had been born of a family in rural Pakistan your belief system would be much different than if you had been born into the upper crust of Boston high society. In each case your belief system would have been molded by your life experience. No matter what your background, why would you think it is any different for you, gentle American? We all play the game of life mostly on terms not determined by us, but instead dealt to us by circumstances. Few get to the point where they are able to consciously choose their world view outside of their circumstantial conditioning. This unique opportunity is what I am offering you, gentle American. As someone who has already gone through the process, I am willing to guide you through it as well.

Every person lives their life through a combination of subliminal and conscious beliefs. Conscious beliefs are based on conscious decisions we make in response to circumstances in our lives. As a youth we consciously reject our childhood faith in the existence of Santa Claus. Later we may consciously change our world view or religion. Or we decide precisely which colors of clothes suit us best. But, by far, the more complex are subliminal beliefs. They are almost instinctual in operation, but are not innate, as are instincts. Instead they are acquired, beginning with our earliest childhood experiences. We do not choose our subliminal beliefs, rather it is more like they choose us through the fate of circumstances in each person's life. They are accrued through childhood experiences, interaction with our parents, family and friends, through our schooling, and through television, the internet, the media, entertainment, etc. Generally, we grow into our subliminal beliefs as they grow into us. They are like an alien slowly taking over our lives from the inside out.

Our subliminal belief system is a major factor of who we are and how we live our lives, but it is almost beyond our control. This presents an incredible life paradox: You are what you believe, but many of your beliefs are not your own. In effect most people live their lives as sheep or what are referred to as sheople - people who are content to be herded around their whole life. They have been defined mostly by things beyond their control and even beyond their recognition. You could say some are domestic beliefs, your

consciously decided beliefs, but many are foreign, subliminally acquired beliefs. These foreign beliefs were planted in you without your conscious knowledge of them. And it is even worse than that, gentle American. Many of your subliminal beliefs may not even align with reality. A person may believe things that are totally at odds with what is sane and real. For instance, a young street gang member may passionately believe that the police are the real enemies of society and the cause of his miserable life. His subliminal belief system has been so corrupted through the fate of his life that the end result is that he is out of sync with a sane reality. 800 pound gorillas are completely invisible to him. He actually believes that society would be better off without police enforcement. Now, either he is insane or he has been conditioned to think this way, or in the vernacular of this book, he has been programmed into what would otherwise be an insane choice of belief.

Subliminal beliefs mostly run on emotions - they are based on how one feels. Conclusions about situations are presumptive. For example, the young gang member feels that the police are his enemy and presumes that life would be better off without the existence of police. Reality, facts and reasoning do not pose barriers to a conclusion that feels right. The conscious belief system is where contextual investigation and critical analysis meet with reality. Unfortunately for those who live their lives mostly out of their subliminal belief system that meeting rarely occurs.

Irrational Liberal Beliefs C

Liberalism is no different in principle than an inner city gang member believing that actual enforcement of the law is society's most vexing problem. Liberalism is irrational just as is the thinking that the police are the cause of one's life problems because they won't let one rob people at will, openly do drugs, and shoot members of other gangs. As has been documented in the early chapters of this book, liberals live by a myriad of irrational governing principles. No person making an informed decision on how to live their life would ever consciously choose to live by liberalism's irrational principles, and yet society is filled with people who live by them every day.

It is not as though this is some dark, secret underbelly of American society that is hidden from public knowledge. Now that you know what to look for you will see liberalism's irrational principles being played out every day in the news, with colleagues at work, amongst your family and friends, in movies, television, music, etc. Indeed, Saul Alinsky, the quintessential, but probably unwitting Dewey progeny encouraged the embracing of irrational thought to achieve Deweyism's goals (which has since of course been wholly embraced by liberalism). From his infamous book, Rules for Radicals:

~ "The organizer should know and accept that the right reason is only introduced as a moral rationalization after the right end has been achieved, although it may have been achieved for the wrong reason—therefore he should search for and use the wrong reasons to achieve the right goals. He should be able, with skill and calculation, to use irrationality in his attempts to progress toward a rational world…"~

In other words, using rational thought to produce rational methods to achieve rational goals is unnecessary for radicals striving for utopia ("a rational world"). Alinsky does not even encourage that the attempt be made to keep within the bounds of rational thought. His whole premise is manipulation - "with skill and calculation". This, for the alpha

liberal is bliss. Alinsky candidly admits that "moral rationalization" is an afterthought to irrational radical thought and behavior (thanks for making my point Saul). This is our next liberal principle: For contemporary liberals superficial rationalization is always the first and final element in their ideological line of thought. People simply do not embrace this line of thought based on a rational decision, so people must end up as liberals other than by an informed rational choice. Because liberal principles are an irrational choice, practically no one ever consciously makes a decision to become a liberal. Liberalism is almost always a result of the subliminal belief system being corrupted during one's upbringing. People grow up immersed in liberalism and naturally turn out to be liberals (as was true with me).

In my experience conservatives only ever consciously choose to change their belief system to liberalism for one of four reasons, and it is virtually always related to a rejection of a cognitive dissonance (this will be dealt with in greater detail later in this chapter). They may personally witness hypocrisy by professed conservatives in a situation that deeply hurts them personally. Usually it is someone close such as their parents, close family or friends that traumatizes their conservative belief system with a result of personal pain. Of course this speaks to a person's specific life experience, not the validity of conservatism. Nevertheless, it could lead to someone openly and rebelliously choosing to live as a liberal. The other reasons are more pragmatic. A conservative might reject their religion and their conservatism along with it, or a conservative may decide to lead a life which they previously judged to be immoral or amoral behavior and find that conservatism is too restricting for their 'new lifestyle' - they are not sleeping too well. Liberalism then becomes a defensive posture that allows them to sleep at night without a troubling, nagging conscience (cognitive dissonance). The final reason is that someone may wish to impress or appease a liberal or liberals important in their lives. All of these various types of conservative converts to liberalism are invariably ideologues. They had been programmed with conservatism in their subliminal belief system (beta conservatives) just as most liberals have been programmed with liberalism. So their conservative beliefs were never their own. They were a result of their upbringing, not their conscious belief system making decisions based on contextual investigation and critical analysis (alpha conservatives). Of course, many people brought up as beta conservatives go to college and are for the first time saturated with liberalism and surrounded by liberals. After a few years of this immersion they may be conditioned into liberalism, but this is not likely to be a conscious choice either.

Basically this book series is a rational analysis of an irrational belief system - liberalism. However, the two of us are coming at this from opposite sides of the spectrum, gentle American. One of us is now rational, and one of us through little fault of your own, is often not. This book is designed so that both of us end up rational. Here is my point - if a person is given an informed, conscious choice based on reasoned reality, as I repeatedly illustrate in this book series, their conscious, rational preference will not be liberalism. Again - no one would knowingly, rationally and willingly choose to live by liberalism's irrational principles. So how do otherwise rational people live their life based on irrational principles without any realization of their situation? I will explain.

Contradictory Beliefs C

It is entirely possible to hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time. For instance, a person may have an irrational fear of spiders. Who knows exactly why people develop irrational fears (phobias) of things like spiders? It is certainly not something they decide to do. It is something that just happens to them. There might have been extenuating circumstances like a frightening experience as a young child that triggers a lasting fear, or there may not be any obvious instance that caused it. Indeed, experiments with crickets suggest a phobia in some may be present at birth. The point is that the subliminal belief system of a person with a spider phobia sees spiders as scary and dangerous. Of course, if you sat down across a table from this person and had a rational discussion about spiders, it would be highly likely that they would agree that on a rational and intellectual level there really is nothing to fear from a spider crawling across the table in front of them. This would be their conscious belief system at work. In their conscious and rational thoughts they know that their subliminal belief that spiders are very scary things is contrary to a rational view of reality, so, in effect, they hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time, one conscious and rational, and the other subliminal and irrational. Nevertheless, if you were to then place a spider on the table in front of them they would still immediately react in fear. This means that their irrational, subliminal belief in the scariness of spiders contains much more force and influence in their mind than does their conscious, intellectual, rational belief that they need not fear spiders. This is also why most liberals answer our chapter one question of whether one would prefer others to direct one's life or whether one would prefer to have the freedom to direct one's own life, as a conservative instead of as a liberal. When asked to think through a choice like this that is outside of the subliminal realm of their liberalism the conscious mind is momentarily freed from its liberal prejudged conclusions and leaves room for a rational decision. So, a contemporary liberal gives a contemporary conservative answer to the most basic question dividing liberalism from conservatism: "No, spiders are not scary" is no different than a desire to direct one's own life.

There is fundamentally no difference between subliminally believing spiders are scary and living with this phobia, and subliminally believing liberalism and subsequently living as a liberal. Throw a rational counterargument to liberalism on the table in front of a liberal and they too react like they have a phobia - what might be coined as factophobia. To a liberal the counterargument, being equivalent to a spider, represents the fear of a loss of control of their subliminal beliefs to conscious and rational argument. It is in our nature to protect our subliminal beliefs. So when liberals are provoked their natural defenses instinctually kick in. Their reaction to this factophobia is the liberal scoff reflex I described to you earlier. I also said previously that our subliminal belief system is almost out of our control. It is not entirely, however. This is where our conscious belief system comes in. It is certainly possible to consciously learn to overcome the fear of spiders, and done properly liberals can also consciously overcome their liberal conditioning so that they can reach a point where they can make informed and rational choices between conservatism and liberalism and live those choices every day. Of course, that is what this book is all about. Most people keep their subliminal and conscious belief systems separate. In other words, they don't consciously examine their subliminal beliefs. They just live them as sheople - herded around by their liberal conditioning, living through their liberal principles. People that fear spiders often live their whole lives with a fear of spiders. Well, gentle American, here in this book you are examining and

deprogramming the factophobic liberalism that has dominated your subliminal belief system so that you will no longer be trapped living your life based on the irrational liberal principles of a sheople.

We took a person with an ingrained phobic fear of spiders imbedded in their subliminal belief system, and when we sat them down we were able, through a rational discussion of the matter, to get them to wholeheartedly agree, using their conscious belief system that their subliminal fear was a completely irrational belief. Nevertheless, when we then placed a spider on the table in front of them, their subliminal belief system was so powerful that it immediately took over complete control of their thought process and their rational thoughts were overwhelmed by their subliminal belief system. We then likened liberalism to the fear of spiders. This comparison works to a certain point where as we mentioned, if we were to throw a rational counterargument to liberalism on the table in front of a liberal under the same circumstances, they too would respond in the same instinctive way as the person with the fear of spiders, substituting a scoffing rejection for fright, but there is a different relationship between fearing spiders and a factophobic reaction to rational counterarguments. The first is a purely emotional and instinctual type of response of raw fear. The second is a mixture of fear and a calculated defense response. It is this calculated defense mechanism that I next wish to discuss with you, gentle American.

We are now getting down to the crux of programmed liberalism and how it functions in controlling a person's thought process and through that, their entire life. This partially uncontrolled and partially calculated defense mechanism that the liberal thought process utilizes to protect itself from rational counterarguments that undermine its credibility is what was earlier described as the liberal scoff response. It too is rooted in the irrational beliefs centered in the subliminal belief system like the fear of spiders, but there is an element of permission involved in the thought process that is not included in the fear of spiders. This element of permission can be understood through what is known as cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive Dissonance C

Cognition in humans refers to the thought process. Dissonance is conflict. Relating to our topic, cognitive dissonance results when on an intellectual level our conscience becomes agitated with anxiety over conflicts between our conscious belief system and our subliminal belief system. When your conscious belief system rationally concludes one thing, but your subliminal belief system reacts out of phobic fear against that conclusion, that produces cognitive dissonance. Your conscience is now conflicted, producing an uneasy or even panicky feeling, so, in some sense, your conscience is a bridge between your subliminal belief system and your conscious belief system.

There are three main aspects that make up the foundation of a sound mind capable of ethically reasoned thought. The first is the determination to accumulate and account for the context of any argument (all relevant information). The second is the ability to critically analyze this contextual information. (Contextual investigation and critical analysis were examined in chapter three in regard to the scoff reflex.) The third aspect is the capacity to be honest with oneself in regard to the evidence at hand. This third aspect is where cognitive dissonance applies. Without this mechanism to keep oneself honest,

the other two aspects become tainted with playing stupid (a deliberate and embraced lying to oneself) as a result of the scoff reflex.

You probably experienced some cognitive dissonance in chapter three when first realizing that President Clinton never did produce any budget surpluses. Your subliminal belief system was fully convinced of a belief that when rationally examined turned out not to be so - and your conscious belief system could plainly see this. Probably, at least for a moment, and maybe longer, you experienced the panicky cognitive dissonance of conflict between your two belief systems. Your conscious intellect was engaged in a battle with your scoff reflex, producing cognitive dissonance.

The liberal scoff reflex is an instinct-like denial of legitimacy. It operates similar to when you accidentally place your hand on something hot - you automatically respond by pulling your hand away. There is no rational thought involved, only an instinctual reaction designed to preserve and protect. The liberal scoff response also demands that no consideration be put into its reaction - it directs that any cognitive dissonance be immediately ignored. It is a self-denial originating in the subliminal belief system that any counterargument that contradicts the resident liberal conditioning can in any way be legitimate - the 800 pound gorilla simply does not exist. It is an instilled reaction. It needs no contemplation. In fact, conscious thought is its enemy. It is no different than when you touch something hot. Stop to first consider your reaction and the burn would be much more severe. It is likewise with the scoff response. To prevent the development of cognitive dissonance and thus limit the liberal subliminal belief system from sustaining any credibility damage, the conscious belief system must not be allowed to rationally contemplate any counterargument. This is how a subliminal belief system infected with liberal conditioning defends itself from a rational counterargument and critical analysis, which are often 800 pound gorillas.

The typical rural Pakistani grows up unaware that he has been conditioned throughout his life. He too is a sheople. His conscious and subliminal belief systems more or less live in peace with each other, but introduce counterarguments to his Muslim beliefs and his subliminal belief system will lash out in defense of itself. This does not make him an idiot or motivated by evil. He is simply responding instinctually as his fate has conditioned his subliminal belief system to respond.

Being a programmed liberal does not mean you are an idiot or motivated by evil either, gentle American. It means that you, along with most North Americans, including me, grew up in an environment where liberalism was gradually conditioned into us. We are not to blame for how we ended up as liberals. However, we are responsible for how we respond to this knowledge I am imparting to you right now. This very moment your conscious belief system (your third person analysis) is at war with your liberal subliminal belief system - you are experiencing cognitive dissonance. Your subliminal belief system is screaming that the spider on the table is the scariest thing in the universe - it is imperative that you run away and don't come back! However, your conscious belief system, utilizing Mr. Spock's detached third person analysis, is reading this book and responding that this all makes reasonable sense and that your irrational instinct to scoff it all away is ... well, irrational. You are beginning to transform from a sheople into a black sheep, gentle American. Black sheep don't like to be herded. Black sheep prefer to have the freedom to direct their own life.

It is, however, more than just a battle between what is rational and what is irrational. The scoff reflex is actually anti-rational. Groupthink demands that the contemplation of counterarguments be avoided at all costs, even at the cost of self-interest. Liberal 'truths' must not be examined, because of the threat of a possible self-evident realization that they are nothing more than liberalisms, so the job of the scoff reflex is to prevent contextual investigation and critical analysis of rational counterarguments to eliminate the development of any cognitive dissonance that might question the legitimacy of the subliminal liberal conditioning. Here Saul Alinsky's book Rules for Radicals comes in handy again:

~ "...a man of action does not have the sedentary frame of mind that is part of the personality of the research scholar. He finds it very difficult to sit quietly and think and write. ... He will do anything to avoid it."~

The "man of action" Alinsky alludes to, is specifically what we now know as a collaborator or alpha liberal who agrees to manipulate others by insisting that two unequal lines are equal - the aggressive groupthinker. This is also a base command for all of liberal groupthink - you must not "sit quietly and think" about counterarguments to liberalism. Do not attempt to understand why groupthink demands that you accept that those two obviously unequal lines as equal. Simply accept the irrationality of their obvious inequality and rationalize it later as a means to an end, even if both the means and the end are irrational. Or, as in our parallel illustration, the spider is very dangerous and scary - run away! When you refuse to resist your scoff response your conscious belief system is, in effect, granting permission for your subliminal belief system to control your life. So, despite the fact that you have been conditioned into liberalism, you have consciously granted permission all along the way. You have dismissed any cognitive dissonance in favor of your subliminal belief system. This is because you are guiltless and shameless, gentle American (this is not an insult, but a diagnosis).

Guilt and Shame C

For a liberal, guilt and shame are weapons to be used against opponents, never tools to correct and improve oneself, but now you will learn to use guilt and shame as tools in your own life, gentle American. The deprogramming of liberalism is about teaching you to accept your cognitive dissonance and resultant guilt and shame as positive mental tools that are alerting you to the operation of your subliminal liberal belief system. Guilt and shame guide you into accepting personal responsibility for your thoughts and actions (directing your own life). You must embrace guilt and shame as your guides to rational thinking and rational beliefs. (This is not meant to be a broad treatment on guilt and shame, but targeted to how they apply to liberalism.)

There are basically three kinds of egos directly related to cognitive dissonance. The first predominantly operates based on how a person views himself. This is a guilt based ego. Guilt is a response to cognitive dissonance about a person's personal thinking and conduct. The guilt based ego is very conscious of its own weaknesses and failures. People are conflicted towards themselves by their own errors, failures, inabilities, etc. Traditional Christians are good examples of primarily guilt based egos. They are very aware of their own moral conduct. Personal failure according to Christian moral standards produces guilt. This does not mean that they have no shame, only that guilt is

the predominant consideration of their belief system concerning moral weaknesses and failures resulting in cognitive dissonance.

The second kind of ego is the predominantly shame based ego where other peoples' views are a person's prominent consideration of issues resulting in cognitive dissonance. They are very conscious of how they look to their peers and easily conflicted toward others for their own moral weaknesses and failures. Muslims are good examples of primarily shame based egos. Pride and honor of conduct in the eyes of their peers are very important to them. In their minds they must be seen to be moral according to Muslim moralities. But again, this does not preclude them having guilt, only that shame is their prominent belief system consideration in this regard.

It is also true that the balance between guilt and shame can be based on a particular situation. A failure at home might predominantly produce guilt in front of immediate family members, whereas that same failure in public in front of strangers or peers might predominantly produce shame for the same person (or vise versa). People with some kind of personal moral code will produce a mixture of at least some guilt and shame.

Of course the third type is an ego that is both shameless and guiltless. Generally healthy egos are a moderate balance of the two. An overemphasis of one or the other may or may not be healthy depending on other factors, but by far, what is truly unhealthy is to have neither a guilt nor shame based ego. Guess where liberals fall on our scale? Yes, liberalism produces a guiltless and shameless ego, at least when it comes to ideology. Liberals do not have an ideological moral compass which is necessary to produce guilt or shame. Liberalism in its most basic definition is having one's cognitive dissonance turned off or suppressed - or in plain language, having no guilt or shame. Liberals are care-less. They don't care because they have no guilt or shame. They only care that they be seen to care - a perversion of shame. This is important, gentle American. It is not that liberals care - it is that liberalism demands a self-projection of an image of caring (this will be vividly explored in book two). Again, it is all about double standards. Numerous other examples will be offered throughout the remainder of the book series.

This care-less attitude is a result of John Dewey's aversion to right and wrong, and good and evil. Dewey incorporated into his utopian education the idea that morals make a person defective. Liberalism has preserved this from Dewey's utopian model, at least as applied to liberals. This is how aggressive groupthinkers can push the fallacy that two unequal lines are equal and not lose a minute's sleep to guilt or shame (meaning they produce no lasting cognitive dissonance over it). Of course the same is true for the passive groupthinker in accepting that two unequal lines are equal. If liberals produced guilt or shame they could not operate based on liberal principles. For instance, cognitive dissonance when contemplating double standards would produce guilt and/or shame. Sophistry would produce guilt and/or shame. Demagoguery would produce guilt and/or shame. Noble lies would produce guilt and/or shame. Liberal failures and indiscretions could not be excused based purely on a person's preconceived honorable motives. Prejudiced presumptions of a conservative's evil motives would also produce guilt and/or shame. 800 pound gorillas left unattended would produce guilt and/or shame. In effect, liberalism cannot function in a realm of moral restrictions that produce cognitive dissonance and resultant guilt and shame. Therefore liberalism is limited by the extent that a person has morals. Seemingly liberal moral positions on issues are not based on

guilt or shame but on calculation. For instance it is a strategic calculation to portray their liberalism as caring for those suffering from mass murder, but in reality we saw in the section Mad Methodology in chapter one, that liberals in fact, care little about mass murder. Liberalism functions best with a completely amoral belief system. Any cognitive dissonance that might arise is resolved through the rationalization strategy outlined by Saul Alinsky. Rationalization is a type of internal sophistry that justifies irrational thoughts, explanations and decisions. The alpha liberal can assert that two unequal lines are equal because they have no guilt or shame challenging their irrational assertion. The beta liberal can agree with the alpha liberal by ignoring their guilt and shame. This is how liberals can peacefully sleep at night with no nagging guilt or shame about their irrational thought, attitude or conduct based on liberal principles. Only by listening to one's guilt and/or shame can a liberal overcome his sheople life of unequal lines and become a black sheep that demands that only the two equal lines are acceptable.

Moral Double Standards C

It is even worse than just an amoral attitude, gentle American. Even here, the liberal holds to a double standard. Remember, I said that liberalism preserved Dewey's model of no good and evil, and no right and wrong. This is only partially true. Liberalism preserved this model for itself, but not for its adversaries. In the mind of a liberal they irrationally moralize that they are always morally correct because morals do not apply to them. Remember Alinsky stated that rationalization is an afterthought to liberal conduct. To a liberal liberalism is first and foremost honorable and always correct. It is not that the facts of any particular matter make the liberal side of the matter correct. It is that the liberal side is first correct based on what is perceived as correct motives and then the facts are massaged and manipulated to support the liberal view - what Alinsky called "moral rationalization". There are two ways of thinking that lead to always coming out on the right side of every issue. The first is the Alinsky way. Determine your position first based on your ideology and then rationalize your thinking and arguments after the fact, and of course, suppress any cognitive dissonance. This is the liberal way of always being on the correct side of any issue. This is how an ideologue thinks. The second way is to ascertain the facts and utilize contextual investigation and critical analysis to determine a position on an issue, safeguarded by cognitive dissonance. This is the conservative way to ending up on the correct side of any issue. This is how a critical thinker reasons out issues.

Think about it, gentle American. In order for liberalism to always be correct there must be a right and wrong, but this would have to allow for moral standards that they may fail at and produce guilt or shame, so to counterbalance this intolerable position the liberal rationalizes that if liberalism is always right, because its motives are always right, then conservatism is always wrong, because its motives are always wrong, and to side with what is always right one must be honorable, and to side with what is always wrong one must be evil. For a liberal the double standard is that conservatives never live up to any moral standard and therefore are always wrong and always evil. This is the extent of liberal morality. It is always for the other guy, but never for them. Naturally, liberals view guilt and shame only as demagogic weapons to be used on conservatives, but exempt guilt and shame as applied to themselves, so liberals end up with these conclusions about moral wrongs: Being a liberal is to have honorable motives, and means

never having to admit to being wrong, possessing regret or saying their sorry. Being a conservative is to have evil motives, and means that one is always wrong, and therefore regret and an apology is never enough. [*ykdkyqd] [1]

The Buck Stops Here C

When I said above that liberals do not have ideological guilt or shame I did not mean that this is because they do not produce any. It is because they shift it away from themselves onto others. So when something happens in their life that produces guilt or shame related to their ideology they have a default setting that is a part of their defensive scoff reflex that moves it away from themselves to place the blame on someone or something else, commonly called 'passing the buck'. Liberal self-righteousness is the part of the liberal ego that allows a liberal to see himself as always of pure ideological motive and free of all guilt and shame, thus excusing all indiscretions and failures. Deflecting blame is another part of the liberal ego that allows for shifting their own guilt and shame over to a ubiquitous "them" whom they conveniently view as always motivated by evil. Again, this goes hand in hand with the liberal double standard of applying no morals to oneself, but always judging conservatives and society as moral failures. This is again, the attitude of the rebellious fourteen-year-old.

When Barack Obama said, "The buck stops with me" in regard to the Christmas bomber what exactly did he mean, gentle American? Well, liberals immediately hailed this as taking responsibility for the actions of his administration - something Bush never did, they add as a dig. In effect, liberals gave him credit for saying "The buck stops with me." This is irrational - only a liberal would think this way. This leaves an 800 pound gorilla in the corner of the room unaddressed. Why should the President get credit for admitting to responsibility for a major security failure? Should we now give bank robbers credit for saying in court, "the buck stops with me", and send them on their way with a pat on the back? No. It may lead to a lighter sentence, but they are still penalized. There is no doubt that Obama's policy intentions of closing the Guantanimo Bay detention center, and providing captured terrorists with American citizen rights has been a complete failure - remember the "new beginning" which was supposed to bring about "mutual interest and mutual respect" between America and the Muslim world? That was supposed to prevent more attacks from even being initiated. [*yz8sda9] [2] But, here is an interesting statement in regard to the Christmas bomber from a "command, control, communications and information (C3I) specialist":

~The computer system will key in on “Abdulmutallab”, “Niger”, “Yemen” and many other pieces of meta data associated with each intel ‘dot’. The only way to not connect the dots is to override ‘the system’ and declare the system has produced results out of bounds. ... The human analyst works after the dot connecting stage has been done automatically.~ [yaxuve4] [3]

So, in effect, someone deliberately ignored the warning lights going off in the system. The dots had already been connected "automatically". That means somewhere between the computer analyst at the bottom of the security chain and President Obama at the top of the chain, someone made a decision that almost got hundreds of Americans killed. This was confirmed when National Counterterrorism Center Director Michael Leiter in testimony before the Senate Homeland Security Committee said:

~ "Whether he would have been placed on either the No Fly or Selectee list—again based on the existing standards—would have been determined by the strength of the analytic judgment. [...] On the later analytic judgments, it’s more likely that he gets into the No-Fly criteria. It’s easy, after the fact, to look back and say, clearly, he should have been in the No Fly, but it really would have depended on what the analyst said, putting all those pieces together, about what kind of operative he was and what his intention was."~ [7me7pad] [4]

Where did that analyst get his direction? From his superior? From his superior's superior? Or from the Obama policy not to focus on Muslims or some other Obama policy aimed at appeasing Muslim sensitivities? Looked at in this light it is quite apparent that indeed President Obama is directly at fault for this horrendous security failure. The dots were connected - Obama's policy of what to do with the information utterly failed.

Here's another example. In 2009 seven CIA operatives were killed by a double agent suicide bomber in Afghanistan despite that the agency had known that he had written extremist Islamic rants on jihadist websites, had been warned beforehand that the Jordanian suspect was in league with al Qaeda by a Jordanian official, and one of the agents killed had been warning of a double cross. After an investigation CIA Director Leon Panetta declared:

~ "There was a systemic breakdown with regard to the kind of judgment and scrutiny that should have been applied here. ... All of us bear responsibility, and all of us have to fix this."~ [89leb58, 6p37enu] [5]

If this was a "systemic breakdown" then the obvious question is, why? Can you see the pattern here, gentle American? Americans die because members of the system don't do their jobs properly. Why?

Passing the Buck C

The phrase "the buck stops here" comes from another that was mentioned above; "passing the buck". It means to shift blame onto someone else. The original phrase, "the buck stops here" essentially means that the blame stops here. Now imagine if Barack Obama had said that the blame stopped with CIA Director Leon Panetta - supposing that he was the one who directed the analyst to ignore the 'system' warnings. The societal morals of guilt and shame would have demanded Panetta's resignation. What if Barack Obama had fingered Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano as the one who directed that those warnings be ignored? She would have had to resign. Or what if it was Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair who was in charge of the no-fly list? He would have had to resign. In fact Blair said there was "pressure to reduce the passenger no-fly list". [*yldxzjm, *yk2wd4m] [6] Pressure from where? Blair answers directly to the President. Presumably, the only place that pressure could come from was from above - the Oval Office.

Also, it goes beyond security policy decisions. By demonizing and threatening to prosecute America's own security personnel President Obama has paralyzed them from boldly doing their jobs, fearing that down the road their decisions may come under the scrutiny of a politically vengeful military court or Department of Justice, [*48crl5r, *ylj6xco, *3r9fbpn] [7] or even Interpol, who have been given virtual carte blanche

access by the Obama administration, [*8yevlda] [8] and who also have expressed sympathies in exposing American security personnel to being prosecuted by the International Criminal Court. [*dhdz43] [9] Even throwing out the trash can be an indictable offense in the Obama military. [*7wemvbd] [10] There is your "systemic breakdown", gentle American. Who of these security personnel wants to become the target of al Qaeda when they are dragged into a public court setting and exposed to the hostility of an al Qaeda sympathetic defense attorney that could end up putting their families in danger of attack? Of course, when security warning lights flash in the system, the tough decisions will be passed on by those who see those warnings, so when the Department of Justice or Interpol later come calling they won't be the ones in the crosshairs. This is why the Christmas bomber almost blew up an aircraft when system warning bells and sirens were certainly going off all over the place before he ever boarded the plane.

What was the correct course of action for President Obama when he stated that, "the buck stops with me", thus accurately admitting that it was he who should legitimately shoulder the blame for a terrorist incident where hundreds of Americans almost lost their lives? An admittance of fault at this magnitude should have led to guilt and shame, and the only rational response is that he should have resigned from the Presidency forthwith. Liberals had constantly attempted to get President Bush to admit to some wrongdoing. Do you think they would have given him a pat on the back if he had? No, I don't think so either, gentle American. Their double standards would have demanded impeachment. If Bush had admitted to what Obama has admitted to, I would have demanded for his resignation as well. In fact, Obama should still resign. American security is the foremost responsibility of the President. The failure in this matter has not just been a result of a single incidental decision. It is the gross incompetence of an entire set of policies that is a failure throughout the security system. The Fort Hood shooting is another prime example. Warning lights were flashing throughout the system, but the policies prevented any action on those warnings and so thirteen Americans needlessly died and thirty more were wounded. What about the personnel operating those assassin drones in Pakistan? Will they someday have the Justice Department or Interpol knocking at their door with eager media cameras in toe, making their families targets of vengeful terrorists? [*7xlr56w, *23gy7rw] [11]

What Obama, in effect, really meant when he said "the buck stops with me" was that he, as an alpha liberal, was not going to hold anyone responsible, including himself, for this egregious security failure. What he meant was, "We do not accept responsibility." Only a liberal would think that Obama's shouldering of the blame means that nothing should come of it. And only a juvenile mindset would think that he should get a pat on the back for it. President Obama well illustrates that liberals see his supposed motives as exonerating and therefore have no need for guilt or shame. As long as Obama is in charge, America will remain insecure, because he has instituted incompetent and arrogant politically correct policies that have made America's security personnel fearful of prosecution and fearful that their families may be publicly exposed to retaliation from al Qaeda or even a lone radicalized American Muslim. These fears were never a problem under President Bush, so America was secure after 9/11 and throughout the Bush administration. There are two steps necessary to regain that level of security. The first step is for Barack Obama to resign and for all who were involved in his erroneous

security and prosecution policy decisions to be replaced. The second step is to create legislation that protects security personnel responsible for important security decisions and operations from a vengeful Department of Justice, hateful international busybodies and public exposure. Until then, expect more bungled security events and subsequent dead Americans.

One last thing illustrates liberalism's selective application of guilt and shame. As former President Nixon was hounded out of office by a shaming liberal press, so should Barack Obama be shamed out of the Presidency. When Obama admitted that, "The buck stops with me" he actually went further in incriminating himself than Nixon ever did when he said "I am not a crook", or even when the incriminating tapes were exposed. Nixon was felled by playing extreme politics, but Obama's sins are much graver than anything Nixon ever did. Obama's security and prosecution policies have directly led to thirteen unnecessary deaths at Fort Hood, seven top level CIA operatives in Afghanistan, and it was only because of the alertness and bravery of Dutch film director, Jasper Schuringa that over two hundred more Americans (plus additional Canadians on the ground where the plane would have crashed) weren't added to that death list by the Christmas bomber. But Nixon was an enemy of the liberal orthodox press, so of course guilt and shame applied to him. Obama, however, is a fellow traveling alpha liberal, so guilt and shame do not apply. Double standards anyone?

(Incidentally, is it any surprise that Jasper Schuringa received multiple awards in his homeland for his selfless act, yet received no official honor from the Obama administration? In fact, it is not unusual when the guilty party resents the hero who prevented the disaster that would have occurred because of the guilty party's actions - and resentful, guilty persons do not give out awards.)

Blame and Loathing C

There is a price to be paid for continual rejection of guilt and shame. Except for the narcissist and the truly psychotic, each person knows when they are producing guilt or shame. There are healthy ways to deal with it and there are unhealthy ways. The default liberal procedure is to always shift guilt and shame to blame. This self-protection however leads to self-loathing. Their conscience is aware of the shifting of their guilt and shame, and the natural response is to despise oneself for doing so, but this too is intolerable for the liberal mind, because again, this is a moral judgment, and as we have already seen, for a liberal, moral judgments are only to be applied to other people. So now, the self-loathing must also be shifted elsewhere. Naturally, as a simple coping mechanism in generic terms society becomes the easy place to shift both liberal blame and loathing. If a person cannot accept guilt, shame and personal blame when circumstances legitimately produce them, and instead, shifts them elsewhere, the mind will produce self-loathing. This is why utopia is so important for the liberal. Liberals thinks that if they can just fix society then there will be no guilt, shame, blame and loathing. Until utopia is attained society becomes the natural solution for a liberal's guilt, shame, self-blame and self-loathing. It is the belief in utopia that allows the liberal conscience to condemn anything and everything. This is the explanation for the liberal principle: The essence of contemporary liberalism is that the individual is blameless and society is always guilty.

This leads the contemporary American liberal to have a disdain for America and American traditions as society becomes the destination of all shifted liberal self-blame and self-loathing. This thinking goes hand in hand with the paranoia principle: Compulsive paranoia is the foundation of contemporary liberalism. In the liberal's mind he rationalizes (fears) that as long as American society has not reached utopia there must be serious things wrong with it. Therefore today, liberals blame and loath so-called American imperialism. They see free market capitalism as destroying the planet. Christianity is stifling societal growth. They disdain big oil, the health insurance industry and the banking industry. They see their own military and security agencies as the cause of strife around the world. Overt patriotism is viewed as distasteful (like wearing a flag pin or placing one's hand over the heart). They hate the Pledge of Allegiance, Christmas, home schooling, transfats, cigarettes, and on and on. Before the 2008 financial crisis and economic downturn Walmart and SUVs were what was wrong with America (Walmart seems to be making a comeback as a target lately). Microsoft and HMOs in the nineties were the big villains. (For a more extensive list go back to the section List of Evils in chapter two.) And, of course, conservatives who value American traditions are always at the root of all that is wrong with America. Liberals hate themselves because they cannot accept their own guilt, shame, or blame, and so they cope with their resultant self-loathing by hating elsewhere. There simply must be an ulterior reason for the failure of not reaching utopia. There must be villains on which to pass off their self-blame and self-loathing. Sound familiar, gentle American? (In book three of the series you will see how much self-loathing-induced-hatred liberalism produces, gentle American - without a doubt it will shock your socks off!)

Self Projection C

~ "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster."~ - Friedrich Nietzsche

Or more to our point: He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself is not the monster he fights. This is our next liberal principle: Contemporary liberals project what they subconsciously loathe about themselves as demagoguery toward their opponents and society as a whole. 

Remember in chapter two we explored The Paranoid Style in American Politics. Hofstadter also observed about the "paranoid", which today are contemporary liberals: "It is hard to resist the conclusion that this enemy [the conservative] is on many counts the projection of the self [the liberal]." [6d4qrn] [12] Here is how Wikipedia describes projection:

~Psychological projection or projection bias (including Freudian Projection) is the unconscious act of denial of a person's own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, such as to the weather, the government, a tool, or to other people. [...] Projection is considered one of the most profound and subtle of human psychological processes, and extremely difficult to work with, because by its nature it is hidden. It is the fundamental mechanism by which we keep ourselves uninformed about ourselves.~ [a7a2r] [13]

This is a textbook description of conditioned liberalism. Projection is related to the scoff response defense mechanism and the use of demagoguery and sophistry as offensive and

defensive weapons. It is also a sure sign of compulsive paranoid delusion. The subliminal liberal belief system utilizes these lines of thinking to protect itself from rational counterarguments that might allow the conscious belief system to become suspicious of its alternate's irrational liberal conditioning. When shame and/or guilt develops, projection whisks the subsequent self-blame and self-loathing safely away so that liberals can still sleep soundly at night without nagging doubts tugging at their conscience - a defense against cognitive dissonance.

~Paleo-anthropologically speaking, this faculty [projection] probably had survival value as a self-defense mechanism when homo sapiens' intellectual capacity to detect deception in others improved to the point that the only sure hope to deceive was for deceivers to be self-deceived and therefore behave as if they were being truthful.~

This really gets down to the crux of the matter, gentle American. Please allow me to rewrite this a bit so as to be more pertinent for us: "The only sure hope for liberalism to deceive is for liberals to be self-deceived and therefore genuinely behave as if liberalism is about being truthful." This is liberalism! And this directly relates to compulsive paranoid delusion. This leads right back to our very first principle of liberalism: Contemporary liberalism requires a strict adherence to playing stupid. Let's read this again: "The only sure hope for liberalism to deceive is for liberals to be self-deceived and therefore genuinely behave as if liberalism is about being truthful." Liberals really do genuinely believe all of their irrational liberalisms and noble lies that make up their liberal ideology. They really do believe those two unequal lines are equal. For a liberal they are truth.

~Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.~

Projection for a liberal is a coping mechanism for dealing with irrationalities and contradictions (800 pound gorillas) that might awake their conscious belief system to shame and/or guilt that their subliminal belief system would rather be left ignored. Here are some examples:

Despite the fact that liberals view themselves as colorblind they constantly inject racial motives into issues. Here is one heard in the media almost every day: Opposition to President Obama's policies can only be from a motive of racism (this belief is a result of paranoid delusion). This fulfills both a demagogic strategy and satisfies the need for projection. And if empirical evidence is demanded, then just make some up: alpha liberal and Civil rights leader John Lewis claims to have been called the n-word "at least 15 times" (he agreed with this characterization) by Tea Partiers, despite the fact that multiple videos with sound, of the incident described illustrate that the story was pure fiction (more later). According to liberals, conservatives don't just disagree with President Obama - they oppose him because he is black. These are all projections of liberal self-loathing over race. They cannot accept that it is they who see life based on race, so they project their self-loathing onto conservatives as an ideological bludgeon (much more later).

Liberals, as with all of society, are dependant on fossil fuels, but, liberals see fossil fuels as evil. They project their self-loathing for using fossil fuels onto the oil companies, car manufacturers and conservatives who do not have issues with using fossil fuels.

However, oil companies are not holding guns to liberals' heads forcing them to heat their homes and drive their cars. They are simply offering a product and a service that is demanded by the marketplace - including by liberals. Blaming oil companies, car manufacturers and conservatives is just simple projection of liberals' own self-blame and self-loathing, and another example of paranoid delusion.

Medicare and Medicaid were supposed to solve the problem for those who slip through the healthcare cracks. These programs were promised to cost a fraction of what they do in reality. Instead of accepting the failure of these two programs to meet their goals, liberals pile on with Obama's healthcare reform which the majority of the American people do not want and which will do more of the same waste on a grander scale. Of course, they express their self-blame and self-loathing with sentiments such as these noted quotations from chapter two:

~ "George Bush has a health care plan - pray you don't get sick."~ - John Edwards about Bush 43 [ydr568r] [14]

~ "If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly. That's right. The Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick."~ - Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) [y9dwala] [15]

~ "[T]he Republicans lie! They want to see you dead. They'd rather make money off your dead corpse. They kind of like it when that woman has cancer and they don't have anything for her."~ - MSNBC talk show host Ed Schultz [yesm6qv] [16]

Can you see the projection and paranoid delusion in these examples, gentle American? Here are some more that we have already discussed:

Liberals demagogue conservatives for supporting the breaching of the supposed civil rights of terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay while ignoring that President Obama is executing terror suspects and their innocent neighbors in Pakistan.

Liberals demagogue conservatives for supporting the invasion of Iraq which they saw as based on lies while ignoring that President Clinton waged war on Serbia which was clearly based on administration fabrications.

Liberals demagogue conservatives for supporting the war in Iraq which stopped the mass murder of up to one hundred thousand Iraqis per year while ignoring that President Clinton allowed eight hundred thousand Rwandans to be slaughtered.

Again, can you see the projection of the self-blame and self-loathing in these examples, gentle American? Liberals blame and loathe the very side of these issues that their own ideology has failed so miserably at, and which exposes their own liberalism as a failure, so as a defense they project their blame and loathing onto conservatives, demagoguing them about things which their own liberalism has failed to do. Here is a classic case of projection:

~ "A pro-life Democrat, unlike a pro-life Republican, cares about kids after they're born, not just before."~ - Howard Dean [yaen4pa] [17]

The self-indictment of this statement is a real head-shaker (after one finishes laughing). What is the logical premise of this statement? Obviously if one wishes to care about kids before they are born one must be pro-life (apparently even pro-life Republicans care

then). If one is not pro-life the obvious parallel conclusion is that one does not care about kids before they are born. Dean has just admitted that pro-choicers don't care, which goes completely against the liberal mantra that 'liberals care'. And how does he deal with this cognitive dissonance? He projects uncaring onto Republican pro-lifers "after they're born". Here is another:

~ "Unfortunately, a lot of the people in the right-wing base are not the most intellectual people in the world, not the most savvy people in the world, and they are definitely quick to anger, and quick to blame other people. [...] It’s part of the human nature of a personality type that tends to identify as Republican or conservative. And it’s an unfortunate part of our society. It’s a scourge on our society."~ - Janeane Garofalo [yc92mub] [18]

From what I have seen in interviews of Janeane Garofalo on CNN and MSNBC no one would mistake her for an intellectual giant of any kind. I have never heard her make a profound point about anything - ever. In fact, she comes across as a smart-ass - someone who knows her own low intellectual standing and elevates herself by devaluing those around her with accusations of her own deficiencies. Classic projection and paranoid delusion.

~ "And this is exactly why the conservatives keep harping on spending, spending, spending as the problem: because they know spending, spending, spending is the solution, and they don't want this solved! They don't want this solved because they hate government! They hate teachers. They hate police officers. They hate first responders. They hate firemen. They hate EMT workers. They want it all to be privatized! That's when you gonna get the haves having police protection and excellent schools and the have-nots having no police protection and no schools! And therein is the dreamworld for them. This is nirvana for them!"~ - Randi Rhodes [39awcyh] [19]

So, supposedly "nirvana" for a conservative, is a divided society where some benefit and most do not. This is based on the liberal principle of conservatives having evil motives. But what is revealing is Rhodes projection about utopia. Liberals have been attempting to incrementally implement their utopia for over forty years and are no closer now than when they started. Do they deal with their failure as grownups and own up to their failure? No, they project their failure as an evil dystopia that the other side is purposefully implementing. Another classic case of projection and paranoid delusion.

We have previously discussed and illustrated the base liberal principle: Contemporary liberalism requires a strict adherence to playing stupid. But please allow me to be blunt about this: Liberals easily and casually lie to themselves, gentle American. It is entirely normal self-talk. They accept lying to themselves as all-day, everyday behavior. Compulsive paranoid delusion leads liberals to lie to themselves to stay within the herd, and so they can feel good about themselves and still sleep at night without a nagging conscience keeping them awake. Projection deals with the consequences of lying to oneself. Projection conveniently whisks away all of the self-blame and self-loathing generated by those self-lies onto those who refuse to play stupid with them - conservatives, or society as a whole if necessary.

Societal Conditioning C

Our eighteenth and final principle of liberalism is: Contemporary liberalism is a type of societal conditioning. Although this was established in the first few pages of Deprogramming Liberalism, I didn't want to codify it as a principle until I had thoroughly presented every aspect of its case. In fact, it is the single source principle. That is now obvious to you, is it not, gentle American? Liberalism is a type of societal conditioning that leads the afflicted to seek societal perfection through demanding and expecting an eventual liberal utopia. However, this impulse for societal perfection is unlike the individual perfectionist who mostly seeks ideal results in himself, and so mostly takes failure out on himself. The liberal societal perfectionist solely seeks ideal results from others' actions, and this false hope dooms him to continual disappointment. They see almost everything as obstacles preventing utopia, and are willing to give up the liberty of directing their own lives to achieve it. However, by sacrificing their own and everyone else's liberties, they are not creating utopia, but dystopia.

This makes them paranoid that utopia may never be reached, so they see everything and everyone that they perceive to be impeding utopia as evil, and/or motivated by evil - scapegoats hindering utopia (see chapter two). This false hope for a heaven on earth develops into a judgmentalism that sees everything in black and white - for and against utopia. Those similarly afflicted and in favor of a liberal utopia are seen as possessing noble motives, and of course, those viewed as impeding or opposing a liberal utopia must have evil motives. So, there are two kinds of Americans in the liberal mind - heroes and villains. The heroes strive for utopia. The villains attempt to thwart utopia.

Evolution / Devolution C

I would now like to return to the essay written in 1964 by historian Richard Hofstadter, called The Paranoid Style in American Politics (first examined in chapter two). [6d4qrn] [20] 

~In using the expression “paranoid style” I am not speaking in a clinical sense, but borrowing a clinical term for other purposes. I have neither the competence nor the desire to classify any figures of the past or present as certifiable lunatics. In fact, the idea of the paranoid style as a force in politics would have little contemporary relevance or historical value if it were applied only to men with profoundly disturbed minds. It is the use of paranoid modes of expression by more or less normal people that makes the phenomenon significant.~

As I explained in chapter one, liberalism is not a result of being dumb or crazy. Neither is the paranoia that drives liberalism. Liberalism is a result of societal conditioning. Hofstadter also observed an evolution of the paranoid style from his exposés of earlier paranoid movements:

~The spokesmen of those earlier movements felt that they stood for causes and personal types that were still in possession of their country—that they were fending off threats to a still established way of life. But the modern right wing, as Daniel Bell has put it, feels dispossessed: America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion.~

The paranoids of old were secure in their present way of life, but felt threatened that it could be taken from them in the near future. They also felt secure for the current rule of their society, only that it may be under threat. Their paranoia was a fear of the future. This evolved into the supposed “right wing” paranoids of the sixties feeling that their way of life had already been taken from them, and it was their job to get it back. They supposedly feared a top-down conspiracy had taken over. Their supposed fear was that the present opportunity to reclaim the past could be lost. Liberalism is another step in the evolution of the paranoid style where both the past and the present are already viewed as losses and failures, and only the future can hold the hope of a fair, safe and satisfactory society. They claim societal rule for themselves, but see subversive entities attempting to take it from them. The paranoia for the liberal is a fear of perceived elements in present day society that are actively subverting their carefully laid plans for growth into the fulfillment of a future utopia. This paranoia for the future then allows liberals to see any convenient thing today as an evil enemy attempting to thwart utopia. So corporations and industries can be evil. Whole races can be evil. Political movements, ideologies, SUVs, coal and oil, school choice, pro-life, morals, religions, free trade, and even light bulbs for gawd's sake, can be evil. Guns, fast food, meat, talk radio, Wall Street, free markets and patriotism can all be evil. Even holidays like Christmas can be seen as evil. The ideas of exceptionalism, self-reliance, tax cuts, less regulations, less government spending and a smaller government are all seen as evil. And worst of all, liberty itself is often viewed by liberals as evil. Anything that may be perceived as a threat to reaching utopia is evil. There is also another element of the evolution of the paranoid style that Hofstadter had not witnessed at the time of his writing:

~One of the impressive things about paranoid literature is the contrast between its fantasied conclusions and the almost touching concern with factuality it invariably shows.~

Perhaps devolution is the better description here. Liberalism is hardly known for its "concern with factuality". As has been and will be illustrated throughout Deprogramming Liberalism, facts are almost always a rival of liberal thinking which necessitates a blind faith in reaching utopia, and naturally leads to many unintended consequences: 

~This demand for total triumph leads to the formulation of hopelessly unrealistic goals, and since these goals are not even remotely attainable, failure constantly heightens the paranoid’s sense of frustration. Even partial success leaves him with the same feeling of powerlessness with which he began, and this in turn only strengthens his awareness of the vast and terrifying quality of the enemy he opposes. [...] It is hard to resist the conclusion that this enemy is on many counts the projection of the self; both the ideal and the unacceptable aspects of the self are attributed to him.~

As mentioned above, liberalism deals with its many failures through self-projection: "When shame and/or guilt develops, projection whisks the subsequent self-blame and self-loathing safely away so that liberals can still sleep soundly at night without nagging doubts tugging at their conscience - a defense against cognitive dissonance." Projection is related to the scoff reflex:

~A distinguished historian has said that one of the most valuable things about history is that it teaches us how things do not happen. It is precisely this kind of awareness that the

paranoid fails to develop. He has a special resistance of his own, of course, to developing such awareness, but circumstances often deprive him of exposure to events that might enlighten him—and in any case he resists enlightenment.~

Hopefully that last sentence no longer describes you, gentle American. Having read this far into Deprogramming Liberalism I am confident that is no longer the case.

Here is the bottom line: Liberalism is entirely based on paranoia - a fear of evil everywhere. Liberals can find evil monsters hiding beneath any rock. This drives liberals to seek solutions to quell their unrelenting fears and bring about a safe utopia where everyone is protected from the perceived evil that desires to destroy them. This is not a reasonable way to live a life or run a country, gentle American.

Deprogramming Lessons C

Remember our MCTE question from earlier: "Is it normal for person to think he believes one thing, but constantly act as though he believes another without ever realizing it?" As we have witnessed in this chapter the answer is yes, for liberals this is entirely normal. Liberals think that they are the reasonable ones, but then constantly act on the eccentric belief of evil monsters hiding beneath every rock.

The above observations of liberal thought patterns have been compiled and examined based on the foundation that liberalism is an external conditioning of the mind: Contemporary liberalism is a type of societal conditioning. The resultant liberal projection is expressed in two principles of liberalism as: Compulsive paranoia is the foundation of contemporary liberalism. Contemporary liberalism requires a strict adherence to playing stupid. Rationalization is then necessary to build the house of cards: For contemporary liberals superficial rationalization is always the last element in their line of thought. For the liberal mind, projection then provides a defense for the facade and any resultant guilt and/or shame is dealt with through this principle: Contemporary liberals project what they subconsciously loathe about themselves as demagoguery toward their opponents and society as a whole. Liberals loath their self-told lies and the failures of their liberalism and deal with them by projecting their reaction to their disappointment onto their adversaries and society. We have now discovered all eighteen principles that govern contemporary liberalism. Here is the subliminally controlled life of a liberal, gentle American:

1) Source: Contemporary liberalism is a type of societal conditioning.

2) Cause: Compulsive paranoia is the foundation of contemporary liberalism.

3) Symptom: Contemporary liberalism requires a strict adherence to playing stupid.

4) Symptom: Without irrational double standards contemporary liberalism cannot exist.

5) Symptom: A contemporary liberal's honorable motives and noble fight against contemporary conservatism excuses all liberal failures and indiscretions.

6) Symptom: A contemporary conservative's evil motives justify their destruction by any means necessary.

7) Symptom: Contemporary liberals project what they subconsciously loathe about themselves as demagoguery toward their opponents and society as a whole.

8) Symptom: For the contemporary liberal groupthinker, sophistry and demagoguery are the weapons of choice against critical thinking.

9) Symptom: For contemporary liberals superficial rationalization is always the first and final element in their ideological line of thought.

10) Symptom: The essence of contemporary liberalism is that the individual is blameless and society is always guilty.

11) Symptom: Contemporary liberalism views society as generally incompetent and in need of the guiding hand of a controlling government.

12) Symptom: For its own good a resistant society must have utopian ideals forced upon it.

13) Symptom: Contemporary liberals embrace the strategy of the noble lie.

14) Symptom: Contemporary liberals employ chaos as a political strategy to destabilize society so that liberal solutions can appear more palatable.

15) Symptom: Contemporary liberalism relies on a programmed, instinct-like scoff reflex to preserve itself from the consequences of critical thinking.

16) Result: Self-interest and critical thinking are enemies of contemporary liberal groupthink.

17) Result: Contemporary liberalism is rife with unintended consequences.

18) Result: Contemporary liberalism is absurd.

This is a big step, gentle American, coming face to face with that which hampers your life. Now that you know that liberalism is a set of governing rules that have been conditioned into you we can begin to explore what it has done to you, and remove it one step at a time. Good work in grinding it out until now, gentle American. Next we'll look at the ideology of liberalism and compare it to other ideologies.

Deprogramming Exercise C

Most liberal principles are expressed in the attitude of liberals, while one defines the source, another is a cause, and a few are realized as the results of liberalism. You can now consciously examine your own behavior and identify these principles as they exhibit themselves in your life, gentle American. This chapter has actually been all about liberal attitude. Awakening to the reality of this attitude is the most important ingredient to overcoming it. I suggest that you consciously reject each principle working in your life when it becomes apparent to you, and adjust your behavior accordingly. Your subliminal belief system need not run your life - the spider is not scary. It is your choice, just like your decision to prefer to have the freedom to direct your own life, gentle American. In fact, each time you reject a liberal principle in your life you are taking claim on directing your own life. Ponder these things at bedtime tonight.

Here is a less wordy synopsis about the liberal thought process that may help solidify your understanding: [*6akezpn] [21]

Humor, Sort-of C

RING. . .RING. . .CLICKWelcome to the Psychiatric Hotline.If you are obsessive-compulsive, please press 1 repeatedly.If you are co-dependent, please ask someone to press 2.If you have multiple personalities, please press 3, 4, 5, and 6.If you are a paranoid-delusional liberal, we know who you are and what you want. Just stay on the line so we can trace the call. [45nx6mo] [22]

Chapter 6

Leftwing/Rightwing

Mini Critical Thinking Exercise C

~ "It has been well said that really up-to-date liberals do not care what people do, as long as it is compulsory."~ - George Will

Remember our original question from chapter one: "As a principle, would you prefer others to direct your life, or would you prefer to have the freedom to direct your own life, gentle American?" This chapter will deal with this on both a personal and a national scale. Answer this: As a principle, does contemporary liberalism equate with more personal liberty?

Deprogramming Liberalism American Ideology Dichotomy Scale C

Let's talk about ideologies, gentle American. For most of the twentieth century, ideological identifications and definitions were more specifically complex than today, more philosophical, describing idealistic sets of goals such as Nazi fascism, Red communism, European socialism and democratic free market capitalism. But political strategies have evolved and few countries still hold to the proclaimed ideological goals as defined in many of the old textbooks. Conservatism and liberalism had very different meanings than they do today (remember we discussed classical liberalism in chapter four). This is why I talk about contemporary liberalism and contemporary conservatism. Ideology today is not so much about overtly grand plans for society with guiding principles. Strategies now are more covert and deceptive, reactive, and implemented by the seat of the pants. Contemporary ideologies have boiled down to a balance between two things, preservation, and denial of individual liberty. Basically, contemporary ideology is a measure of societal control through the amount of liberty permitted and denied.

There are a number of scales used to measure ideologies, some shaped like horseshoes or boxes, and some are crosses or linear. Most of these scales use outdated definitions, and a major problem shared by all of the scales I have seen is that they place nihilists, anarchists and minimalists together or ignore them completely. For instance, in the popular Nolan Chart quizzes, nihilists, anarchists and minimalists end up at the same place. [ydws3rf] [1] This is a real problem when discussing a rating of contemporary

ideologies based on liberty as related to the origin of the United States of America, because the founding fathers were minimalists, the furthest thing from modern day anarchists that protest G-20 meetings, or nihilists like Muslim terrorists. Another problem is the lack of accounting for many of the new cultic ideologies of the latter half of the twentieth century - environmentalism, feminism, etc. (more later). But for a scale to be useful it must measure something. For our purposes we will build a simple linear scale. The base criteria of measurement for our ideological scale is the freedom of the individual - your liberty. On the extreme leftwing will be complete authoritarian control over the individual. On the extreme rightwing we will place virtual freedom from control for the individual. This chapter will describe and categorize contemporary ideological issues that constitute our Deprogramming Liberalism Liberty American Ideology Dichotomy Scale. (The next chapter will deal with the various named ideologies and how they fit into our scale.) So the base of our measurement will look like this (the center is the tipping point between the limitation and promotion of liberty):

Slavery - Center - Liberty

In terms of the extremes of societal control it would look like this:

Authoritarian control - Center - Minimal control

We can also look at how the order of a society is determined:

Authority orders societal rule - Center - Society orders governmental administration

In the practical sense of liberties (freedoms) they can be described as such:

Withdrawal and denial of individual liberties - Center - Preservation and promotion of individual liberties

In broad graduated terms our contemporary ideological scale is this:

Leftwing - Authoritarianism - Liberalism - Center - Conservatism - Minimalism - Rightwing

And in terms of economic systems it looks like this:

Government Managed Economy - Center - Unmanaged Economy

It is important to understand that the basic measure of our scale is individual liberty. (Liberals are not going to like this, gentle American.) Liberty ideally and within reason is the right to live according to one's own will without imposing on another man's convenience. Wherever there is a clash, governing rules are applied as determined by a social management agency representing all individuals concerned - government. More individual liberty moves one to the right on our scale. Less individual liberty moves one to the left. Now, liberals will be hopping up and down saying what about nazism and fascism - they're extreme rightwing! Well, that makes no sense, gentle American. Without a unit of measure what good is a scale? Our scale measures increasing liberty to the right and decreasing liberty to the left. One cannot have ideologies that are tyrannical on both the extreme left and on the extreme right. Look, here's what it boils down to: Liberalism and conservatism cannot both be about promoting and preserving liberty. One simply must do so much more than the other. We will now determine which one. (See? I told you liberals aren't going to like this, gentle American.)

Totalitarian Leftists C

Despite what you may have been taught, gentle American, all totalitarian ideologies are leftwing. Just look at our subscales above. Notice how the rightwing extreme is defined with minimal limits to individual liberties and the leftwing extreme is defined as total control or breakdown of individual liberties, but liberals insist that Germany's Nazism and Italy's fascism were extreme rightwing ideologies. They do this for demagogic purposes of course, and as a sophistic defense against the argument that liberalism is closer to totalitarianism than is conservatism. However, placing any kind of totalitarianism on the right side of the scale completely unbalances it. It is like measuring gold coins - they represent liberty. The gold goes on the right side of the scale and the brass counterweights go on the left side of the scale. Placing some nazism and fascism on the right side of the scale is like placing some of the brass counterweights with the gold coins. Someone's paying too much for their gold, gentle American. So, let's play some Sesame Street. You know, that game they play: One of These Things Is Not Like the Others. Which of the following ideological characteristics is not like the others, gentle American? 

:: government expropriation of businesses :: enforced government quotas :: nationalizing industries :: universal healthcare :: price and wage controls :: forced favorable mortgages from banks :: government profit skimming :: confiscation of government deemed excess bonds and stocks :: free markets

Well, obviously even Big Bird could get that one - "free markets" is the answer! Free market principles are antithetical to all of the other market attributes listed. But all of those attributes are characteristics of both nazism/fascism and other authoritarian ideologies. As a matter of fact, free market principles are the principles of contemporary conservatism. Free markets are on the opposite side of the scale from those market manipulations. Still not convinced, gentle American? Let's try another one. Which of these ideologies is not like the others, gentle American?

:: military rule :: despotism :: Marxism :: Trotskyism :: theocratic rule :: Communism :: nazism/fascism :: conservatism

I bet even the Cookie Monster could get this one! Quite obviously, conservatism is all about the promotion of liberty and the rest of these ideologies are all about authoritarianism - a withdrawal and destruction of liberty. Starting to make sense, gentle American? We have already seen that our new contemporary scale measures the amount of liberty in a society. So now let's look at a traditional scale:

Communism - Liberalism - Center - Conservatism - Minimalism - Nazism/Fascism

What exactly does this measure, gentle American? It is simply ridiculous - it measures nothing. How exactly can nazism/fascism fit on the rightwing side? It can't. The founding fathers were minimalists. Are liberals claiming that if the founding fathers were just a little bit more rightwing they would have been fascists?!? What utter, utter nonsense! Fascism is about government control where the government defines the limits of all freedoms, the same as communism, despotism, military rule, etc. The rightwing is about less government control where liberties define the limits of government. The further one

moves to the right, the further one moves away from government control (except for anarchy and nihilism - more later).

No Liberty - Authoritarian control - Center - Minimal control - Maximum Liberty

Leftwing - Authoritarianism - Statism - Liberalism - Center - Conservatism - Minimalism - Rightwing

Ask yourself this while looking at our new ideological subscales, gentle American: If statism promotes more liberty than authoritarianism, and liberalism promotes more liberty than statism, and centrism promotes more liberty than liberalism, and conservatism promotes more liberty than centrism, and minimalism promotes even more liberty than conservatism, how can there be any type of totalitarian control to the right of minimalism? Are extreme minimalists equal to fascists? No, of course not. That would be like saying nihilists and minimalists are the same, but they are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Nihilists could care less about civil rights and individual liberties, whereas for minimalists, maximum civil rights and liberty are the foundation of their ideology. In a desperate bid to associate some kind of totalitarianism with the rightwing, liberals inconceivably insist Hitler was a rightwing extremist. Let's explore what total nonsense this liberal assertion is by directly examining nazism/fascism.

Progressive/Conservative C

In the first half of the twentieth century the two predominant ideologies were progressivism and old style conservatism. To be a progressive one supported 'progressive' change and abandonment of old, supposedly outdated traditions. The conservative, on the other hand, was seen as one who didn't find appeal in unnecessary change and was faithful to the old traditions. Here was Hitler's position as stated in Mein Kampf in regard to his ideological "program":

~The program of the conception of the world has the sense of a declaration of war against the order of things which exist, against the state of things which exist, in a word, against the structure of the world which presently exists.~

Hitler also described his program as of, "no fixed aim, no permanency, only eternal change". And the slogan of Hitler's Nazi Party was, "Everything must be different!" They don't sound much like conservatives of the times, do they, gentle American. Sounds more like progressives from the extreme left of the ideological scale, don't you think?

Rivalry C

The main argument liberals use to supposedly illustrate that fascists and communists are not alike and supposedly at opposite ends of the scale is to point out that they frequently fought with each other. But nazis and fascists were nothing more than alternate flavors to communists under the umbrella of Marxism, sometimes in competition and fighting with communists, and sometimes allied with communists. Indeed, some other fascists opposed nazis. [2tq5w7] [2] The idea that fascists were rightwing came from the Stalinists who saw virtually everyone as being to the right of them, including fascists and nazis (indeed, the Stalinists considered fellow Marxist, Leon Trotsky a right-winger). However this still places fascists and nazis to the left of contemporary liberals:

Stalinism - Trotskyism - Fascism/Nazism - Statism - Liberalism - Center - ...

Remember, the Western Allies were for much of the Second World War, allies with the Soviet Stalinists, but enemies afterwards. Does that mean that when the Stalinists were allies they were extreme right-wingers or that the western allies were extreme leftists? Of course not. Neither military rivalries nor alliances prove any ideological links or parallels. The Soviet Stalinists were originally allies of the German Nazis, but then turned into enemies of the Nazis. [*82l5vkr] [3] Just because some nazis may have been rivals of some communists during any given period of time, this makes little statement on whether they were opposing or rival ideologies, but more that they were at times rivals for power. It is no different today. In Canada we have three separate leftwing, national political parties, the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party (NDP) and the Green Party. The Greens are environmental statists. The NDP are a singularly union based party. And the Liberals are a chameleon type of bigger government is better party. They are all rivals of each other, but stand on the same ideological ground - for larger government and less individual freedoms. Various nazis, fascists and communists may have at times been rivals of each other, but they all are tied to the same ideals of extreme government control where only nuances and power rivalries separated them.

Nazi Command Capitalism C

Another argument used by liberals to connect the Nazis with rightwing ideologies is the claim that Hitler used free market capitalism as a stepping stone to power. While it is true that private ownership of industry was permitted by the Nazis, it could hardly be described as free market capitalism. Many industries, especially Jewish ones, were simply expropriated by the government. Hitler's 'Third Way' was government command capitalism - the government set all sorts of targets, quotas, restrictions and penalties on private industries. (I will explain the various market ideologies later in this chapter.) Elite industry owners who were exempt from government takeover were expected to strictly conform to all government demands, no matter how arduous. They were little more than government appointed managers of their own companies. Noncompliance was dealt with harshly, right up to owner execution. Here is a description of the situation from Time magazine on January 2, 1939:

~Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on others what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for food- stuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism.~ [82hzhz2] [4]

A classic example was Fritz Thyssen, one of the largest industrialists in Germany who helped support Hitler's rise to power, but then opposed Hitler's subsequent draconian methods. Thyssen was forced to flee to Switzerland and Hitler simply confiscated his coal and steel empire. [y4vqqsr] [5] And Hitler certainly acted like a leftist, raising personal and corporate taxes numerous times, confiscating what were deemed to be

surplus dividends from bond and stockholders, profit skimming 'excess' profits (labeled by today's liberals as a windfall profits tax), nationalizing industries, instituting universal healthcare (sound familiar?), and forcing banks to offer favorable mortgages (again, sound familiar?). The same was true of Mussolini who had his government simply take control of the majority of businesses in Italy, confiscating foreign stocks and bonds, enforcing strict rules on the media, implementing a propagandist education system, and instituting price and wage controls, and trade tariffs and regulations. These are all policies of the far left, not the far right. While seeking power the Nazis kept the hope of the industrialists up with promises of protection, but once in power they turned on any that did not acquiesce to the Nazi 'Plan' for Germany. 

Hitler's propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels wrote in Der Angriff in 1928 a criticism of free market capitalism:

~ "The worker in a capitalist state - that is his greatest misfortune - no longer a human being, no longer a creator, no longer a shaper of things. He has become a machine."~ [2tq5w7] [2]

Nazi party spokesman, Ernst Huber, stated in 1939:

~ "Private property" as conceived under liberalistic economic order was a reversal of the true concept of property. This "private property" represented the right of the individual to manage and to speculate with inherited or acquired property as he pleased, without regard to the general interests...German socialism had to overcome this "private", that is, unrestrained and irresponsible view of property. All property is common property. The owner is bound by the people and the Reich to the responsible management of his goods. His legal position is only justified when he satisfies this responsibility to the community.~ [dkzvk8] [6]

In Erich Fromm, Joseph Goebbels wrote about National Socialism in 1941:

~ "To be a socialist is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole."~ [dkzvk8] [6]

Recognize the groupthink, gentle American? Remember John Dewey wrote (from chapter four):

~ "Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming where everyone is interdependent."~

~ "Independent self-reliant people (would be) a counterproductive anachronism in the collective society of the future [...] (where) people will be defined by their associations."~

In 1941 George Orwell wrote in The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius of the Nazi command capitalism:

~Fascism, at any rate the German version, is a form of capitalism that borrows from Socialism just such features as will make it efficient for war purposes. Internally, Germany has a good deal in common with a Socialist state. Ownership has never been abolished, there are still capitalists and workers, and—this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathize with Fascism—generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution. But at the same time the State, which is simply the Nazi Party, is in control of

everything. It controls investment, raw materials, rates of interest, working hours, wages. The factory owner still owns his factory, but he is for practical purposes reduced to the status of a manager. Everyone is in effect a State employee, though the salaries vary very greatly. The mere efficiency of such a system, the elimination of waste and obstruction, is obvious. In seven years it has built up the most powerful war machine the world has ever seen.~ [ydebke6] [7]

Liberals like to fanaticize about phantom corporate cabals (more paranoia) that supposedly define fascism, thus pointing at the free market as the root of fascism. This is perhaps because Mussolini's fascism was also what might be for some, misleadingly called corporatism (or corporativism) as if corporations were in charge, but modern day corporatism is quite different from yesterday's fascism (explained in detail below). Historic corporatism is actually a top-down form of government of which fascism directly parallels, based on groups or classes. [*6zg48] [8] Early fascism used populism to pit the lower classes against the upper classes and against the rival communists. To gain lower class support the fascists attacked big business as oppressing the lower classes, but so did the communists. This ties into another liberal dogma about fascism that it was anti-union and anti-worker. This was only true because unions tended to ally themselves with the communists. To draw lower class support away from the communists the fascists promised protection for small business and property owners who employed most of the workers who were non-union.

There are a number of 800 pound gorillas associated with this thinking that free market corporations were somehow in charge. Neither Hitler nor Mussolini were puppets of industrial conspiracies. Indeed it was exactly the opposite. Neither were from industrialist families - both were political animals who rose through the ranks of their respective political environments using their wits and ruthlessness. With their personal paramilitary armies they bullied the industrialists, their domestic opposition and the population. Hitler had his Brownshirts and Mussolini had his Blackshirts. Hitler and Mussolini were feared by the industrial brokers of their day because they used political and physical intimidation to bully the industrialists of Germany and Italy into doing their bidding. Who were these imaginary fascist countries that were supposedly ruled by free market corporate conspirators manipulating the government? Although liberals stamp their feet and insist that they existed, I have never heard a liberal name even one. Certainly Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy didn't fit that description. In fact today's liberal demonization of corporations is actually right out of the How-to-do-Fascism-101 handbook. Here are points 12 through 17 of the The 25-point Program of Hitler's National Socialist German Workers' Party: 

~12.In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits. 13.We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts). 14.We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries. 15.We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare. 16.We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality. 17.We demand a land reform suitable to our needs,

provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.~ [4nzpzqz] [9]

Which of these are free market or rightwing, gentle American. Well, none of course - they are all leftwing policies. Now I read liberal comments on the web everyday, and it is not at all odd to see them directed at President Obama, berating him for bailing out Wall Street at the expense of the little guy and calling him a sellout to big business for giving favors to his favorite companies like GE and Google, and supporting TARP. It seems to me, gentle American, according to their own unique definition of fascism as a puppet of corporations, these liberals are calling Barack Obama a fascist. What do you think "too big to fail" means? In fact, this is not fascism even though it is a type of corporatism - and it is still leftwing policy of interfering in the marketplace. Unbalancing the marketplace with bailouts and special corporate favors is antithetical to a free marketplace and conservatism (it was in opposition to these policies that the Tea Party originated). It is what is now known as crony capitalism and corporate welfare, again a perversion of the free operation of the marketplace, which conservatism rejects wholeheartedly. Crony capitalism is actually a flavor of liberalism. Even though some liberals object to it, their alternative is little better - more government control of industry. Today's American capitalism is a mix of progressivism, modern corporatism that favors selected industries, and fascist style capitalism that penalizes other industries that are out of favor with the ruling elite. (This will be dealt with in detail later in the chapter.) The direct control aspect better describes that which Hitler and Mussolini favored - further to the left. [*3jve4xk] [10] Let's examine our scale again:

Communism - Fascism/Nazism - Statism - Liberalism - Center - ...

Notice the progressive nature of the scale. Liberalism allows for a certain amount of free market capitalism mixed with a generous amount of government interference in the marketplace. Statism (also known as Euro-socialism) still allows for a free market to some extent, but more control and less liberty than that of liberalism. Fascism/nazism is a step even further into government control of the marketplace with relatively limited economic liberty compared to liberalism or even statism. Communism is that last step in government control where the free market is completely eviscerated. Let's look now at where conservatism and a truly free market economy reside on the scale:

Communism - Fascism/Nazism - Statism - Liberalism - Center - Conservatism/Free Market

It is quite clear that in regard to the marketplace conservatism and fascism/nazism have virtually nothing in common, whereas liberalism agrees with fascism/nazism's manipulation of the marketplace, but only disagrees as to the extent and type of interference (I will distinguish these differences shortly). Here is another interesting 800 pound gorilla of the nazi movement, gentle American. Anthropogenic global warming theory actually was popularized by Nazi Günther Schwab with his book, The Dance with the Devil, and the contemporary liberal environmentalist movement has some direct roots in European nazism. And - surprise! They opposed free market capitalism. [*4pn37k6] [11]

Socialism/Nazism C

The Nazis had no more use for free market capitalism than they could extract from it for their own advantage. Nazism was just Marxism under a different name with a few nuanced differences from communism. Frederick Augustus Voigt, a British journalist of German descent with many links to the German political establishment, having lived and worked in Germany for over a dozen years wrote in 1939:

~Marxism has led to Fascism and National-Socialism, because, in all essentials, it is Fascism and National Socialism.~ [ydebke6] [7]

Joseph Goebbels presented Soviet Bolshevism as a Jewish perversion of socialism to condemn the rival communists in Germany. In 1936 Goebbels wrote:

~Our struggle against Bolshevism is no fight against but in favour of socialism.~ [y5qj86e] [12]

Goebbels had also been reported to have said:

~The difference between communism and the Hitler faith were very slight.~ [*6sf2qfg] [13] (Watch this video, gentle American - it goes hand in hand with the video from earlier in this chapter.)

And Hitler himself agreed when he spoke of Soviet communism:

~It is not Germany that will turn Bolshevist, but Bolshevism that will become a sort of National Socialism. Besides, there is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it.~ [y5eouqb] [14]

Of course the Bolsheviks were the Soviet communists and socialism was Marxism. There is no doubt that Hitler and Goebbels saw their own Nazism as a type of Marxism even if they refused to use the word because of their propagandist view of it being stained with Jewish connotations. But in fact there was little to differentiate the Nazis from the Bolsheviks. And the Italian Fascists under Benito Mussolini agreed in their own motto:

~Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.~ [cb8xo5] [15]

Mussolini also wrote:

~ "If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government."~ - Fascism: Doctrines and Institutions - Benito Mussolini

This statement is simply a differentiation between a liberty based ideology, and Marxism under a different name - fascism. But the "classical liberalism" of the early twentieth century has no relationship with today's contemporary liberalism, however it has much in common with the contemporary conservatism of this generation (as first noted in chapter four):

~Classical liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.~ [k9hpx] [16]

Notice the specifically contemporary conservative themes; limited government, liberty of individuals, free markets. Hardly endorsed by contemporary liberalism today. The "individualism" Mussolini wrote of is today conservative whereas when he wrote

"Fascism spells government" he of course was referring to collectivism - the polar opposite of contemporary conservatism and a direct parallel with today's contemporary liberalism. Mussolini was in effect an honest socialist. Whereas communists espoused Marxism as the politics of the proletariat (the poor), but governed by an elite, Mussolini admitted that his brand of socialism would be governed by an elite. Both were collective ideologies that in effect were identical - only the propaganda differentiated them.

Nazis and fascists are nothing more than alternate flavors of Marxism to communists. None fit on the right side of the ideological scale, gentle American. In fact, included in President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal was a form of economic fascism known as the National Industrial Recovery Act implemented in June of 1933. It committed some of the same marketplace manipulations as Hitler's 'Plan' for the Third Reich, including government authorized cartels and monopolies, nationalized public works programs, price regulation, forced unionization and communal farms. Mostly it was regulatory hell:

~NIRA, as implemented by the NRA, became notorious for generating large numbers of regulations. The agency approved 557 basic and 189 supplemental industry codes in two years. Between 4,000 and 5,000 business practices were prohibited, some 3,000 administrative orders running to over 10,000 pages promulgated, and thousands of opinions and guides from national, regional, and local code boards interpreted and enforced the Act.~ [25d3e42] [17]

This is what fascism does - it manipulates and restricts the marketplace as a know-it-all big brother figure with a carrot and stick approach. Being permitted to continue managing one's own business was the carrot. Massive and strict regulation with severe non-compliance penalties was the stick with which to beat them into compliance. Even the poster illustrated on the Wikipedia page is reminiscent of Nazi and communist collectivist propaganda campaigns. Thankfully the Supreme Court declared FDRHoover's Act unconstitutional. But is it so surprising that FDRHoover enacted what was recognized by the Supreme Court as something so foreign as to be unconstitutional? Who was FDRHoover emulating? John Franklin Carter, a friend of FDRHoover's tells us in his 1934 book, The New Dealers:

~[FDR] invented nothing in the New Deal. This is his greatest achievement. He combined ... familiar elements so calmly and with so friendly a smile, that even after a year of the New Deal there are still people who do not realize that a revolution has taken place. ... Roosevelt had the benefit of several other great national experiments as useful points of reference for the American New Deal. He had before him the spectacle of the Soviet Union with its recent dramatization of economic reorganization through the Five-Year Plan. He had before him the example of Fascist Italy with its regimentation of business, labor and banking in the ‘Corporative State.’ He had before him the instances of Kemal, Mussolini and Hitler in restoring national pride and self-confidence to beaten or dispirited peoples.~ [39bnmad] [18]

Notice that he called Stalinism, fascism and Nazism "great national experiments". Remember this was 1934 peacetime. Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler were not yet seen as villains at this time, and fascism was just another alternative form of leftwing governance. So was FDRHoover a rightwing extremist for emulating fascism and nazism, gentle American? Was he a corporate capitalist? Obviously not. And neither were Stalin,

Mussolini and Hitler. Well known author and anarchist, Noam Chomsky whom liberals like to claim as one of their own, apparently agrees with me:

~Suppose it was discovered tomorrow that the greenhouse effects has been way underestimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to set in 10 years from now, and not 100 years from now or something. ... Well, given the state of the popular movements we have today, we’d probably have a fascist takeover-with everybody agreeing to it, because that would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I’d even agree to it, because there’s just no other alternatives right now.~ - Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky [4kfescf] [19]

Now, why would an admitted extreme left anarcho-syndicalsit think that a bunch of rightwing corporations taking over the government would be a good way to fight global warming when the rightwing and most corporations oppose fighting global warming because they see it as a hoax? Well, of course, he obviously doesn't think that. He understands that fascism has nothing to do with a rightwing, corporate government takeover, but is in fact leftwing authoritarian control.

Another piece of liberal dogma about fascism is that it was against abortion. This was only half true. Because fascists were nationalists they saw foreign races and ethnicities as a dilution of the master race, and encouraged abortion to the point of forced abortion for those deemed inferior. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood sympathized with these views - hardly someone who could be characterized as rightwing. Even today's Nazis are nothing like conservatives. The only difference that I can see between present-day American Nazis and American liberals in the following statement is that liberals see only the top 1% as running the country. From the American Nazi Party website:

~Of course, we have many other issues of concern, such as a true healthy environment, a "National Health Care System" for our Folk, intelligence-based Free Education, as well as Free Trade-Schooling for those inclined... NS believe that the STATE should be in SERVICE to the PEOPLE - not, as it is unfortunately done today - where the people are nothing more than WAGE-SLAVES, TAX-COWS, and CANNON-FODDAR to that 3% of the population that control 85% of America's wealth.~

Does this sound more like the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street, gentle American?

Extreme Rightwing C

Liberals loved to project demagoguery onto President George W. Bush as Hitler, and conservatives as Nazis and fascists (lots of evidence later). Actually, it was kind of funny to see them denigrate Bush as a leftist similar to themselves, but then again, what else did they have? I suppose they could have accused him of being a Ronald Reagan, arguably one of the most rightwing presidents in the past one hundred years, but obviously that wouldn't have been nearly as satisfying in the demagoguery department, because Reagan was hardly a villain (except to hardcore leftists). Or, maybe they could have compared him to President Warren G. Harding who triggered the Roaring Twenties by proving that the way to cure a recession or depression is to permanently lower tax rates, remove regulations and drastically cut government spending and size - or in a nutshell, get government out of the way (exactly the opposite of what Hitler did - and FDRHoover for that matter). Or perhaps, if liberals were really desperate they could have accused Bush of

being like Abraham Lincoln, a much more famous rightwing President and perhaps the ultimate American imperialist. Or perhaps, they could have called Bush a George Washington, who was an extreme rightwing minimalist. The point is that there are no historic, extreme rightwing villains by contemporary standards for liberals to demagogue today's conservatives with. So, while comparing Bush to Hitler may have provided some bizarre emotional satisfaction for liberals, for those who understand the political spectrum as enslavement on the left versus liberty on the right, it makes little sense to attempt to place Bush on the extreme left side of the political spectrum as a Hitlerian Nazi if one is attempting to vilify him as an extreme rightwinger. Of course liberal demagoguery (and paranoid delusion) is hardly about making sense.

Sorry to bust your bubble, gentle American. It is contemporary liberalism that is closely related to every flavor of totalitarianism including nazism and fascism. Contemporary American Nazis don't support the Tea Party - they support the Occupy Wall Street movement (what more do you need to know?). [3gf2czd] [20] All authoritarianism is anathema to contemporary conservatism and the right in America. Fascists and nazis are control freaks. Contemporary liberals are somewhat lesser, but are also control freaks. Fascists and nazis impose their control through brute force. Contemporary liberals institute their control through legislation, the courts, group protest and media intimidation, and corruption. Fascists and nazis seek to implement utopia. Contemporary liberals are also attempting to build a utopia. Fascists, nazis and contemporary liberals are all kissing cousins, some a little further left than others.

Leftwing - Rightwing C

The contemporary ideological issues of our Deprogramming Liberalism American Ideology Dichotomy Scale are divided into two major groups split at a tipping point between less individual liberty of the leftwing and more individual liberty of the rightwing in America. Contemporary liberalism is a leftwing ideology and contemporary conservatism is a rightwing ideology. They can be distinguished through an analysis of their various ideological positions. Remember - our scale measures a preservation and promotion of liberty on the right, and destruction and withdrawal of liberty on the left. Remember also our original question from chapter one: "As a principle, would you prefer others to direct your life, or would you prefer to have the freedom to direct your own life, gentle American?" This directly parallels our measure of individual liberty. Everything on the left of the following list is about control. Everything on the right is about liberty.

Table #1 :: Graphs & Tables: [83svvqf]

Control - Liberty C

~ "In the election of 1860, Abraham Lincoln said the question was whether this Nation could exist half slave or half free. In the election of 1960, and with the world around us, the question is whether the world will exist half slave or half free, whether it will move in the direction of freedom, in the direction of the road that we are taking, or whether it will move in the direction of slavery."~ - President John F. Kennedy

JFK was the last Democratic President who did not move America significantly to the ideological left. There is no doubt that JFK saw a leftward movement toward the communism he so despised as a move toward "slavery", and a move to the right as a move toward "freedom" (exactly the same as our scale above). In fact, it was the rightwing Republican minority leader, Everett Dirksen that often rallied support for the President against his own resistant Democrats. With his hard stance against communism and his tax cuts, it could be argued that JFK indeed moved America to the right "in the direction of freedom".

This goes straight to the heart of the question I asked you in chapter one: "As a principle, would you prefer others to direct your life, or would you prefer to have the freedom to direct your own life, gentle American?" Liberalism perpetuates this naive belief that it defends your liberties, gentle American. But does it? Isn't liberty about making decisions for yourself and directing your own life? Here is how liberalism defines liberty; limiting what vehicles you can drive, limiting what you can eat, limiting what healthcare is available to you, limiting what media is available to you, a bureaucrat setting your thermostat, forced unionization, forcing you to pay more for supposedly green energy, determining your fitness for a job based on race or gender, denying educational choice for your children by forcing them to go to public schools and pay twice if you choose otherwise, forcing you to pay higher taxes to bail out your reckless neighbor's mortgage, or your bank's debt, or fat-cat unions, and re-taxing your hard earned savings which have

already been taxed in order to deny that money going to your children when you die. Contemporary liberalism denies liberty in every aspect of your life and even your death. Liberalism is where the government denies and coerces citizens' choices about how to live their lives. Contemporary conservatism is where citizens direct the government's responsibilities and abilities to limit a citizen's choices. Conservatives are against government limiting what vehicles are available for consumers. Conservatives are against the government arbitrarily determining what foods may or may not be available. Conservatives are against denying you healthcare choices. Conservatives are against government interference in the media in any way. Conservatives are against the "Smart Grid" where some faceless bureaucrat decides what temperature your house should be. Conservatives are against forced unionization and the denial of secret voting so unions can intimidate workers who vote the 'wrong way'. Conservatives are against forcing you to pay more for supposedly 'green energy' that produces no discernable benefit. Conservatives oppose forced race and gender preference requirements in employment hiring requirements. Conservatives are for all types of alternate educational choices, including private schools, parochial schools, charter schools and home schooling, without having to pay twice. Conservatives do not believe in bailing out your neighbor's poor credit decisions or your bank's or fat-cat unions. And conservatives do not agree with taxing your money twice and denying your children your hard earned savings at the end of your life. It is conservatism that promotes and defends liberty in your life, gentle American. Liberalism is about controlling and directing your life. It is an anti-liberty mindset where those afflicted play stupid, actually thinking they are the defenders of liberty while willingly giving up more of their and everyone else's liberty everyday. This is illustrated in these two liberal principles: 1. Contemporary liberalism views society as generally incompetent and in need of the guiding hand of a controlling government. 2. For its own good a resistant society must have utopian ideals forced upon it.

Control is the underlying function of liberalism. Liberty is the foundation of conservatism. Liberals desire all citizens to voluntarily or forcefully give up their liberty to external control. Liberalism is a type of voluntary subjection to top-down control, and for those who resist, a forcible slavery. Liberals are both slaves and slavers, at once enslaving themselves, and forcing their slavery on everyone else. Conservatism is the freedom to live without coercive control.

~ "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."~ - Thomas Jefferson

When the government passes healthcare legislation that takes control of a sixth of the national economy, and unconstitutionally forces you to purchase insurance that the government strictly regulates, limiting your healthcare choices, on Christmas eve, through a one-party vote, after purchasing member votes with earmark buyoffs, and ignoring the loud majority of Americans who opposed the bill, do you think it is the government that fears the people, or the people that should fear their government, gentle American? Is this more liberty or less?

Vanity - Humility C

Vanity and humility directly relate to the control/liberty issue. Liberalism is vane - it thinks it knows best for everyone. It is the arrogant belief that a better life can be coerced onto a society. Indeed liberalism believes that a better life only comes from government coercion. Whereas conservatism is based on a humble principle that each person has the ability and right to decide for themselves how to live their life without the coercive influence of government and political correctness limiting their choices. As pointed out in chapter four, liberals view the populous as incompetent, in need of a 'benevolent' government (liberal of course) to make correct decisions for them. Conservatives assume that citizens are competent to make proper decisions for themselves.

Liberals are vain. They think they know better. They think they can diagnose every problem. They think they can cure every ill. They think they can fix every complication. They think they can prevent every calamity. They are like the rebellious fourteen-year-old who is absolutely convinced that if everyone would only listen to him everything desirable can be achieved, and anyone who doesn't listen is just a moron. When they inevitably fail they have an excuse ready at hand - that it is all the fault of conservatives (that paranoid delusion again). As you will see in the next book of the series, the financial crisis of 2008 was a result of perhaps the greatest ever example of liberal vanity that put forth a belief that government could regulate an economy and citizens into prosperity. And, of course, when it all came crashing down, what did liberals do? They blamed conservatism for their own policy failures.

Liberal vanity will also be illustrated in book two where we will discover that despite the fact that liberals view themselves as undoubtedly more compassionate and charitable than conservatives, the exact opposite is a truism. Liberal charity is really about government taking other peoples' money (especially from the 'evil rich') to redistribute as liberals see fit - often to themselves. In fact, we will see that conservatives freely give much more of themselves and their assets than do liberals. Which ideology represents more liberty and which ideology represents more government coercion, gentle American? Which provides you with direct control of your own life to make your own decisions?

Libertine - Moralistic C

Liberals confuse libertine and liberty. They think that allowing public libertinism amounts to more liberty. But public libertinism is a faux liberty without moral limits, which harms society. Libertinism takes liberty for granted - it contradictorily says, "I want liberty without responsibility." Associated with what is known as the civil society, a social conservative enshrines some moral limitations in law and otherwise expects free individuals to conduct themselves worthy of the liberty granted to them, whereas a social liberal seeks to undermine moral limitations by attacking such laws and taking advantage of higher liberties to protect libertine indulgences that naturally reduce the civility of society. For instance, public sex is libertinism that is mostly illegal because of the damage it does to a civil society. Liberals constantly push the limit of such laws, thinking they are doing a service for liberty, when they are really only servicing libertinism. In the expression of free speech, as in art, libertinism is left to the discretion of the individual. For the liberal taking advantage of the higher liberty of free expression art is often the opposite of the normal goal of enlightenment, instead becoming a mean-spirited debasing and deliberate insulting of a hated target group, as with a crucifix in a jar of urine. It is not that liberals do these things out of principle, however. They too have their own

morals enshrined in political correctness. They would never place a figurine of a black slave in a jar of urine.

There is however, a nuanced difference between public and private activities. As long as debauchery does not impinge on other individuals or society as a whole, conservatism can allow for private licentious activities. We have a saying in Canada as originally stated by our former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau: "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." Kept in the bedroom and within the law, licentiousness is of little threat to liberty or the civil society. But when the public square is turned into the bedroom of the nation at the cost of morality and subsequent civility, that is an entirely different matter. That is when those with the attitude of our rebellious fourteen-year-old publicly act out their perverse desires with ever less limits - truly a recipe for societal disaster.

It is also the libertine aspect of liberalism that attracts the criminal element of society that pushes the limits of the law and crosses them. Public debauchery eventually leads to anarchy and chaos with the moral vacuum then likely to be filled by a type of authoritarianism. Libertinism and authoritarianism are two sides of the same coin in a society without morals. Anarchy shares the same side of the coin as an extension of libertinism that can extend right up to considering all laws and social taboos as undue restrictions on a life of depravity. As an example, notice how the Occupy movement often deteriorates into aggression, rape and violence, requiring ever more diligent law enforcement. Conservative morals, whether enshrined in law or as an unwritten moral code of conduct are a restraint on public libertine debauchery and its eventual, inevitable anarchy and then authoritarianism.

~ "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom."~ - Benjamin Franklin

As the limits of the civil society are knocked down, eventually libertinism will inevitably overcome even liberal political correctness and lead to the acceptance of a figurine of a black slave in a jar of urine as art. Will you consider that a progression toward liberty or libertinism, gentle American? Because if you object, then you do have moral limits and are little different from a social conservative in principle.

Deprecation - Exceptionalism C

~People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them.~ Eric Hoffer

Liberalism sees the country of America as more of a problem for the world than a solution. [*6l5bda] [21] It is a view that sees America the country as arrogant and imperialistic. But conservatives see America the country with a rich history as 'can do'. It is a case of whether one sees America's glass as half full and getting fuller or half empty and draining, the former being conservatism's view and the latter liberalism's. No one is saying that America has not made shameful mistakes. It has (who hasn't?). The question is, are you proud of America despite its mistakes, or are you ashamed of America despite the overwhelming good it has contributed to the world? It is this pseudo-love/hate relationship that liberalism has with America that poisons a person's faith in the country. Of course these positions lead to liberals being much less patriotic than conservatives. [*34rgesg, *3ygcm4s, *2e8954z] [22] It seems the more one distrusts government the

more patriotic one is likely to be about the country as a whole, and the more one trusts government for solutions to problems, the more unpatriotic one views the country. As conservative reporter, Robert Novak said:

~ “Always love your country — but never trust your government!"~ [o8klce] [23]

Conservatives embrace this fully, being overtly patriotic and suspicious of government. Liberals have inverted it. Liberals often view overt patriotism as anywhere from a necessary evil, to embarrassing, or even as a celebration of evil, but have unwavering faith in government to solve all problems with the proper people in charge (liberals of course). Political science professor, Kenneth Minogue has defined patriotism as pride of country the way it is, whereas nationalism he defines as a desire for utopia over an unsatisfactory status quo. This accurately divides conservatives from liberals. Conservatives say, "God bless America" for what it is, whereas liberals echo the Nazi Party slogan, "Everything must be different!" A desire for utopia was the nationalism in the National Socialism of Nazi Germany, just as it is the nationalism of contemporary American liberals. So if you look at the New York Stock Exchange with its magnificent facade and American flags, does it evoke patriotism in you, gentle American, or nationalism? Is this a symbol of what makes America great, or is it a imperialistic symbol of what needs to be changed? [ct7qo8m] [24]

It comes down to how Americans view their fellow Americans. Liberals can't believe that America is exceptional because they don't believe it has reached utopia. So they have a negative view of America because it is not yet utopia, producing a feeling of moral superiority, allowing them to forever criticize the status quo. This also explains why liberals favor the UN. It too has a goal of utopia. Liberals see other Americans as incompetent and of questionable motives and therefore in need of a guiding and limiting hand (projection anyone?). Basically liberals are distrustful of fellow Americans, believing they need to be directed and regulated by a governing elite (a product of liberal paranoid delusion). Conservatives see fellow Americans as mostly self-reliant with benevolent motives. Conservatives also see America as having something enlightening to offer the world (liberty), whereas liberals have this idea that America is the single largest reason for most of the world's problems. Because of these two dichotic conclusions liberals tend to deprecate America, whereas conservatives tend see America as exceptional. Both are self-fulfilling prophesies. When America's direction is predominated by conservatism its performance becomes exceptional. When liberalism gains an upper hand America under performs - as with the past few years. (Ample examples will be given over the next few chapters.) So which provides more liberty, gentle American? A ruling class that deprecates America and desires control to enforce its supposed improvement? Or a ruling class that sees America as exceptional and wishes to stay out of the way, allowing individual Americans to decide how to do what they do best?

Arbitrary Rights - Deistic Rights C

Rights can be either liberating or oppressive. Those rights attributed to God in America are limited to protecting liberty. Additional arbitrary rights usually result in oppression of one group or individual over another group or individual. Whereas conservatives see human and civil rights as inherently God designed and given, liberals believe in arbitrary

rights decided by them. This is why liberals tend to distrust American traditions and the founding documents of the country which agree with conservatism on this issue much more so than with liberalism's arbitrary preferences. That rights are deemed to be from God means that it is irrelevant whether there actually is a God or whether one believes there is a God. The principle is that rights come from beyond human discretion and therefore are unquestionable according to the foundational documents of America. Arbitrary rights are often created with political motivations for acquiring power rather than for altruistic reasons. So which provides more liberty? Rights that are universal? Or rights that arbitrarily pick one individual or group over that of another individual or group? Rights that are beyond government manipulation? Or arbitrary rights chosen through rules of political correctness and tyrannical imposition? Which allows you more liberty to direct your own life, gentle American?

Crisis Engineering - Ordered Liberty C

Principled order is the domain of the conservative. Through moral restraint, limitations on public libertine impulses, and an adherence to the legal system, the conservative attempts to restrict mankind's darker side by preserving a principled order to society. Liberal principles, as we have seen, are antithetical to morals and order. The liberal eschews moral limits and sees the legal system as a sign of a broken society that has not yet reached utopia. As we examined in chapter two, Richard Hofstadter's "paranoid style" has been cultivated by liberalism for over forty years. Directly related, in chapter four we discovered the principle: Contemporary liberals employ chaos as a political strategy to destabilize society so that liberal solutions can appear more palatable. The compulsively paranoid liberal sees the world as in chaos and perpetual crisis and uses this to plead for utopian solutions. This is crisis politics where the liberal solution for every problem is a further reduction of liberty through more government control - regulations and arbitrary rights. But implementing regulations and arbitrary rights is not the same as adhering to law. Liberals justify regulations and arbitrary rights as progress toward utopia through the subversive process of crisis engineering. Adherence is not as important as implementation. If adherence or lack of it does not work to solve the targeted problem the liberal answer is always even more regulation and arbitrary rights.

Because government control is seen as the path to utopia by the liberal, any excuse is justifiable for more regulation and arbitrary rights, even if it needs to be conjured up out of nothing. First and foremost of course, is that society is filled with evilly motivated conservatives that must be eradicated at all cost. This too is subversive crisis engineering, and of course relates to the liberal principle: A contemporary conservative's evil motives justify their destruction by any means necessary. So using a strategy of political crisis liberals continually demagogue conservatism as a threat to society - racist, homophobic, sexist, wanting to take away healthcare from seniors, desiring no hand up for the poor, yada, yada (ever more paranoid delusion). They label virtually any group outside the liberal mainstream as a hate group. They even have a supposed rights organization specifically devoted to this sort of smearing. Of course, liberal groups are exempt from their judgment. This is to create compulsive paranoia in society for anything conservative and provides opportunity for the enforcement of utopian solutions. Some examples of crisis engineering are Katrina and other natural disasters where conservatives can be demagogued, claims of race baiting, claiming conservatives want to

take away healthcare from seniors along with their Social Security, claims of conservative greed desiring to rape the environment, etc. (the paranoid beat goes on) [*yhbu4n7] [25] Notice that liberals always look to remove more liberty through implementing more government control in response to every real, manufactured or even imagined crisis. More is NEVER the cause of problems, and less is NEVER the answer. How does this attitude allow you to be free to direct your own life, gentle American?

Capitalism C

Asked what type of economic system runs the American economy, most people would answer, capitalism. While true, America has gone through a number of iterations of capitalism. Up until the end of the nineteenth century the American marketplace was more or less laissez faire. Basically there was little government interference in the economy in the way of taxation, regulation, tariffs, government safety nets and worker rights. Consumers and monopolistic tycoons were the kings of the marketplace, with buyers making various demands for goods and services to which industrialists and merchants catered. The government's role was limited to providing certain infrastructure and protection of private ownership rights through rule of law.

At the end of the nineteenth century the ideology of progressivism emerged in America. In regard to the economy, this was a belief that the government should create policies to help the country progress with the help of an elite ruling class. This included union growth and certain worker rights, and restrictions on industrial monopolies. It also included regulation of industry, and creation of the income tax and Federal Reserve. The free market capitalism of laissez faire had been replaced by a new type of progressive capitalism where the government actively entered into the periphery of the marketplace for the so-called benefit of the masses. The 1920 depression convinced new President Warren G. Harding to go back to the laissez faire principles of the previous century, producing what can be argued as the most prosperous decade in American history, aptly named the Roaring Twenties. The market downturn and following depression of the 1930s marked a return to and expansion of the progressivism from earlier in the century, resulting with the Dirty Thirties being arguably the worst economic disaster in American history. However there was a new aggressiveness to this progressivism. Presidents Herbert Hoover and FDRHoover overtly adopted Euro-fascist policies to supposedly fight the depression (much more later). Most of these were abandoned in 1942 as redundant in a do-or-die war economy. Following the war the economy reverted back to a moderate progressivism up until after JFK's tax cuts. Lyndon Johnson's Great Society marked another sea change in American governance with the creation of a new ideology (illustrated in chapter four). Contemporary liberalism rose out of the dust of old style progressivism, incorporating some old style fascism with a new, modern corporatism. The modern Americanized version of corporatism is where the government is the referee and manager of the marketplace and society as a whole. Modern corporatism is where government lends a 'helping hand' (also known as corporate welfare or crony capitalism) to favored industries and unions with subsidies, tax privileges, guaranteed loans, bailouts, direct funding, favorable regulations, etc. Although antithetical to a free market and a liberty-based society, corporatism can be seductive even to conservatives who may benefit from it, luring them away from free market principles that oppose the government rewards of corporatism. (Read these two links, gentle American - understanding today's

modern American corporatism is very important. [*3bh5mve, *3rqv8xx] [26]) Progressivism is reflected in entitlement programs, worker rights, political correctness, affirmative action, welfare, food stamps, progressive taxes, etc. Draconian government takeovers of whole industries like healthcare and education, along with a massive bureaucratic buildup of regulatory legislation and agencies is of a fascist origin. This contemporary liberal style of capitalism has dominated America since the sixties.

There are three ideologies of capitalism that have influenced American history. Government command capitalism is a fascist marketplace of the far left, where the government commands how an at least somewhat privately owned marketplace will function (when it completely takes over private ownership it becomes socialism). Consumer demand capitalism is of the far right where the demands of the marketplace are predominant with little government restriction or interference, commonly known as free market capitalism or laissez faire. Carrot and stick capitalism aptly describes today's capitalism in America which is a mix of command and demand capitalism, along with a significant portion of modern corporatism thrown in. So the marketplace now operates based on restrictions, penalties and rewards doled out by the government into an otherwise free marketplace. Here is a clear example of carrot and stick capitalism: [*cvvdjft] [27] To claim that the American marketplace is capitalism, as in free market capitalism, is at best misleading (this will be fully explored in the next volume of the Deprogramming Liberalism series). The last example of a remotely free marketplace in America was in the Roaring Twenties. The marketplace has since vacillated with varying degrees of command capitalism mixed with demand capitalism, having settled with the recent addition of modern corporatism into a carrot and stick capitalism that is slowly and progressively devolving away from liberty toward the fascism described earlier in this chapter.

Liberal governing principle believes we must be our brother's keeper. Conservative governing principle believes we must be our brother's brother. Liberals think of the needy as needing a remedy. Conservatives see the needy as needing an opportunity. 

~ "Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime"~

Liberalism is all about taking another man's fish as a remedy to "give a man a fish" for a day, and then give him another confiscated fish tomorrow. Liberals will direct a man's life by providing a remedy of what they decide he needs. Conservatism is about offering an opportunity for self-direction - "teach a man to fish" for today and the rest of his life. Again, the choice is less or more individual liberty. The man who is given a fish each day is less free than the man who learns to catch his own fish each day.

The state of the marketplace is a good measure of individual liberty. In fact marketplace prosperity is a direct measure of liberty. The rightwing encourages ever more free market capitalism (consumer demand capitalism), with maximum private ownership, minimal government regulation and taxation, but with stringent legal enforcement of minimal laws - with great liberty comes great responsibility. Personal responsibility means more than just relying on oneself. It also means being held accountable for one's nefarious actions. This is demand capitalism, directed almost exclusively by the demands of the consumer

marketplace, but strictly policed by minimal laws. Who manages a consumer demand economy? Nobody does. It is like a river - it naturally travels the most efficient route.

The left wing produces an ever more constricted market (government command capitalism). A government command economy turns a river into a swamp, leveling it out with megatons of regulatory silt, clogging its channels with legal debris, and sucking the volume out of it with taxes. It begins with government imposition of increased and unnecessary regulation and taxation, then steps up to villainizing and unfair penalizing of selected private industries, replacing private industry with government programs, ignoring its own laws, resulting in cronyism and corruption within the government and allied NGOs and businesses. In its extreme, command capitalism results in the abandonment of private ownership to state ownership (communism), or where private ownership is severely controlled by government (fascism), or where chaos ensues and ownership is virtually irrelevant and the market may collapse into anarchy as with Zimbabwe, or may reform itself into something new as with the transformation from the USSR into Russia, or may sustain itself only through drastic austerity measures and bailouts like Greece.

Under consumer demand capitalism, regulation is mostly through natural market forces where the strong survive and the weak fail and are left to dissolve, with the remaining assets absorbed back into the marketplace. Minimal laws are strictly enforced with severe penalties for offenders. The more severe the prosecution of offenders, the less regulation is necessary for those who follow the minimal rules required. An ever increasing need for more regulation is a symptom of a society that refuses to strictly enforce its already existing regulation. Look at today. Regulation creation is rampant, swamping the marketplace into an ever-lingering malaise. And yet law enforcement in the marketplace is at a 20-year low. [7azmexv] [28] Both are signs of a failing carrot and stick capitalism. 

The judicial system is rightfully the last arbiter, not regulatory bureaucrats and government appointees. An example of this was the prosecution of Enron executives and other corporations' executives who went to jail for doctoring their accounting books early in the first decade of the millennium. Since then there has been little need for this particular prosecution because of the disincentive that this strict enforcement generated (the corruption of the recent financial crisis is of a completely different order and will be explored in the next book in the series, but notice that now, three years later, there have been no prosecutions and so the same market corruptions that caused the crisis, continue virtually unabated).

Consumer demand capitalism is akin to a Darwinian-style market evolution that allows for a self-cleansing of the market by allowing for healthy growth through efficiency. It is a bottom-up system not unlike a forest. Dying trees eventually fall and rot and are absorbed into the forest floor, only to be reabsorbed into healthy and new trees that supplant the dead wood.  There is no such thing as "too big to fail".

Carrot and stick capitalism is a top-down system that picks winners and losers based on compliance, corruption and usefulness to those in control. Carrot and stick capitalism turns a marketplace forest into a marketplace thicket. There is an illustrative story from Soviet history about how the their top-down market system resulted in market inefficiencies (while this story is about Soviet socialism, the moral still applies to all

command capitalism). Most industries operated on a government quota system. When the economy was slipping and materials were becoming hard to acquire a major shoe factory began producing proportionately more children's shoes to make their scarce materials go further and still meet the government mandated quotas. Of course this led to a shortage of adult shoes in the marketplace. But the government quota demands were upheld by the manufacturer. These sort of 'tricks' are the inevitable result of the necessity of the market having to satisfy government command at the expense of consumer demand. Carrot and stick capitalism leads to an adoption of corruption to meet increasingly stringent regulations in an inevitably inefficient market that inevitably ends up with "too big to fail" bailouts. Another example of corruption in the opposite direction was Solyndra, a solar cell manufacturer who twisted every arm they could find in Washington and especially at the White House to get government guaranteed loans, even though they were in the process of going bankrupt. A half a billion dollars of taxpayer money was lost, but the government continues to make the same loans to the same industry with more of the players failing. (Update: The largest so far is the news that Solar Trust has now also gone bankrupt only one year after receiving a $2.1B government loan guarantee.)

Another example is today's ethanol subsidies. [25ag7jf] [29] Without command control, ethanol and biodiesel as energy sources would be virtually nonexistent. The cost to taxpayers in subsidizing the production of corn ethanol is $1.78 per gallon. Biodiesel costs $2.55 per gallon. And ethanol from cellulose costs taxpayers an incredible $3.00 per gallon in government subsidies. Biofuels are too expensive to produce and have many drawbacks compared to petroleum and natural gas based fuels, including the fact that it ruins many engines due to running much hotter, its attraction of water, and the damage it does to many gaskets and rubber seals, especially in outboard engines and small appliance engines like lawnmowers. (The new E15 blend may even void new car warrantees.) [294lsrc, 64ttw29, 6lvpf79] [30] The expense and waste of resources to needlessly replace 200 million engines now at work in the marketplace is simply not justified, and neither is the necessity for wholesale infrastructure changes across the country in the gasoline service industry just to be able to pump these new fuels. Yet big government carrot and stick capitalism has decided it must be developed and utilized, in spite of the fact that without government's interference it would utterly fail in a free marketplace. Government subsidizes its production, regulates its use through a quota utilization system, and arbitrarily penalizes its free market competitor products with command market taxes, regulations and use restrictions. The results are premature equipment failures, higher taxes, more expensive fuel costs, food costs and costs for many manufactured goods since ethanol is mostly made from corn, and corn is used in some stage to manufacture thousands of products, including hundreds of food items, as well as cardboard, construction materials, adhesives, metal plating, lubricating agents, laminated building products, antibiotics, cosmetics, wallboard, paints, paper products, pharmaceuticals, spark plugs, tires and other rubber products. [y5a4z9g, 8x4rp5d] [31] Even Al Gore has admitted to the irrationality of corn-based ethanol production. [2u6wbcw] [32] And some environmental groups are objecting to President Obama's illogical promise to triple ethanol production within twelve years. [22o8lzl] [33]

Furthermore, the idea promoted by liberals that 'green jobs' are some sort of salvation for the economy is nothing more than a fantasy. Four separate studies in Europe where the

green jobs myth had been wholeheartedly embraced conclude that overall, government subsidization and mandating of green jobs actually costs net jobs in the economy at a rate of 2.2 to 4.8 regular potential jobs lost for every green job created. [ybbl485, 2fry6ps, 5rafl42, 43vw6oe] [34] (It cost the Spanish socialist government $790,000 for each renewable energy job it created and they lost the 2011 election to the rival conservatives in a record landslide!) These are what are known as lost opportunity costs. These are the results because the corruption of the market by carrot and stick capitalism is extremely inefficient compared to demand capitalism. The economic river is turned into a swamp. Spain subsidized an electric car scheme projecting that 2,000 of these cars would be on the road by the end of 2010. As of August 10, 2010 exactly 16 cars had been sold. Yes, you read that correctly, gentle American - 16 out of a projected 2,000! [2apoejs] [35] The state of Michigan also invested heavily in the green jobs 'market' and it too was a dismal failure. Only 29% of the projected jobs were ever realized. Meanwhile, a bankrupt state bankrupts itself even more. [*36mtq89] [36] After 2 1/2 years of the green jobs economy the NY Times has declared it a bust: [*3s3t9yk] [37]

Still another example of carrot and stick capitalism is the recent financial crisis. Government commands by alpha liberals on the mortgage industry produced an unbalanced market where the government chose winners and losers, with the result being a marketplace restricted from its natural cleansing formula of failure, absorption and prosecution. First, the government mandated market operations, forcing unreasonable credit onto the market. Second, when the market began to inevitably fail, it chose winners and losers by bailing out certain companies instead of allowing the market to cleanse itself of all the weak members through failure and absorption. Third, it allowed unscrupulous government and market members who took advantage of the government-forced unbalance in the market to walk away without prosecution, sending a message that the risk of reward for gaming the system is small compared to the potential payoff, so corruption in this area continues. Politicians and bureaucrats responsible for devising and implementing this particular failed carrot and stick capitalism should have been removed, but instead, in 2006 many had been promoted from the minority party to the majority party in control of Congress with oversight of the problems they themselves helped create. Carrot and stick capitalism was the major cause of the recent market downturn and carrot and stick capitalism is inhibiting the recovery. (Much more on this later.) President Obama sent out a warning of his intentions when he proclaimed:

~ "We're going to punish our enemies and we're going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us."~ [*3z5syeh] [38]

A classic definition of carrot and stick capitalism - thank you President Obama. Read that link to see a few more examples of how carrot and stick is practiced by President Obama. It is variously described as "politics Chicago style" and "crony capitalism, bailout favoritism and gangster government", but, in fact, the President has stepped over the line into blatant fascism where the government rewards its friends and punishes its enemies through government policy. Hitler and Mussolini would probably applaud Obama just as they cheered on FDRHoover when he did the same things in the Dirty Thirties.

It was consumer demand capitalism that made the United States of America the most successful country in history and brought the world twentieth century prosperity. But a cocky world decided that only carrot and stick capitalism could lead to utopia.

Unfortunately they were wrong. The statist version of carrot and stick capitalism has sucked the lifeblood out of demand capitalism in Europe, [*2e95do5] [39] Japan has never fully recovered from its carrot and stick capitalism woes of the 1990s, and carrot and stick capitalism is also what has recently brought America to her knees. The only hope to forestall and reverse this downfall is for carrot and stick market principles to be abandoned and free market principles to be re-embraced. Ironically, it is China that is currently leading the recovery as it transitions from strict command capitalism to a freer version of mixed capitalism. But even China will not escape its residual command capitalism - it too is headed toward an inevitable crash due to a number of factors, and especially due to top-down generated demographic trends. It is ironic that as the developing world adopts consumer demand capitalism, poverty is quickly being replaced with a new prosperity. [*cabfpr6] [40] But as the developed nations, including America, increasingly embrace the fascism of carrot and stick capitalism, their economies have slipped into a malaise without visible end.

Another aspect of carrot and stick capitalism is its appropriation of future capital with deficit spending. In effect, this takes money from the future and spends it now. This is totally against conservative principles except where national security and emergencies are concerned, and even then a plan to eventually surplus the debt away should be made as soon as possible. Now you may object, gentle American, pointing to President George W. Bush's deficits. But I will counter by stating that Bush in this regard was largely not a conservative. As you will see in book two of the series, it was conservative tax cuts and austerity that reduced the deficit in the 1990s, and it was conservatives that opposed Bush's deficit spending (liberals made a fuss, but I don't recall any proposed spending reductions, only calls for tax increases). Deficit spending outside of security and emergency reasons is a liberal policy, whether implemented by Democrats or Republicans. Government deficit spending is nothing less than a redistribution of wealth (the living standard) from the country's children and grandchildren to today's adults. It is little different than if you lived high on the hog on credit and then died, leaving your debts to your children to pay off. They are then stuck with your credit payments and interest with little of the benefits that you enjoyed. Thus the unintended consequences of liberalism. Liberalism is about limiting economic liberty through regulation and redistribution. Conservatism is about maximizing economic liberty for the benefit of everyone, and allowing you to have the freedom to direct your own life, gentle American.

Entitlement Attitude - Rugged Individualism C

Liberals have this attitude that society owes everyone a certain level of living - a major doctrine of Marxism. Conservatives believe those who are reasonably capable should look out for themselves and not expect resources to be taken from other Americans and given to them. It is a liberal's attitude that is their problem. Whereas success is considered an admirable accomplishment by conservatives, liberals see success as a sign of greed. There is little that offends liberal sensibilities more than a rich conservative. Of course, this is because liberals see conservatives as motivated by evil, and rich conservatives obviously must have perpetrated evil in order to become rich. For a liberal, victimization is a badge of honor, so they look to be offended and be seen as a victim. This, then, in their mind entitles them to demand and receive the wealth of others to satisfy their needs and wants. Does this promote more liberty or less, gentle American?

~ "And so my fellow Americans; Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."~ - JFK

Government Dependency - Entrepreneurial Spirit C

Dependency on government aid and regulation is often the result of a fulfilled entitlement attitude. The opposite end of the scale is the drive to run one's own business and be successful on one's own terms. The first is subjugation. The second is the ultimate expression of economic liberty. Liberalism seeks to impose an ever growing government dependency on society, while conservatism promotes a liberty from dependency through independent opportunity where government stays out of the way. Again, which promotes more liberty, gentle American?

Constitutional Circumvention - Constitutional Adherence C

This truly is where the rubber hits the road in the struggle between the statist goals of liberalism and the liberty goals of conservatism. The founders created the Constitution as the cornerstone of America to prevent it from evolving into a dystopia. Conservatives agree with this purpose. But liberals see the Constitution as an overly restrictive barrier to achieving their utopia. Indeed, liberals see the Constitution as anti-utopia. There are few examples of liberalism where liberals play more monumentally stupid than this, gentle American.

Imagine that you and I draw up a contract where I provide you with specific services for a certain fee. Also included is an amendment process where we can renegotiate the terms of the contract as the times change, like inflation, new service requirements, technological developments, etc. Things go along tickity boo for ten years, and occasionally, we make changes to our contract according to the rules of our amendment process. Both of us are happy. But then I bring in a "progressive" partner who it turns out thinks he is much smarter than everybody else and decides that we need an additional bonus. He then comes up with this brilliant "progressive" idea that our contract is more than just a contract - it is a "living document" that should be arbitrarily adaptable to the times, which according to him means you should pay us a large bonus in addition to the fee that we have agreed upon through our amendment process. I expect you would vehemently object to this arbitrary sidestepping of our agreed upon amendment process by some Johnny-come-lately and probably think of my new partner and I as sort of cheats. And rightly so. The legitimate amendment process worked fine for ten years, but then this new "progressive" partner just goes and chucks it out the window and demands that you acquiesce to his arbitrary demands just because he came up with some tricky words like a "living document".

This is the story of progressivism and the Constitution of the United States, gentle American. For over a century Americans were satisfied with the application of the constitutional amendment process, but then some newly minted progressives of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries attempted to implement their own agenda by going around the legitimate process outlined in the Constitution. So they came up with this slippery description of the Constitution as a "living document" to step around the legitimate amendment process.

Think about this. If the Constitution can be changed outside of the formally defined amendment process, why did the authors create a formal amendment process in the first place? Duh! So explain to me, gentle American, how a foreign concept like a "living document" that was never even heard of for over one hundred years could all of a sudden be legitimate just because some malcontents found the Constitution and its amendment process to be an impediment to their utopian goals? This is like changing the rules solely for their benefit after the game has already been started. That is what cheaters do.

Tell me, gentle American, what is the difference between seeing me and my new partner as cheats and seeing these "enlightened" progressives as cheats? But more than just being cheats on a contract - they wanted to arbitrarily subvert the legitimate amendment process of the Constitution that had been successfully in use for over a century. If one believes the Constitution can be changed outside of the formal prescribed methods, or even worse, just ignored, one is promoting lawlessness, which is chaos - just what subversives do. But the Constitution is a set of ideological conclusions. To change the conclusions one must appropriately change the documents to reflect any newly desired conclusions. Doing so arbitrarily while ignoring the formal amendment process is just an example of liberalism playing monumentally stupid - and maybe nefariously more than that. Subversion is hardly what one thinks of when one thinks of patriots - more like enemies of the state. But this is hardly a surprise. After all, progressive utopianism is an enemy of constitutional rule. Liberals appoint judges that are supporting this "living document" myth to arbitrarily "read in" liberalism. This is little different from the rule of royalty where the ruling monarch decrees laws - just why America became a sovereign nation in the first place! The liberal arm of the court system in America has now replaced the Constitution and the king. So the formal amendment process is ignored and stepped around, and American liberties are reduced day by day. How does that make today's liberals any less than cheats, gentle American?  Which preserves more liberty? A fixed set of principled rules set in place as a solid contract implemented to do just that - preserve liberty? Or an arbitrary process where the whim of the day becomes the law of the day so that liberals can withdraw liberties to fit their politically correct agenda? [*5skavzn] [41]

Deprogramming Lessons C

The next time a liberal slanders conservatives as Nazis or fascists, ask them, based on what measurement? Expect a "Huh?" in response.

So now we have examined the issues of our Deprogramming Liberalism American Ideology Dichotomy Scale. (As mentioned above, the various named ideology groups in addition to conservatism and liberalism, such as communism, neoliberalism, neoconservatism, libertarianism, etc. will be dealt with in the following chapter.) Of course, some people pick and choose their ideological beliefs in various categories and may have views that straddle both the left and the right. Mostly though, it is my experience that the vast majority fall on one or the other side of the center tipping point. And even those that do share sides, when pressured, usually fall to defending the left.

Liberals are fearful that if some form of authoritarian rule cannot be pinned next to conservatism their case against conservatism would be greatly weakened: Compulsive paranoia is the foundation of contemporary liberalism. So to begin the chapter we

saw evidence of the liberal principle: Contemporary liberals embrace the strategy of the noble lie. Nazism and fascism are no less tyranny of the left than communism or military rule. They project fascism onto conservatives because: Contemporary liberals project what they subconsciously loathe about themselves as demagoguery toward their opponents and society as a whole. And then rationalize to themselves through this kooky belief that somehow Hitler and Mussolini were puppets of large corporations: For contemporary liberals superficial rationalization is always the first and final element in their ideological line of thought. Also clearly seen on the left side of the spectrum is a repeated adherence to our first liberal principle: Contemporary liberalism requires a strict adherence to playing stupid. Liberals think that they stand for liberty, when in fact virtually everything they actually stand for opposes or diminishes liberty. Taken as a whole it proves another principle: Contemporary liberalism is absurd. And throughout is the irrational belief in achieving utopia: Contemporary liberalism views society as generally incompetent and in need of the guiding hand of a controlling government. For its own good a resistant society must have utopian ideals forced upon it. Most of all a critical examination of leftwing ideology confirms that: Contemporary liberalism is a type of societal conditioning.

Tell me, gentle American, when you view this chapter through your Mr. Spock persona with third person analysis, can you now see the dichotomy between being a liberal, and desiring to have the freedom to direct your own life? A scale must measure something. Our new contemporary ideological scale measures liberty, or more personally, your ability to have the freedom to direct your own life. It is then amazingly obvious that liberalism and the freedom to direct your own life are on opposite sides of that scale. In the MCTE from the beginning of the chapter I said, "Remember our original question from chapter one: 'As a principle, would you prefer others to direct your life, or would you prefer to have the freedom to direct your own life, gentle American?' This chapter will deal with this on both a personal and a national scale. Answer this: As a principle, does contemporary liberalism equate with more personal liberty or less?" It is now quite obvious that contemporary liberalism is anathema to personal liberty, is it not, gentle American? You have been slumber-partying through your life - time to awaken, gentle American. You can now see better than ever that at your core you are not a liberal. Remember our new ideological scale at sleep time tonight, gentle American. Subordination on one side, and freedom on the other.

Deprogramming Exercise C

The situation America currently finds itself in makes it abundantly clear that something is wrong with its ideological direction - liberalism. Time to reverse course, gentle American. Here's something to help you understand this: [*4o45cv4] [42] And if you are looking for more liberty in your life, try this: [*3ltdznj] [43]

Which sector of the marketplace is the most liberated in terms of freedom from government regulation, taxation and interference? Communication technologies - think iPhone, Facebook, Twitter, etc. Which segment of the economy is the most successful in terms of startups, profits, job creation, professional career creation, technological advancement, etc.? Again, communication technologies - get the picture, gentle American? [*chyud8l] [44]

Humor, Sort-of C

Certainly it would not be wise to ignore the wisdom of the Scriptures in matters of such ideological importance:

~The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left. Even as fools walk along the road, they lack sense and show everyone how stupid they are.~ - Ecclesiastes 10:2-3

As a bonus we have a perfect example of a liberal playing stupid about fascism:

~The far left may hurl insults at the right but doesn’t scream “fascism” whenever a Republican proposes privatizing Medicare.~ - Eugene Robinson, Washington Post columnist in an anemic attempt to argue that liberals are really the civil ones.

Does Eugene Robinson actually think that fascists are into "privatizing"? LOL! Was he just playing stupid, or not playing?

Chapter 7

Ideologies

Mini Critical Thinking Exercise C

Ideology - Wikipedia:

~Ideologies are systems of abstract thought applied to public matters and thus make this concept central to politics. Implicitly every political tendency entails an ideology whether or not it is propounded as an explicit system of thought. It is how society sees things.~

Ponder this, gentle American: Would a society based on the ideology of individualism or collectivism allow you more freedom to direct your own life?

Defining Contemporary Ideologies C

Let's define our contemporary ideological terms of reference. The measure of our Deprogramming Liberalism Liberty Scale of Ideologies is graduated by the amount of individual liberty permitted and protected by each group of ideologies. There are four major ideologies divided into three leftwing and one rightwing.

Table #1 :: Graphs & Tables: [83svvqf]

Deprogramming Liberalism Target Groups C

As I mentioned in the first chapter, Deprogramming Liberalism is specifically aimed at members of the liberal and transitional subgroups. As for those who favor one of the totalitarian subgroups, I think that professional psychological help might be a more productive place to start, although Deprogramming Liberalism may possibly be able to contribute to the reversal of this condition as well.

Leftwing - Rightwing C

Ideologies are divided into two major groups, leftwing and rightwing. Conservatism embraces all of the minor rightwing ideologies, whereas liberalism only represents a fraction of minor leftwing ideology subgroups. Transitional leftists definitely lean more toward liberalism on some or many issues, but seem to think they can mix oil and water. On the extreme left are all of the iron-fisted and chaos-oriented authoritarian subgroups. Everyone who has even the slightest awareness of politics can be placed in a combination of a primary ideology and a number of secondary ideologies, sometimes even contradicting each other. The leftwing does not necessarily always equate with big government control. Remember our scale is based on the amount of individual liberty, not control. The anarchist and the nihilist don't believe in big government control (at least initially), but they still oppose individual liberty (more shortly).

You may be wondering why there are so many leftwing categories and so few rightwing, gentle American. First, there really are no divisions within the rightwing when it comes to liberty. There are a few nuances, but liberty is liberty. The many divisions on the left are based on the amount of liberty tolerated in particular areas of life. In other words, there is really only one way to implement liberty as a principle, but many ways to institute tyranny. On the left everyone thinks they have the right balance of liberty and tyranny, and that everyone else should accept their chosen amount. Those on the right

reject any amount of tyranny, preferring minimal limits based on a civil society of liberty. When you revealed in chapter one that you prefer to have the freedom to direct your own life, gentle American, you placed your core value on the right side of the liberty scale.

What's Not Included C

Except for under theocratic rule, religion is seldom useful in defining ideologies because of the many variances from country to country, and sometimes in different regions of the same country - India for example. Militia groups and cults are also hard to pin down - although many are civil and rightwing, some are more akin to anarchists and authoritarian. Libertarians come in so many different flavors it is hardly worth the trouble except for the most popular one which is conservative libertarianism. (Here, if you enjoy splitting hairs: [39lzg3z] [1]) Communitarianism is a minor offshoot of liberalism emphasizing positive rights.

Populism is not so much an ideology as a political strategy of honing one's political message into an us versus them argument. Liberals (and authoritarians) do however favor this sort of politics - the poor versus the rich, minorities versus whites, the people versus the corporations, etc. Populism is the pitting of groups of people against each other on issues other than ideology for the sake of political expediency. It is usually a cynical taking advantage of the ignorance of voters to get their vote. But once the voters have voted the 'proper way' their supposed grievance that was played upon for their votes is often ignored, or if implemented results in the unintended consequences.

Conservatism C

Contemporary conservatism is a liberating ideology. It goes beyond just a belief in liberty to a production and protection of liberty. Definition in a nutshell: Contemporary conservatism is the selected mindset of a liberated society providing and protecting the ability of each individual to manage their life with minimal collective limitations. Today's conservatism is the ultimate liberation ideology. Conservatism is an ideology that offers liberation for all who are oppressed by left of center collectivist ideologies. This includes not only the oppressed, but the collectivist oppressors as well. It is not only those who believe in individual liberty that benefit from application of individual liberty, but those who have previously embraced collectivism are also freed from their unwitting voluntary slavery as well. More than anything this also defines the purpose of this book series. It is not only about freeing society for the sake of my belief, gentle American. It is for the sake of all who are oppressed by collectivism, but especially those in America who erroneously espouse collectivism as a type of liberty and need liberating from it the most - contemporary liberals.

As noted in chapter six contemporary conservatism is an evolutionary development from the classical liberalism of the previous century, and the minimalism of the century before that. In effect today's contemporary conservatives stand on the shoulders of the classical liberals and minimalists of the past. Minimalism is a uniquely American creation. The founders were all minimalists who feared the potential tyranny of big, authoritarian government. Never before had the limiting of government combined with maximizing individual liberty been the main focus of a nation's governing charter. It was an exceptional ideology that produced an exceptional country. The minimalist's motive is

civility with rights for everyone, along with a goal of maximum possible individual liberty with minimal collective limitations.

Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, Friedrich Hayek, Alexis de Tocqueville and John Locke are, among a long list of others, including the founders, the fathers of today's conservative movement. To all, liberty of the individual along with the civility of society were the primary concerns of their ideology. Contemporary conservatives have taken the torch passed to them from the classical liberals of yesteryear who took it from the minimalists before them. This is where most Americans align themselves when polled as compared to moderate (transitional) or liberal (liberal being the least selected choice of the three). [*ycvapqh] [2] Real contemporary conservatives are recognizable by their minimalist values of limited government and maximum individual liberty. To this end they are also American constitutionalists, valuing the principles of the founders and the Constitution they wrote. Contemporary conservatives today focus on preserving and re-acquiring great American traditions like a truly free marketplace, with much less regulation and government intrusion, true freedom of speech without the policing of political correctness, unquestioned patriotism, an adherence to the limitations of the Constitution as originally intended, and strict adherence to law and order to produce and maintain a civil society. Beyond minimalist values however, most conservatives are also evangelists of liberty, unreserved from utilizing aggression against tyranny to liberate oppressed peoples of the world. The majority of conservatives see this as a duty of free people towards the oppressed, also realizing that as the future unfolds unless proactively engaged, rogue nations and terrorist groups are likely to become more dangerous with easier access to nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, along with improved delivery systems and strategies. [*4784ms3] [3]

Neofeminism arguably has its roots from the late nineties when liberal feminists refused to condemn and even defended President Clinton's misogyny over subordinate women. The whole premise of the liberal woman's movement was exposed as nothing more than hypocritical liberalism (the double standards principle). Feminists threw their own feminist ideals under the bus when their rock star liberal President became what should have been a textbook example of what they were supposed to be opposing. This left the woman's movement in limbo with no focus, no leadership and no societal influence, so feminists resorted to a perpetual whine that America has simply tuned out. Even the liberal media became bored with them. Feminism was dead. Dead. The treatment of Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic Party primaries confirmed this (this will be dealt with later). But at the same time along came Sarah Palin and shortly after, the Tea Party. Neofeminism was born and today's strong, successful women who embrace their femininity and morals are now valued as some of America's leaders. After being called a particular vicious name of a sexual nature Sarah Palin summed up the current relevancy of liberal feminism:

~ "I need NOW's defense like a fish needs a bicycle."~ [4gj4aep] [4]

Related to neofeminism is traditionalism, or what is often called social conservatism or traditional values. It is often pigeonholed by liberals as religious doctrine forced onto society, but really it is about public morals and population demographics. The morals side is related to the civil society aspect of conservatism. Without a civil society liberty is diminished, and without morals civil society is impossible, and without a civil society a

healthy replacement birth rate is also impossible. Secular liberalism promotes a suicidal, collective mentality where its social norms inhibit a replacement birth rate - a disparaging of traditional marriage and nuclear families, a focus on materialism over family values, a promotion of sexual 'liberty' and libertinism, a de-emphasis on adoption and emphasis on abortion, and easy divorce with punishing repercussions that keep men from marrying or remarrying, keep women from finding a man who wants more than to just hookup, and teaches children that marriage and a family are not worth the trouble. This is a relatively new phenomena in the world because modern secularism is relatively new and can only exist in a culture advanced enough to cater to this self-centered and spoiled attitude. Without a replacement birthrate a country will die within a few generations. For this very reason many of both Western and Eastern European nations are trapped in this quandary and have had to resort to high volume immigration policies that are in the process of swamping their natural citizenry with foreign, primitive cultures. This leads to a less productive, smaller and younger portion of society with less resources having to support a much larger, older, self-satisfied and demanding population with which they have no national, cultural or familial affiliations. This naturally leads to cultural and generational resentment and an eventual and inevitable law of diminishing returns, where the average standard of living enters a parabolic decline. Eventually, this situation will inevitably force secularism to revert back to its Margaret Sanger progressive roots by again demanding eugenics, especially for elders to solve its health funding problems. Austerity is also inevitable as economies collapse. To a lesser extent Canada is caught up in this demographic problem. Japan is in serious trouble, and Russia is dissolving before our very eyes, gentle American (there are eleven million more women than men and the population is already in severe decline). Even China with its huge population is in trouble because of its one child policy that has resulted in 35 million more young men than young women (this divergence is continually expanding). Ditto the demographics in India. Without a balance of women, young men are much more likely to turn their frustrations to crime, snowballing the uncivil aspect of society, and leading to ever more demographic decline. With a dwindling respect for family values America will eventually also succumb if it continues along this path (America is already slightly below a replacement birthrate). [*6d7qy7d] [5] It is callous to think as today's liberals do, that this is only a problem for future generations, so why worry about it? Party on! The secular and libertine aspects of liberalism are selfish choices which say, "America is for me today, not for the children who follow me - why should I worry about tomorrow?" It is today's children and grandchildren that will be stuck living the unintended consequences of liberalism's secular and libertine demographic implosion.

So it does not matter whether you agree with the doctrines of social conservatives, gentle American. Your personal opinion is in fact irrelevant. Although the solution is about moral choice, the problem itself is simple arithmetic. It only matters whether you love your country enough to desire a continued prosperity with ever increasing living standards and life spans for your children and grandchildren. The only way to preserve and perpetuate these goals is to produce a sufficient replacement population and a melting pot mentality towards immigrants. Immigrants that do not accept and embrace the traditional values of America are as much a threat to America's future prosperity as are secular Americans. Do you think immigrants with foreign values will wish to accept a diminished standard of living to pay exorbitant taxes to keep selfish secular Americans

alive indefinitely? Hardly, gentle American. The only way for America to produce a sufficient replacement population is for the majority to embrace the principles that do so - traditional values. To reject them as does secularism is to condemn America to an inevitable demographic death. It really boils down to a simple question for you, gentle American. Do you want the American Dream for your children and grandchildren? If your answer is yes then reject secular and libertine liberalism and instead embrace traditional values for America's society that ensure its future. You don't have to personally agree with them all. You simply must accept them as mathematically necessary for the future prosperity of the nation. If you choose not to, you choose doom for America.

Transitional C

What identifies the Transitional ideologies is the willingness to straddle the leftwing-rightwing divide, cherry picking from both sides. This, however, firmly plants them on the left as at least occasionally willing to sacrifice liberty for what is supposedly viewed as practicality. Many Centrists, Moderates and Independents just want to get along, and see middle of the road compromise as the civil course of action. They are particularly susceptible to the liberal crisis engineering strategy. Neoconservatism has evolved over the last few decades from being of mostly Jewish American origin to being more inclusive, famously being described as "a liberal who has been mugged by reality". Originally neoconservatives were refugees from liberalism in the sixties and seventies who could no longer tolerate liberalism's increasingly sympathetic leanings toward communism. Now it is viewed more as conservatism with a empiricist and militaristic agenda. In fact neoconservatism is somewhat less individualistic than vanilla conservatism, in some areas leaning towards centrism and beyond. To the disappointment of many American conservatives (and me as well), President George W. Bush turned out to be a neoconservative with his compassionate conservatism that seemed little more than an excuse to mix some liberal leaning policies in with his conservative ones.

Some like to call themselves fiscally conservative and socially liberal. But one cannot be socially liberal if one is fiscally conservative. Social liberalism demands government programs be paid for with ever higher taxes, especially at the local and state level. That isn't fiscal conservatism. And then we have the demographics quandary of secularism, under which social liberalism falls, just explained above. A demographic demise due to socially liberal ideals leads to a financially bankrupt country - hardly fiscal conservatism or liberty.

Conservative libertarians differ from conservatives, preferring no role in the policing of the world and a de-emphasizing of defense and a domestic security apparatus. They also distrust domestic policing more so than traditional conservatives, and have more leniency for public libertinism. They also seem to have no clear and consistent position on abortion. Almost everything that differentiates them from mainstream conservatism leans left away from a civil society. They are the utopians of the right (or the middle, to be more accurate), paralleling Dewey's vision of a society with little governing authority, but without Dewey's educational indoctrination of collectivism toward that end. In effect, libertarians embrace the liberty afforded by conservatism, but water their wine with libertinism and utopian ideals like peace through detachment.

Liberalism C

Contemporary liberals are an extension of old-style, pre-sixties progressives with healthy doses of old style fascism and modern corporatism mixed in. All are utopian ideologies (we explored these in detail in chapters four and six). Remember this from chapter one: 

~Liberalism is not about the individual liberty that you have just chosen - it is about collective submission and dependence. The only real responsibility for the liberal is voluntary submission. Here is the definition of today's liberalism in regard to individual liberty: Contemporary liberalism is the coerced mindset of a command-style society requiring each individual to submit to collective management of their life while believing their submission to be an act of individual liberty. Liberalism is a seductive delusion, and in this sense liberals truly are victims of their own ideology. Fear drives liberals to give up their individual liberty for the comfort and protection of the herd (more later). Liberals voluntarily submit themselves and encourage all others to also submit, and to any who resist demand that they too submit to collective management of their lives. This makes liberalism an anti-individual liberty ideology, but don't try telling that to a liberal without some context - they truly do believe that coercive collective management is the actual definition of individual liberty.~

Today's liberalism has nothing in common with the individual liberty-based classical liberalism of the last century. Contemporary liberalism is about managing society and differs from authoritarianism only in the means of delivery and extent. One uses the nuances of persuasion, deception, intimidation and corruption, while the other resorts to brute force. As was illustrated in chapter two, contemporary liberalism has developed as a compulsive paranoid ideology. It is not just that liberalism demands control to implement utopia. It is that liberalism produces a paranoia that leads to the demand for control. Remember in chapter two we discussed liberal perceptions of the motivations of both liberals and conservatives. Then in chapter six we discussed various ideological elements that make up the two ideologies of contemporary liberalism and contemporary conservatism, like libertine versus moralistic positions, entitlements versus responsibilities, etc. We learned in chapter four that contemporary liberals are motivated by a desire for utopia, but in chapter two it was revealed that the real motive behind the desire for utopia is paranoia. Liberals are motivated by fear - they are terrified of anything that hinders or is perceived to be unhelpful in 'fixing' their world. This spurs their desire for even more control, shifting the ideology ever closer to all-out fascist tyranny.

Unlike the rich history of contemporary conservatism which includes notable classical liberals and minimalists in many academic and professional fields, there are relatively few notable progressives that contemporary liberalism can point to as historic mentors. In fact, besides the aforementioned John Dewey, there are really only a few other non-politicians; Margaret Sanger, John Maynard Keynes and Father Charles Coughlin, along with three former Presidents, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt who, as mentioned before, I like to call FDRHoover (this will be explained in the next book). We have already discovered that John Dewey was very influential on American society in a tragic way. Margaret Sanger's influence as a Nazi sympathizer, eugenicist and founder of the right-to-selectively-kill movement in America provided even more tragic results than Dewey - tens of millions of dead Americans (this is part of

that demographic problem explained above). John Maynard Keynes is a phantom liberal icon. Liberals think they follow his economic policies, but they have no clue what they really are (more later). Father Coughlin was a radio preacher in the 1930s with an audience of more than thirty million to whom he preached FDRHoover's big government message. All three progressive Presidents were utter failures, as you will soon see. As an addendum, Saul Alinsky might also be added to the list, although he is rather modern to be considered an historic mentor.

Liberalism is a dichotomy of politically correct control along side a libertine crossing of natural moral boundaries. The contemporary liberal is nothing like the classical liberal, though he claims allegiance (dealt with in chapter four). Whereas conservatives view everyone under the Constitution as equal, liberals are subhumanists. In relation to their collectivist ideology everyone is considered to belong to one or more subhuman classes, generally defined by the amount and type of suppression each class is perceived to suffer, or oppression a class is perceived to dispense (where each group fights in regard to this scale). In effect, liberalism holds that no individual is equal. Every individual in society is considered flawed by classification as either a victim or victimizer that can be judged based on age, race, gender, sexual orientation, income level, schooling, political position, environmental position, industry, geographical location, etc. By these judgments everyone can be collectivized into groups. In liberalism there are no equal individuals - only flawed groups in need of top down control to unite them in utopia.

Liberalism is an ideological system where individual rights are surrendered to the state and where group rights are instituted as paramount. The primary goal of liberalism, and by extension the Democratic Party in America, is that you and everyone else, accept and indeed embrace a top down collective directing of your lives. In short, liberalism is a compulsive paranoid delusion produced as a result of societal conditioning that in turn produces a dependence on a governing elite to make proper collective decisions for each person, instituted through coercion. The manufactured paranoia is a fear of evil opponents attempting to stop progress toward a collective utopia. It is mostly an ideology pushed by academia and the public school system and elements of the church, where the people elect representatives who slowly over the years implement a group rights mentality on society leading to ever more overbearing government taxation, regulation and control. Natural moral freedoms are eroded and replaced with pressure to conform to the new paradigm. Generally, it is accomplished through legal means, initially with the approval of the electorate, and later regardless of their approval, as elitism dominates the democratic process (Obamacare for example). Corruption is legalized. Unions and NGOs (non-governmental organizations like ACORN for example [yhqkgdl, 3j76qjh] [6]), and international governing and regulatory entities (like the UN, World Bank and Interpol) are given inordinate powers and funding to influence government decisions and enforce the approved leftwing ideological agenda. Businesses that ingratiate themselves to the elite politicians in control and their sycophantic unions are granted favorable regulation and government contracts, subsidies, bailouts, etc., while businesses not in favor are penalized with regulation and official and unofficial demonization (like the coal industry). Through entitlement programs voters are bribed with their own tax money and money taken from their children for their immediate benefit (deficit spending). The populism of class division is used to pit the lower classes against the higher classes, and racism is used as a populist political wedge issue. To see how ridiculous liberalism can

get, do a search for >stupid California laws<. Though certainly humorous, real people's liberties have been removed by these hundred's of draconian and absurd liberal laws.

Of course liberals portray themselves as the guardians of civil and human rights. But liberal rights are not about liberty. Liberal civil rights generally fall under tyranny or libertinism. Affirmative action is tyrannical and populist, oppressing one person's rights for another's benefit (also a symptom of paranoid delusion). Political correctness is also mostly based on tyranny (and even more paranoid delusion). On the flip side, so-called sexual rights for teens are not examples of liberty but libertinism, and abortion is not so much a right of liberty as it is right of libertinism for women and a right of tyranny over the unborn. If you are not sure, ask yourself who's life is affected more - the mother's or the child's? With abortion the mother oppresses the child with her supposed rights trumping the child's (more later).

Liberals condemn conservatism for its natural morals of individual responsibility, and then replace them with collective morals like a collective right to healthcare, a collective right to education, or a collective right to retirement benefits. Unlike the natural morals of conservatism where individuals are held responsible for their application, liberal morals are the responsibility of the collective state, so individuals are not responsible for their own healthcare or their own education or their own retirement, the collective state is. Conservatism holds the individual accountable for his own personal conduct and charity to his neighbors, whereas liberalism holds the individual unaccountable for himself, but only the collective is accountable for everyone. Giving is an individual thing. Taking is a collective thing. Liberalism is not about giving - charity (dealt with in book two, chapter two). It is about taking and redistribution - Marxism. There is nothing truly moral about it - it is immoral.

Classical Liberalism (liberty)

Progressivism (masses) – Utopia – Modern Corporatism (elite)

Fascism (tyranny)

Contemporary liberalism is a utopian figure of opposing goals (remember, liberalism is built on irrationality). One side sustains just enough talk of liberty to convince its adherents that their utopia is all about freedom. This is a remnant of contemporary liberalism's long lost connection to classical liberalism (explained in chapter four). The flip side to a belief in liberty is a belief in the coercive government control of fascism to force a utopia onto a reluctant country (dealt with in chapters four and six). An adjacent side offers the 'benefits' of progressivism for the masses along with an opposition to elitism (see chapter four), while the contradicting opposite side represents modern day corporatism where the elite in government reward selected elites in the marketplace (explained in chapter six). This is the messy ideological makeup of contemporary liberalism in a nutshell. They think that they believe in a utopia of liberty while using tyranny to suppress liberty to get there. They also think that they are the champions of the 'little guy' while supporting a corrupt system where elites reward elites. We end up with liberals at once proclaiming to be for a liberated society where equality rules, while at the same time supporting and electing an elite who reward other elites and forcibly remove liberties from society. Contemporary liberalism is made up of two stark contradictions

consisting of four components aimed at producing an impossible utopia. Completely irrational.

Progressives were the original utopianists in America, dating back to before the turn of the twentieth century. They believed liberty could be gained and better preserved by expanding government mandates and benefits to the citizenry and reducing the elitism of tycoon's monopolies in the marketplace. Fascism is the constant expansion of government control through legislation, regulation, manipulation, intimidation, and the institution of a desired public mindset onto society (political correctness). The economy is steadily transformed from a consumer demand capitalism into a government command capitalism. William Taft was the last mostly progressive President of the United States. Herbert Hoover was the first to overtly adopt Euro-fascist governing strategies into progressivism, and FDRHoover established progressive-fascism as the dominant ruling ideology in America (much more on this in book two). Often liberal rhetoric, governing and even legislation matches that of authoritarians. Liberals especially despise religion as a basis for moral or legislative decisions, and consumer demand capitalism, wishing to replace them with secularism and government command capitalism (more shortly). The laughable contradiction of liberalism is the unshakable belief that the more the government regulates and takes control of society, the more this will produce liberty for all. This is the state of today's liberalism - irrational contradiction. It rewards some industries with government favors (carrot and stick capitalism), claiming benefit for the economy, while penalizing other sectors and ignoring the damage done to the economy there (in actual fact both strategies damage the marketplace and the economy as a whole). It desires a utopian, civilized society, but disdains the morals that civilize a society. It takes money from the future through deficit borrowing and spending to give to those in the present, but expects the future to perpetually be more prosperous than the present. It takes money from young, productive workers still trying to succeed in life and gives it to old retirees who have already succeeded in life. It penalizes and disincentivizes success with unbalanced taxation and regulation, and rewards failure with handouts and bailouts. It desires an efficient healthcare system for all, but then restricts market competition which is the only way to produce the desired efficiency (much more in book two). It desires a world class education system, but then institutes government command style mediocrity. It desires a prosperous economy, but then regulates the economy to death. Everything about liberalism is based on playing stupid. It commands liberty for all - by taking liberty away from all.

The subgroups of liberalism all have their own unique cultic traits, but unite under the belief that government control should trump individual liberty (at least for their constituency). In the recent past most contemporary self-identified progressives I had encountered denied being liberals as though ashamed to be associated with the extreme wing of liberal activism. Now, just a few years later the trend seems to have reversed. From what I can see, self-identified progressives are ashamed (more like embarrassed) of liberals, and self-identified liberals feel the same about progressives, but they both basically desire the same ends by the same means, just to varying degrees. Neoliberalism is a somewhat nebulous term that mostly falls under the liberalism umbrella, but is less entitlement oriented than liberalism and more sympathetic to consumer demand capitalism.

Statism is equivalent to Euro-socialism, actually an advanced evolution of progressive-fascism based on government control with the power to reward with protection from penalty, and penalize in every sector of society as seen necessary. Statists are much more authoritarian than vanilla liberals, but many liberals aspire to statist goals.

Unionism is organized groupthink intimidation, the equivalent of an association of manipulating collaborators that bully employers, governments, employees, taxpayers and voters to accept two obviously unequal lines as equal. [*3cpylzc] [7] Essentially, unionism today is an example of collectivism on a small scale. Everything ugly about the collectivism of unionism is magnified in collectivism on a national level. While unionism had a legitimate roll one hundred years ago, it's purpose today is not fair pay and working conditions, but unfair, inflated pay, unrealistic benefit and retirement packages, and ridiculous working conditions that include as much time being paid for not working as possible. Their original purpose for improving working conditions in primitive and emerging economies has long since been replaced in America by federal and state labor laws. Their continued existence, besides being about greed and control, is actually about the fear that sees the free marketplace as some sort of evil monster supposedly attempting to eat up their members and spit them out into poverty. This type of compulsive paranoid delusion often leads to aggressive tendencies to protect the collective nurture of big mommy union. Collective bargaining rights are really rights to intimidate. Unions are now simply what liberals project onto conservatives - self-serving and greedy bullies who use intimidation to line their own pockets at the expense of consumers and taxpayers, having evolved into no more than organized racquets that launder mandatory union dues to the Democratic Party who then reciprocate by creating laws to strengthen the racquets and line the pockets of unions. Don't believe me, gentle American? Have a look at this chart: [*7muxqn6] [8] (This malfunction of fair play using taxpayers money to politically influence taxpayers could easily be curbed by outlawing any organization that receives tax money in any way from contributing to or spending on political parties or organizations. This would rule out all government unions and any union working on a government project - and those companies as well.) But unions are much more than sugar daddies to the Democratic Party. They are also the goon squads of Democrats, bussed into events to strong-arm their liberal agenda. Proving that unions are outdated dinosaurs of a bygone era is the fact that removing mandatory union dues so workers have a choice of whether to contribute to a union or not has resulted in nine tenths of workers opting out of paying dues. They are also tax exempt organizations. Since they are thoroughly self-serving organizations whose aim is to profit their members there is no reason they should not pay taxes - talk about not paying their fair share! Permanent unions are expensive to employees and completely unnecessary. [*84j7gn5] [9] If employee negotiation is absolutely necessary a legal contractor could do the job every few years for a minute fraction of the cost of a permanent union. Having developed from labor rights organizations of the distant past, unions have since metastasized into bloated economic millstones around America's neck that unfairly manipulate elections as well. Government unions claim they aren't overpaid and over-benefited. If that is the case let's open up the process to private sector non-union competition. If the government unions are not overpaid and over-benefited they will win the bid and the argument - won't they?

Feminism became a liberal advocacy group along with the birth of contemporary liberalism in the 1960s. But feminism became mostly for elite liberal women and

excluded minority groups. Not overtly, they just refused to allow anyone to be a feminist spokesperson unless they were connected to the inner core. Their only significant tie to minority and non-elite women was their push for abortion rights. As mentioned above, old seventies style feminists are mostly irrelevant today, except for their significant influence on American campuses, and except that they and related groups like Planned Parenthood are sugar mommies similar to unions for the Democratic Party, receiving taxpayer money and passing it along to Democrats. (They too should be banned from economically participating in the political process unless they stop taking taxpayer money.) They recently began a national campaign to get Rush Limbaugh off the air. Their inaugural protest of Limbaugh in L.A. drew a whole "seven" protesters. Seven! While feminism throughout its long history, back to the 1800s, promoted and achieved many just causes for women's rights, liberal feminism has turned those who have embraced it into dour, judgmental, unhappy women lacking in femininity. They are the cranky, bitchy, spinster aunts of American society. It seems nothing is ever satisfactory. Everyday their paranoid delusion searches for something new to whine about supposedly related to women's rights. Liberal feminists have transformed the word feminism into an epithet that is now quite naturally spit out of the mouth, conjuring up images of broken up fetuses and angry wicked-witch-of-the-west women on TV screaming about some eminently forgettable thing or another. Feminists have simply become caricatures of themselves.

Secularism is another liberal paranoid delusion, the fear of religion - a sort of religiophobia. Environmentalism is where the western communist movement has evolved since the 1960s - the classic watermelon, green on the outside and red on the inside (again more paranoid delusion). Euro-socialism is only one example of statism. Japan is also a nanny state, along with recent converts, Great Britain and the U.S.A. Sadly, my own country of Canada is a well established liberal, nanny state. Animal rights groups tend to parallel environmentalism. Anti-war groups blow with the wind. When there is a Republican President all wars are bad. When there is a Democratic President, most wars are not so bad.

All of the liberal subgroups unite in their desire for utopia as coerced by the state through the fears of their various paranoid delusions. Though claiming to be the defenders of liberty, practically everything they espouse and do diminishes it.

Authoritarianism C

Whereas liberalism is the implementation of incremental utopian goals in generally free societies through co-opting governing mechanisms of control, authoritarianism is control at the point of a gun where utopia has been achieved - at least in the minds of those in control. The state retains control over all rights. Individual liberty is minimized. Outright tyranny is the norm. Slavery, whether to individual elites or to the government is not uncommon to totalitarian regimes, and abortion is universal except under some theocratic rule. Religions are often persecuted. Mass murder and political persecution are norms. Communists especially have employed anarchy to mass murder their own citizens, often by the millions.

Quick question, gentle American: Where in America's founding documents is the phrase “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”? Of course, the

answer is nowhere. This is the maxim of Marxism. It is exactly the opposite of what America stands for: Rugged individualism and an entrepreneurial spirit, minimal government, personal responsibility, equality, charity, liberty. But considering that the American educational system is based on liberal indoctrination it is not surprising that 42% of Americans actually believe the above quoted foundational doctrine of Marxism is supposedly from an American lexicon. [*2ugaotw] [10] No wonder liberals are so sympathetic to big government style Marxism and hate American traditions. What do you think Barack Obama meant when he told Joe the plumber that "it's good for everybody" to "spread the wealth around". This is Marxism disguised in conversational language. Obviously Barack Obama is a shining example of America's public education system - and an adversary of almost everything the founders envisioned for America.

Authoritarianism is antithetical to liberty, but only by degree more so than liberalism. It is often the result of utopianism taken to its end result. Ask any despot and they'll tell you their country is utopia, or the closest thing to it.

Nihilism/Terrorism, Anarchism and Minimalism C

Nihilism is an emotional response of civil disorder displayed as riots where one destroys one's own neighborhood. An example of this would be the L.A.-Rodney King riot. In transitional societies it has often been utilized by desirous authoritarians, who entice and welcome nihilism as an opportune tool to position themselves as saviors of an out-of-control society. Other descriptive words associated with nihilism are oppression, insurrection, lawlessness, disorder, turmoil, discord, disarray and pandemonium. It is not really an ideology, but more of a psychopathology, always transformational, often leading to authoritative crackdowns or even war. Nihilists are often love/haters. They tell themselves they love something, and they hate with a passion whatever they see as opposition to what they imagine they love. In America this is often a natural extension of liberalism with their pseudo-love/hate for America and its traditions. Terrorism is a branch of nihilism in that it embraces total ruination and chaos, and can include self-destruction, whether personal, or of one's surrounding neighborhood or country (think Timothy McVeigh, Anders Breivik). But it may also be separate from nihilism when used as a calculated strategy of insurgency. Then, it is simply war.

Like libertarianism there are many flavors of anarchism. We'll touch on four types of anarchism that are pertinent here. One, like nihilism, is also a transitional phase of psychopathology in a period between governing authorities as when a country is embroiled in war and citizens are in turmoil with little organization, or it may be an unorganized opposition making a statement, like car burnings in Paris, or it could also be semi-organized mayhem with little coherence of the actual problems supposedly being protested, as with the Occupy Wall Street protests, but unlike nihilism or terrorism it is not deliberately self-destroying. At Left Forum 2012, a mingling of various leftwing groups, Michael Moore says, "Thank God for the anarchists", referring to the Occupy Wall Street protestors, to the cheers of those in attendance. [7nmltem] [11]

The second anarchism is a type of ideology, usually embracing the realm of conspiracy theorists and often complete rejection of the establishment, including laws and institutions, and often religions. Contemporary anarchists are usually frustrated extreme liberals and statists who have concluded that civilized reform has failed and so they resort

to a counterculture lifestyle that often results in political violence. To find these kinds of anarchists check out any G8 meeting - they'll be the ones throwing stones and Molotov cocktails at the police and smashing store windows. These types of anarchists are often associated with collectives and communal living of sorts, and libertinism.

Our third type of anarchism parallels John Dewey's utopia in many ways, where government becomes unnecessary and society is supposed to be a workers' paradise. Noam Chomsky, quoted a couple of chapters ago, calls himself a anarcho-syndicalist.

The fourth kind of anarchism is not an ideology, but a deliberate political strategy of calculated tyranny to produce political chaos, often imposed through the application of intimidation and crisis peddling for the purpose of enforcing desired political and societal goals. Authoritarians repeatedly employ anarchy or more specifically chaos as a political strategy. This is done through hyping some societal fear or crisis and using intimidation to silence critics. The political chaos strategy and crisis engineering are based on the use of tyrannical intimidation and crisis fear tactics to override laws, civil rights and individual liberties. This is a prime example of this liberal principle: Contemporary liberals employ chaos as a political strategy to destabilize society so that liberal solutions can appear more palatable. Essentially, to overcome voter resistance, chaos through crisis engineering is used as a strategy directed at emotional hot button responses to prevent any critical analysis and facts from producing doubts in their proposed expansion or maintenance of their control. The Wisconsin union protests of 2011 were an example of crisis engineering to divert public attention from their adverse effect on the state budget and economy with the result of almost eight million dollars worth of damage to the capitol building. Global warming is another example where opposition is characterized as of evil motivation, not based reasoned debate.

In order to fully comprehend our ideological scale we must understand the contemporary relationships between nihilism, anarchism and minimalism which on face value may seem to overlap. However, here is how they place on our scale:

Nihilism - Anarchism ........................... - Center - ............ Minimalism

What we need to understand most is that nihilism and anarchy are extreme leftwing ideologies and strategies, opposed to civil rights and liberties, while minimalism is the epitome of civil rights and liberties.

The Ideological Evolution of America C

Of course, our ideological scale is mostly contemporary, so it can only be a loose measure of the ideological evolution of America from its founding to the present but, nevertheless, it can be used to poignantly illustrate the development of the country throughout the centuries.

Step 1: The United States of America is a constitutional state. [*4s8wmth] [12] It is the most unique country in the world, where the founding documents on which the legal and moral framework of the state is presented as limitations on the ruling class - the government. To ensure maximum liberty the U.S. Constitution assumes complete freedom first and then allows by definition certain, selective and limited government controls. (This is the opposite of liberalism which presumes governing sovereignty first and demands that any opposition find constitutional contrast second - and then claims a

"living constitution" can effectively be ignored anyway - as explained in chapter six.) The Constitution restricts governing reach by limiting what the government is allowed to control. At the founding of the country America's ideology could be described as being as close to ideal minimalism as could be practical. The federal government actually had very little control. The states were the real powers.

Step 2: With the industrial age came an unprecedented interconnectedness throughout the country and a ramping up of federal regulations and laws, modernization and civility. The wild west became civilized and governed. Basic rule of law manifested itself throughout the continental U.S.A. This represents an ideological shift to classical liberalism on our ideology scale.

Crossover

Step 3: The progressivism at the turn of twentieth century began a dabbling with big government. The Roaring Twenties temporarily shifted the country back to classical liberalism, but with the New Deal of the Great Depression era, came the birth and establishment of big government, and the ideology of the nation stepped over the center tipping point of our scale. For the first time the state became the driving force in American society as it directly deepened and lengthened the Great Depression. Fascism was directly incorporated into the governing style, producing a progressive-fascism. Many supposed relief programs and other policies like protectionist trade were enacted, but later, during the war, were thankfully dismantled. Social Security is the most notable program that has survived. But more importantly, the precedent was set for government manipulation and interference in the American economy and society even though it proved to be a complete disaster, extending a three year recession into a fifteen year depression. This was the beginning of the end of true classical liberalism as the predominant governing ideology in America. What has grown into contemporary liberalism was given birth with Hooverism and FDRHoover's extrapolated New Deal, Dirty Thirties.

Step 4: The sixties brought the Great Society. It took the New Deal's precedence of government manipulation and interference and ran with it. Hoover's and FDRHoover's dreams of progressive-fascism in America had been cut short in the early 1940s. The New Deal was put on hold. It was rebirthed as liberalism in the mid 1960s as the Great Society. Intrusionist government again went from a part time position in the proverbial stock room, to a seat at the White House cabinet room table. Many domestic programs were introduced and the welfare state made its entry into American society. The most notable programs entrenched were welfare, Medicare, Medicaid and Food Stamps (all of them are currently bankrupting the country). Contemporary liberalism was on its way to becoming the predominant governing ideology in America.

Step 5: In late 2008 a major shift in government control was initiated with the financial crisis/housing bubble bust and subsequent election of Barack Obama to the Presidency, a liberal with a long history of supporting statist ideals. For the first time since the Great Depression the government positioned itself as a savior of the economy. Prior to this some recessions had prompted a moderate amount of government meddling in the economy, but the response to the 2008 crisis dwarfed any previous interventions. American society then truly matched contemporary liberalism on our ideological scale,

and with the Obama administration it was taking the next step into full blown liberal statism with its legalized economic, moral and constitutional corruption. The crisis engineering strategy of intimidation and scare mongering came into full implementation. Modern corporatism was expanded to an exponential degree. This was all evidenced by a liberal government that executed its own narrow agenda while ignoring the will of the people and the restrictions of the Constitution. This led to the 2010 "shellacking" of Obama's agenda and the Democratic party as a whole. With the advent of the Tea Party we will see if this new movement to the right can be sustained and will produce real conservative results (so far it has within the Republican Party and at the ballot box).

America was built from the bottom up, but is now run from the top down. It was founded based on a freedom from government control, but an increasingly contemporary liberalization of American society has reversed the founders' purpose so that now the government rewards its chosen winners (favorable Wall Street banks, Google, GE, unions, lawyers, green industries), and punishes its chosen enemies (big oil, big coal, big pharma, the health insurance industry), and is manipulated by corrupt, agenda driven NGO power groups and sugar daddies like George Soros and Hollywood elites.

It is easy to see, gentle American, that America is on a slippery slope away from what America was created to be. It can probably be argued that in the early years of the country a move toward (not to) the middle of the spectrum from the original minimalism was an inevitable and somewhat desirable outcome as America became a more dynamic and modernized country embodying a more centralized government with more reach, necessary to prevent a breakup of the union. However, the step over the center tipping point has placed the country in a directly contradictory position to that of the founders. There is no doubt that today's contemporary liberalism is a corruption of the founding fathers' vision for America. And this is not just my conclusion. 77% of Democrats, 81% of independents, and 92% of Republicans agree with me. [yzv25tj] [13]

Ideological Walls C

There are basically two ways to govern a society. One is to administer a society. The other is to rule a society. Can you distinguish the difference between the two, gentle American? An administering government has as its prerequisite view to interfere as little as necessary to maintain order in what it sees as a civil society. A ruling government has as its prerequisite view to coerce a 'proper' order from disorder in what it sees as an uncivilized society. One administers from the right side of the center tipping point. One rules from the left side of the center tipping point. Conservatism is about administering society. Liberalism is about ruling society. Here, let me give you a metaphoric example to illustrate the difference.

Walls are a good representation of a government's intentions. The West Bank wall in Israel was erected to keep terrorists out. This was an administrative move to preserve the civil society within Israel from attack from without. The Israelis see themselves as a civil society threatened by those who would damage that civility from the outside. This is how contemporary conservatism views the governing of a society - the enemy is without. Whereas the Berlin Wall was erected between the two Germanys shortly after the Second World War to 'civilize' what the government of East Germany viewed as an uncivil society within, that given its choice would leave and migrate to a free West Germany.

The East German government did not trust its own citizens to make 'proper' choices, so it imposed its own choices on them. Anyone who disagreed and attempted to cross over to the West was shot on sight. This is how the left, which includes contemporary liberalism, views the governing of a society - the enemy is within. The contemporary liberal views his own society as uncivilized and only civilizable through coercive government action. So walls must be erected to this effect.

This is why conservatives are proud of America and liberals are ashamed of America. Conservatives view America as civilized. Liberals view America as yet needing to be civilized (the process of achieving utopia). When you have a conservative President like Ronald Reagan he describes America as a "shining city on a hill", but when you have a liberal President like Barack Obama, he goes around the world apologizing for America. Reagan saw his job as President to lead America by removing interior walls like overbearing taxation and regulation, and erecting exterior walls like a strengthened military to defend and defeat the enemies without. Obama sees his job as President to rule over America by erecting walls within to fix its supposed uncivilized deficiencies like healthcare, cap and trade and card check, whether Americans want them 'fixed' or not, and tearing down walls that protect America from enemies without, by leaving the borders open to illegal immigration, by giving terrorists Miranda rights, and by implementing highly restrictive rules of engagement in war, often leading to frivolous prosecutions against America's own armed forces who are heroically defending their country.

Remember, liberalism is a form of compulsive paranoid delusion. Interior walls are a method of mitigating that paranoia. Liberals don't always declare that they are fearful and ashamed of what America stands for (well sometimes they do), but their actions scream louder than their words. Liberals are forever erecting walls to fight the enemy within which they see as an uncivilized society in need of civilizing, and thus they create incivility through the controls they implement. Who are the enemies - the targets of their paranoia? Those who are not educated by their government-run public education are enemies, so financial and regulatory walls are built to force even those who do not wish to participate in public education to send their children to public schools and financially support them anyway. Workers are walled in by being forced to join unions and pay dues that is then used to support the same politicians that erect the walls that enclose them. Whatever is beyond the rulers' control they wish to have control of - like healthcare. The first wall is government healthcare for the elderly with Medicare. The next wall is government healthcare for the poor with Medicaid. Next is a wall of regulation defining what insurance companies must insure even if those needing insurance don't desire it. Another wall is erected to disallow competition by restricting which insurance companies can operate in which states. Liberalism attempts to ram government run healthcare through Congress to erect a wall against the private healthcare despite that 89% of the American people like the healthcare they receive without additional government interference. [mxhd99] [14] Of course, the ultimate healthcare wall for liberal rulers is when everyone is forced to participate in a universal government healthcare system where all choice has been removed - the end goal of liberals. We could go on with so-called environmental protections used as excuses to erect more walls. Commerce regulations build walls that stifle business. Almost any issue can be recognized by

whether it builds interior walls that restrict and remove liberties, or strengthens exterior walls that preserve and strengthen the liberties within.

Today's liberal politicians have as a goal to change the balance of control between voters and government. The Constitution was created to make politicians dependant and fearful of voters. Liberals are attempting to reverse this and make voters dependant and fearful of government by exerting more and more walls of control over society and individuals. In 2009-10 liberals were in control and felt invincible - a very dangerous thing for the country. Better that the government always has a reserve of fear for the wishes of the electorate. That fear keeps limits on those who govern. Without fear those who govern become insufferable and intoxicated with power. That was the state under the 44th President with a parallel majority in both branches of Congress. Liberals have pushed government control and spending to a point that is unsustainable. Corruption is entrenched. Surely America will reap the unintended consequences of this rampant liberalism far into the future, even as it is doing so now with the current malaise resulting from the financial crisis and housing boom implosion. The government's ham-fisted intention of taking advantage of the situation to implement its desired liberal agenda ("you never want a serious crisis to go to waste") despite that it is inevitably prolonging and deepening this recession, just illustrates that liberals learned nothing from their forbearers who implemented the same 'solutions' during the Great Depression with disastrous results (more in book two).

How is a resort or secure community built? They are surrounded by secure exterior walls that preserve the quality of life within. But how is a maze devised? It is an endless building of interior walls that limit a person's liberty at every turn. Liberalism is furiously erecting a maze in America where every turn and corridor eventually leads to government regulation and dependence. This is not how one directs one's own life, gentle American. Liberalism is about others directing your life, walling you in at every turn. Only by demolishing interior walls and focusing on building and maintaining exterior walls can a secure American Dream resort be built for everyone.

Individualist Versus Collectivist C

Like a spider phobia liberalism resides in the subliminal belief system. And like an irrational fear of spiders liberalism is a phobia. Liberalism is a fear of seeing oneself as an individual. A liberal can never be sure as an individual what new pairs of lines they should view as equal and what new pairs as unequal. You see, gentle American, it is not their individual decision to make. It is the collaborators' decision, which are otherwise known as the collective. To make that decision for them self would be to act apart from the collective and as an individual. This is a strict no-no. So a liberal must be ever subconsciously looking back over their shoulder to be sure of what the collective says they should believe about anything new. Or old. Something under a Republican President might be considered negative, but for political expediency's sake, change under a Democratic President is considered to be positive (that double standards thingy). The liberal must always be aware of the two lines the collectivists are portraying as equal today - they may not be the same as yesterday's - or tomorrow's.

The liberal is a collectivist and the conservative is an individualist, but we are all naturally born as individualists. Collectivists are then manufactured through societal

programming from people who would have otherwise naturally become individualists. By extension liberalism develops into the fear of liberty - a fear of individualism (paranoia). It is the fear of being isolated. It is the fear of living as an individual. Liberty is about the freedom to choose and make decisions for oneself. Liberty is anathema to the collective, because the collaborators make the decisions for the collective, not individuals for themselves. Utopia is when there will be one all-embracing collective. Because the self-interest of individuals threatens the collectivism of utopia, individualism is viewed as evil.

This directly relates to the difference between self-interest and groupthink. The individualist quite naturally lives his life based in major part on his self-interest, and also practices his politics based on his self-interest, thus deciding what would be best for himself and the country. The collectivist abandons his self-interest for the greed of groupthink, allowing the collaborators to make his political decisions for him. This can produce an interesting dichotomy between conscious beliefs and subliminal beliefs that results in an American citizenry that overwhelmingly polls conservative or moderate, but often contradictorily lives and votes liberal. [ycvapqh] [2] Many Americans poll conservative or moderate more so than liberal because they answer the polling question with their conscious belief system. They consciously and rationally see themselves as conservatives in favor of liberty of individual rights, or at as least moderates. But then, they live their lives as an automaton through their programmed subliminal belief system often in a direct contradiction to their own stated ideology. This is their conditioned liberalism covertly at work in their little daily decisions. This explains how mostly confessed conservatives and moderates often vote and live by liberal principles. It also explains how after voting liberal many Americans will then oppose specific liberal legislation once their conscious belief system is engaged. This is true for those of all political persuasions, whether Democrats, Republicans or Independents. Americans in their conscious belief systems overwhelmingly know that conservatism is preferable to liberalism, but their subliminal belief system is still so petrified of spiders that they live their lives to avoid them every day. This is how a liberal can affirmatively answer our first chapter question that they would prefer to have the freedom to direct their own life, but then live their whole life incrementally giving up their freedoms to liberalism and the walls it erects around them.

Deprogramming Lessons C

Liberals embrace the noble lie principle in regard to liberty, gentle American: Contemporary liberals embrace the strategy of the noble lie. They actually believe that liberalism stands for liberty, but we have seen just the opposite. This is a result of the conditioning principle: Contemporary liberalism is a type of societal conditioning. They believe in big government intervention and manipulation: Contemporary liberalism views society as generally incompetent and in need of the guiding hand of a controlling government. For its own good a resistant society must have utopian ideals forced upon it. These views are a result of a fear that without coercion society can't reach utopia: Compulsive paranoia is the foundation of contemporary liberalism. The liberty of self-interest is antithetical to liberalism: Self-interest and critical thinking are enemies of contemporary liberal groupthink. It is the paranoia of

liberalism that leads to a ruling attitude to force utopia on the nation: Contemporary liberalism is absurd.

Now we have a picture of how various contemporary ideologies line up. On the extreme left is a complete lack of civilized governance, rights and liberties, supplanted by a ruling attitude of elites-know-best, erecting interior walls of a statist maze. As one moves to the right a civil, free society of primarily self-governance becomes more prevalent until one reaches the minimalism of conservatism, which ironic to its name, equals maximum of civil rights and liberties combined with a minimal but civilized administration. Which do you prefer, gentle American? Oh yeah - you answered that in the first chapter. You said you wanted the freedom to make your own decisions in directing your life. No maze for you. So again, please answer our MCTE question from above: "Would a society based on the ideology of individualism or collectivism allow you more freedom to direct your own life?" No-brainer - huh?

Deprogramming Exercise C

Although a little dated and limited in the ideological definition of anarchy, this video is still very worth watching: [*yd52mm2] [15]

Again ponder the liberty to choose for oneself at bedtime tonight, gentle American. It is a most precious thing.

Humor, Sort-of C

Again from my "And you thought Sarah Palin was stupid..." file under the banner of: Contemporary liberalism is absurd. Funny headline about president Ronald Reagan's one hundredth birthday:

~NBC’s Andrea Mitchell accuses GOP of misappropriating Ronald Reagan to push conservative politics~ [45yyrfm] [16]

And the quote that provoked it is just as humorous:

~ "People are trying – Republicans in particular, obviously trying to appropriate Ronald Reagan for their own political purposes now."~

Those damn conservative Republicans! Imagine trying to "appropriate" a former conservative, Republican President. Is nothing sacred?

Bridge C

Deprogramming Liberalism - Rediscovering the Core American Value of Liberty is the first in a series of four books. The second book, Deprogramming Liberalism - Valuing the Core American Value of Liberty examines the relationship between contemporary American liberalism, money and liberty. Topics include taxes, charity, reaction to recessions and depressions, governing principles and healthcare. Every chapter includes profound critical analysis never before in print...

The second ebook can be ordered at deprogrammingliberalism.com where you will find a plethora of additional information on the relationship between liberalism and individual liberty. Enjoy the first chapter of book two next, as a bonus.

###

Deprogramming Liberalism

Appraising the Core American Value of Liberty

Bonus Chapter 1 of Book 2

Taxes

The Continuing Story of Lunch (continued from book one)

"But I have a fear of spiders," said the visibly shaking fly.

"That's OK," soothingly replied the spider. "You won't after we have had lunch."

To be continued...

Mini Critical Thinking Exercise C

There have been three major tax increases and six major tax cuts over the last sixty years. Tell me, gentle American, do you think the tax increases produced higher annual average government revenues, or did the tax cuts? Here's another question: Can you name a period in American history where raising taxes caused the national debt to go down? How about a period where cutting taxes correlated with a reduction in national debt? And then there is this question: Which do you think adds more liberty for Americans to direct their own lives, tax cuts or tax hikes?

Four principles of liberalism are illustrated in this chapter, the embracing of the noble lie, the enemies of liberal groupthink, self-interest and critical thinking, and the scoff reflex as a defense mechanism.

Liberal Presumption: Tax Cut = Deficit C

As we saw in chapter three of book one our Mr. Spock demeanor of reason over preconceived ideology works wonderfully well with numbers, so let's go back to numbers to reinforce your resistance to liberal groupthink. Relating to our previous topic of deficits let's look at tax rate cuts, gentle American. Specifically, let's look at the major tax rate cuts of the past one hundred years. There were the Roaring Twenties tax rate cuts. There were - [dramatic pause for effect] - the tax rate cuts that ended the Great Depression. There were the infamous John F. Kennedy tax rate cuts that liberals would rather forget. There were - [another dramatic pause for effect] - the unknown Jimmy Carter tax cuts that everyone has forgotten about. There were the heralded tax rate cuts of Ronald Reagan that liberals love to demagogue. There were the relatively unknown tax rate cuts from the Contract With America. And, of course, we cannot forget the George W. Bush tax rate cuts.

Why liberals hate tax cuts I have never been able to get my mind around. It just defies any kind of reasoning. What have liberals got against citizens keeping more of their own money, with the added benefit of a stronger economy? But, don't bother to attempt an answer, gentle American. In a little while you will be just as perplexed as I am.

Liberals think of tax revenues like a static pie chart and so argue that broad based national tax cuts cause deficits by reducing government revenue:

~Tax cuts add to the deficit no less than spending increases do.~ - E.J. Dionne Jr., Washington Post columnist

On the face of it that seems to make sense. If you have incoming tax revenue of $10 and an expense budget of $10 you end up with a balanced budget at the end of the year, but if you spend $11 you end up with a deficit of $1. Or, if you implement a $1 tax cut simple reasoning suggests that you will have a shortfall in revenue of $1 at the end of the year. Or, as in our pie chart illustration, cut out a piece of pie and naturally there is less pie left. But I said "simple" reasoning, because that sort of reasoning is simpleminded. In reality there are many more factors at work than just "simple" pie charts. This will take some contextual investigation and critical thinking, gentle American. Resist your scoff reflex and the pressure of programmed liberal groupthink and we will press on.

Roaring Twenties = Successful Experiment C

Coming out of the First World War in late 1918, the American economy was in dire straights. Government debt was huge, inflation and unemployment were very high, and taxes were exorbitant, so first, President Warren G. Harding and following President, Calvin Coolidge, drastically reduced taxes. Along with reductions in both government size, spending and regulation, the economy responded with tremendous growth, and hence the name the Roaring Twenties. (Were the twenties perfect? No, of course not. Income growth for the average American could have been better. High tariffs probably restricted growth (and the promise of more tariffs with the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act was likely the main cause of the 1929 stock market crash along with high leverage rates and no shorting restrictions). Consuming on credit was a problem, and there was a housing bubble and bust. But in all regards, the twenties were far and above better decades by every metric than the decades that preceded and followed them.) Tax revenue fluctuated as taxes were methodically reduced over the decade. Not only were the previous heavy annual deficits reduced, they were turned into real surpluses, and not with the accounting trickery of the so-called Clinton surpluses. Combined with judicial spending cuts the federal debt went from 26 billion dollars in 1920 down to 16.9 billion dollars by 1929 - a remarkable feat unparalleled in American history! [*6kd87g, *nu8n2, *yd8n7ap] [1]  

Here is the national debt for the 1920s [ypl9uk] [2]:

Graph #1 :: Graphs & Tables: [83svvqf]

So, did tax cuts cause deficits as liberals proclaim they should have? Well, obviously they did not, they coincided with real and substantial surpluses! This is our first tax cuts 800 pound gorilla.

New Deal = Failure C

With the fear of a return to the malaise of the Great Depression's Dirty Thirties at the end of WWII, Congress refused to revive FDRHoover's New Deal policies which had been such a spectacular flop since 1933 (really since 1930 - more later), and had been mostly dismantled by 1942. [*y9e5693] [3] (They were abandoned because the survival of the nation was literally at stake, and FDRHoover could not afford to play ideological games with the economy anymore. America had to produce for the war - period.) The economy was very fragile following the war with many war industries closing and millions of troops coming home looking for employment. As with the First World War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, government spending on WWII did not end the Great Depression any more than those other wars ended or prevented the depressions and recessions during and following them (for instance, why was there a depression following the First World War, if war spending stimulates the economy?). War spending does not stimulate the consumer economy - it only substitutes some industries for others and ships the unemployed overseas to fight. The war had not ended the Great Depression, but simply put it on hold. What little consumer product demand there was, evaporated, replaced by temporary war manufacturing demands. Foreign competition was virtually nonexistent. The consumer market was eviscerated - this was no recovery. The GDP boost was representative of artificial war spending, not consumer demand, which is the real peacetime marketplace. The lowering of the unemployment

rate was the result of the temporary war industries and moving millions of men into the military machine. Living standards under rationing and price controls had not even improved back to those of the 1920s, a full 15 years before. In fact, there was an officially recognized recession in 1945 that can arguably be viewed as an end-of-war/post-war continuation of the Great Depression. And a further fact, the GDP fell for each of the the years 1945, 46 and 47 following the war, and inflation skyrocketed in mid 1946. In the 1944 State of the Union address FDRHoover outlined his plan to rebuild the New Deal after the war with what was coined as the Second Bill of Rights, a frightening and draconian move toward an all out fascistic takeover of American society. FDRHoover's death in early 1945 finally allowed America to get out from under FDRHoover's tyrannical thumb and move to end his Great Depression for good. A Democratic majority Congress, instead of listening to new President Harry Truman who had no mandate, went against his desire of going back to the profligacy of New Deal policies (which they certainly would have done under the authoritarian control of FDRHoover), and instead modestly cut taxes in 1945 and more so in 1948. Combined with a reduction in the size of the government through the demobilizing of the military machine (similar to the effect of Harding's cuts to government's size), the consumer economy, now released from the war's dominance, stutter-stepped for a few years as it struggled to gain its footing, but did not return to the extreme malaise of the prewar years. FDRHoover's Great Depression, the most prolonged economic calamity in American history, was finally over. By the early fifties the consumer economy was back on a solid footing it had not seen since the Roaring Twenties. Here were the government revenues for this period: [c6sqdf] [4]

Graph #2 :: Graphs & Tables: [83svvqf]

Government revenues never fell below the first postwar year level of 1946 and leaped in 1951 with special Korean War taxes on top of permanent rate increases. I debated as to whether to include this period, because this was a special era of transition from a truly national war economy during a depression, back to a private, peacetime consumer economy. The marginal income tax cuts were relatively mild (although 12 million Americans were removed from paying income taxes, and the marginal corporate tax rate was slashed by 58%). The removal of price controls and leftover New Deal regulations and tariffs (especially the disastrous Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act whose debate probably triggered the 1929 stock market crash, and whose passage probably greatly contributed to the Great Depression - unemployment in June of 1930 was a reasonable 6.3% when the act was passed), and the dismantling of many of the draconian labor laws of the 1935 Wagner Act through the passage of the Taft–Hartley Act of 1947 (again against the desire of Truman), and government spending reductions, were probably equally important to the recovery (all moves consistent with contemporary conservatism today, by the way). But the period earns a positive economic asterisk in American history simply because, with the threat of a return to the worst of the Great Depression, America made the proper decision to abandon the New Deal's failed policies and the even more fascistic control proposed for after the end of the war by FDRHoover's Second Bill of Rights. In effect, the Great Depression finally ended with FDRHoover's death, releasing his iron grip on policy that had in fact prolonged the Great Depression and its threat of return from the early thirties well into the mid forties. (Because of its important relevance for today I will explain the Great Depression in greater detail later.) Of note, it was the 1946 election that reestablished the Republican Party as the party of tax cuts (a reputation that had been lost since the 1920s). Due to the combination of spending cuts and tax reductions there were also real budget surpluses in 1947 and 1948 - the first time since the twenties.

Camelot = Liberal Nightmare C

Tax rates had again increased during the Great Depression and mostly stayed high until the Kennedy tax cuts of 1964 [*3bf6vq, *yeodhf3, *y89sr86, *ydau56h] [5]  (see the above section about the modest postwar tax cut period). Although cutting taxes to spur economic growth was a proposal of Republican presidential candidate Richard Nixon, once President, Kennedy became convinced of Nixon's supply-side economics and cut personal income taxes, corporate taxes and capital-gains taxes. Offsetting some of these cuts, many corporate tax loopholes were closed as well, and although some liberals try to portray this as an overall tax increase, the hero of current liberal, Keynesian economics John Kenneth Galbraith did not agree, as he attempted to talk President Kennedy out of his tax cuts proposals, to no avail. Another rationalization by liberals is that Kennedy was attempting to stimulate the economy by increasing the deficit. The lameness of this argument is exposed by simply asking why, if that was his purpose, he didn't just increase spending instead? Certainly, increased spending would have lined up with Galbraith's Keynesian economics. No matter how you cut it, gentle American, this explanation is an admission that tax cuts stimulate the economy - the very argument conservatives have always used in favor of tax cuts (just not the way liberals used it here).

President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in November, 1963. He first proposed tax cuts in 1962 and they were in process when he died. They were implemented shortly thereafter in February, 1964 by his successor, Lyndon Johnson. But here's even more

irony, gentle American. The tax cuts didn't cause deficits. See for yourself. Here are the total government revenues for the years following the enactment of President Kennedy's tax cuts: [c6sqdf] [4]

Graph #3 :: Graphs & Tables: [83svvqf]

Government revenues didn't go down causing deficits as liberals proclaim should have happened. Revenues went up EVERY year, gentle American. And there are those damn lines again getting longer each time as revenues multiplied. This is our second tax cuts 800 pound gorilla. Examine those lines closely, gentle American. Alpha liberals insist that the lines are getting shorter. Will you conform to their aggressive groupthink pressure? At least, first consider JFK's reasoning:

~ "Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that, no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance the budget - just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. [...] In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low - and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now. [...] The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."~ [h33hg] [6]

~"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased - not a reduced - flow of revenues to the federal government."~ [nhtpmh] [7]

Wow! Let me double check to see if these weren't actually Ronald Reagan quotes. Nope. They were indeed JFK. Remember, we discovered in chapter four of book one that JFK did not believe in a tax and spend nanny "superstate". No wonder liberals hate discussing his tax cuts. Even the NY Times in an unsigned editorial (that means this was not an opinion of a Times writer, but the position of the paper itself) proclaimed that Kennedy was a supply-sider (by the way - supply-side economics is considered Reaganomics):

~In a speech before the Economic Club of New York on Dec. 14, 1962, President Kennedy gave what could stand today as an eloquent statement of the supply- side case, particularly as it relates to budget deficits and tax rates.~ [yes7qud] [8]

So, maybe JFK deserves some credit as well for supply-side economics (well, for doing what Nixon had campaigned on), but, actually the first supply-siders were Presidents Harding and Coolidge.

Jimmy Carter - Unknown Tax Cutter C

Tell me, gentle American, what is it about Jimmy Carter that keeps making Democrats look like fools? In 1978 Jimmy Carter signed across the board tax cuts - income, corporate and capital gains. While not aggressive enough to overcome other factors unaffected by the moderate tax reductions alone, like high oil prices, high inflation rates, high interest rates and a large trade deficit, government revenues continued to climb. By 1981 the malaise had turned into a recession and revenues dipped for a year until the Reagan tax cuts were piled on in 1983, then the economy finally turned around (more in a moment). It is interesting to note that if Carter had introduced more aggressive tax cuts in 1978 the economy may have turned around soon enough to earn him a second term. It is also of interest that it took many Democratic votes added to the Republicans in Congress to get these cuts passed due to the large Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate at the time. But, I will give President Carter a thumbs-up and at least partial credit for Reagan's economic turnaround. Without Carter's tax cuts Reagan's alone may not have been enough to reverse a particularly nasty decade of Stagflation and other economic calamities. [c6sqdf] [4]

Graph #4 :: Graphs & Tables: [83svvqf]

The Gipper = Against All Odds C

Ronald Reagan took JFK's and Jimmy Carter's tax cuts a step further in the eighties. The first round of income tax cuts started in 1981, but were spread over three years, and then Reagan was convinced to raise some taxes in 1982. Like Kennedy, Reagan offset some of his earlier cuts by closing loopholes, and with selected tax increases in corporate rates, capital-gains, gas taxes, etc. The delay in fully implementing the tax cuts of 1981 also delayed the economic turnaround, and the tax hikes of 1982 made things worse. In 1983 the 1981 tax cuts were finally completed. [2ajqjny] [9] A second round of rate cuts were implemented in 1986. [c6sqdf] [4]

Graph #5 :: Graphs & Tables: [83svvqf]

Coming out of the recession of 1983, we see that at no time did Reagan's tax cuts cause a drop in government revenue causing a deficit. The lines keep getting longer, gentle American. The two Reagan reductions are our fourth and fifth tax cuts 800 pound gorillas. In fact, if we go back to Jimmy Carter's term as President the average annualized quarterly GDP growth from the first quarter of 1977 to the fourth quarter of 1982 was a measly 2.2% (which Carter inherited from Ford). [y85gk5w] [10] (GDP is predominantly a measure of national economic growth.) After Reagan's tax cuts and welfare reform kicked in, from the first quarter of 1983 to the last quarter of Reagan's Presidency in 1988 the average annualized GDP growth was a robust 4.72% (imagine if Carter had been more bold with his tax cuts). So obviously, tax cuts did not cause the deficits during the Reagan years (the only fall in revenue followed the year after the tax increases of 1982). The only alternative explanation is government spending (more later). To achieve his tax cuts Reagan had to deal with a Democratic Congress on social program spending and, of course, he bolstered the military with the payoff being the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, because the Soviets could not match Reagan's Cold War strategy of military expansion. The Soviet economy could not keep up, which led to their economic and political destruction and the disintegration of the Iron Curtain in 1989. Additionally, the U.S. unemployment rate peaked in 1983 and declined every year to the end of Reagan's second term. [y995jjp] [11] In fact, monthly employment totals went up for a staggering 81 of the next 82 months! [n8g5cl] [12]

The Contract = Conservatives for a While C

When the Republicans swept the House and the Senate in 1994 they did it with promises in what they called the Contract With America. This led to a 1997 capital-gains tax cut as

well as other tax cuts that encouraged the tremendous economic growth of the late nineties. We'll examine this example a little more closely, gentle American. A lot can learned from the Clinton years.

President Clinton came to the Presidency on the back of promising a huge middle class tax cut. He claimed that it was the "worst economy in the last fifty years" and it won him the Presidency (another example of liberal paranoia). Now what's wrong with this picture, gentle American? Bill Clinton was a liberal. Shouldn't he have been warning that tax cuts would turn the "worst economy in the last fifty years" into the worst economy in the last one hundred years? Jus' askin'.

Contrary to the Clinton campaign's groupthink mantra that the economy in 1992 was the "worst economy in the last fifty years," it was actually in the expansion phase of the business cycle coming out of a recession that had ended in the second quarter of 1991. The average annualized quarterly GDP growth for 1992 was 4.33%. [ybptjyy] [13] Sorry, gentle American, I realize that programmed liberal groupthink has proclaimed that Bill Clinton was an economic genius for breaking his campaign promise of tax cuts in favor of tax increases [ou4rl] [14] to ostensibly stimulate a falling economy, but Bill Clinton inherited a rising economy from President George H. W. Bush. The NY Times reported just days after the Clinton inauguration, "U.S. SAYS ECONOMY GREW AT FAST PACE IN FOURTH QUARTER" - January 29, 1993. [ybcpuau] [15] The business cycle was on the upside and Bill Clinton just caught the wave.

Graph #6 :: Graphs & Tables: [83svvqf]

Here is the damming evidence against the mantra of the "worst economy in the last fifty years": The quarterly annualized average GDP growth of 1992, the last year of the

George H. W. Bush administration, was 4.33%, a full 47% higher growth rate than the 2.95% quarterly average for the first 3 years of the Clinton administration with his tax increase. So what we have is a year of very good growth before Clinton took office, then 3 years of relatively anemic growth under Clinton's tax increase (remember our unintended consequences lesson about liberalism from chapter one of book one), and then another 4 years of robust quarterly annualized average GDP growth of 4.75% under the Contract With America, an annualized increase of a commendable 61% per quarter. [*yewr8hk, *yba4k72] [16] In the first 3 1/2 Clinton years the NASDAQ stock exchange rose by 40%. In the next 3 1/2 years after welfare reform of 1996 and the tax cuts in 1997 it rose an incredible 360%! And, these increases happened during a period that included a war with Serbia, the uncertainty of a possible war with Iraq, and the instability of a President being impeached. If anything, Clinton's tax increase seemed to create a growth gap in the economy from the beginning of his administration until the mid nineties, the end coinciding with the implementation of the Contract With America and President Clinton's famous triangulated move to the right. Perhaps President Clinton should have stuck with his first idea of a tax cut. (No, not perhaps.)

Sorry again, gentle American. No, Bill Clinton deserves little credit for welfare reform. Liberals vehemently objected to the Republican bill and Clinton vetoed it twice before finally signing it July 31, 1996. Clinton only acquiesced when polls for the upcoming congressional election showed huge public support for Republican welfare reform. Even in signing it Clinton vowed to undue many of the reforms in the near future (he never got the chance). By 1999 welfare recipients had been cut in half from 14 million to 7 million, and many of the jobs created in the late nineties under the Republican Contract With America went to these former welfare recipients. After the recession of 1991 unemployment peaked again in 1992, falling from 7.5% to 5.6% in 1995, but, with the Contract With America tax cuts and welfare reform the unemployment rate continued to fall to a modern record 4.0% in 2000. [y995jjp] [11]

Unsurprisingly, once he gained power, Clinton being a liberal, immediately flip-flopped and raised taxes instead. So, let's look at what the Clinton tax increases and the Contract With America tax cuts produced in government revenues: [c6sqdf] [4]

Graph #7 :: Graphs & Tables: [83svvqf]

What can we learn from these numbers, gentle American? Well, Clinton raised taxes and government revenues continued to increase each year. The Contract With America cut taxes, and again government revenues continued to increase each year. But, programmed liberal groupthink insists that tax cuts cause deficits by reducing government revenues. This is our sixth tax cuts 800 pound gorilla. Hmm - it seems liberalism is having a hard time keeping up with our contextual investigation and critical thinking exercises, gentle American.

W = Compassionate Conservatism = Liberalism + Tax Cuts C

Our last set of tax cuts are those of the George W. Bush administration. Just as liberal groupthinkers have pushed the rewritten history about Clinton inheriting the "worst economy in the last fifty years", they have also pushed a liberalism that Clinton left this great economic situation for President George W. Bush which he subsequently squandered. Sorry once again, gentle American. The end of the Clinton Presidency coincided with an economic mess. I myself don't particularly blame President Clinton for the dire circumstances that followed him out of office. It was more the result of the business cycle than presidential politics, but liberals love to point back to the Clinton administration as this supposedly magical economic period managed by this supposed wizard of smart presidential economics. If they are willing to accord him all of this credit, then it logically follows that he shoulders the blame for the economic problems at the end of his administration as well.

Incredibly, in early 2000 the Clinton administration declared that the business cycle was over, thinking the good times would just go on and on. However, in what has become an

historic example of divergent coincidence, only a few weeks later the market maniacally laughed that off on March 11 as the technology bubble in the stock market hit its high point and began to deflate. That day the NASDAQ stock exchange and the market in general began the long decline into a bear market that lasted for three years (the first year was the last year of the Clinton administration), and saw the NASDAQ experience a 75% drop (worse than the Dow Industrials in the 1929 crash), with the market shedding 8 trillion dollars in value! [yhsoth3] [17] On top of this there was a recession that essentially began in the third quarter of 2000 as Clinton was about to leave office where the GDP crashed from the previous quarter of 8.0 to just 0.3 (the lowest rate since the first quarter of 1991). [bvwb46r, *c6pdmft] [18] Also, let's not forget the Enron, Tyco, Worldcom, Arthur Anderson, Global Crossing, Nortel, Rite Aid, Xerox, etc. accounting fiascoes that had brewed in the late nineties and matured into full-fledged disasters shortly after Bush took office. Then, on top of all this there was 9/11, happening in part as a result of Clinton's "Wall" to prevent investigation into his Chinese money laundering scam. The results of these problems were all compounded by a massive buildup of the non-petroleum trade deficit in the late nineties as a result of a Fed and Treasury strong dollar policy. A final element was the round of court challenges following the 2000 election delaying a new President Bush's ability to place his people in the administration for months, which added to the apprehension in the marketplace. The most outstanding result of this economic calamity was the decline of household net worth from 2000 to 2002 - the first time that had happened since 1946! [66ur3sj] [19] Additionally, the EMRATIO which measures the percentage of the potential labor force that is currently employed peaked in April of 2000 at 64.7% and then declined for the next three years until Bush's major tax rate cuts in 2003, where it began climbing again until 2007. [*3kxgnuj] [20] Notice also at the link the rises following the tax cuts of JFK, Reagan and the Contract - especially Reagan's, a staggering rise of 60% of the total trough to peak rise from 1948 to 2000! All three measures in the following graph turned positive in either 2003 or 2004 after Bush's tax cuts:

Graph #8 :: Graphs & Tables: [83svvqf]

So, was Bill Clinton the great steward of an American economy that Bush subsequently broke? Hardly, gentle American. The economy was already breaking down when Bush got there. (Unlike Barack Obama, who constantly whines that his myriad of failures are his predecessor's fault by name or title, George W. Bush didn't go around blaming every problem on Bill Clinton - crass versus class.) In fact, later revisions by the Commerce Department showed that the Clinton administration cooked the books to look good for the 2000 presidential election, not unlike what Enron did:

~The Commerce Department's painful report last week [August 2002] that the national economy is worse than anticipated obscured the document's startling revelation. Hidden in the morass of statistics, there is proof that the Clinton administration grossly overestimated the strength of the economy leading up to the 2000 election.~ [ylhv476] [21]

Think about this, gentle American. If the economy was so great, how come Al Gore didn't win the Presidency in a landslide? Because the economy was not so great. The declining economy was the major factor in Bush's win. Now we come to President George W. Bush's response to the struggling economy that he walked into. Bush responded with proposed tax cuts in 2001 which were largely implemented in 2003. So did Bush's tax cuts cause a reduction in government revenues? See for yourself: [c6sqdf] [4]

Graph #9 :: Graphs & Tables: [83svvqf]

We can see that there were the three years of declining revenues as the economy struggled to regain its footing from the tech bubble bust that began in early 2000, the recession that effectively began in the third quarter of 2000, and the added shock of 9/11 only months later. By 2004 revenues were again on the increase right through to 2007. This is our seventh tax cuts 800 pound gorilla - the corner of the room is getting very crowded. The stock market also rebounded with the 2007 Dow Industrial Index returning to its high from the peak of the tech bubble in 2000. It was not the miniscule tax cuts in 2001 and 2002 that caused the reduction in revenues. It was the horrible economy left over from the Clinton administration. The poor and declining performance of the economy just could not produce the revenues it had before. In fact, it is obvious that it was the major tax cuts of 2003 that turned around the economy and the revenue problem in 2004. The unemployment rate also turned around with W's tax cuts, going from another peak of 6.0% in 2003 to a low of 4.6% in 2007. [y995jjp] [11] This included increasing monthly employment totals for the next 45 out of 46 months producing over eight million new jobs. [n8g5cl] [12] The GDP recovered from an annualized quarterly average of 1.4% from the first quarter of 2001 to the second quarter of 2003, to an average of 3.0% from the third quarter of 2003 to the second quarter of 2007. [3zdo7wh] [22]

The truth of it is that what was enacted in 2001 and 2002 were minimal tax rate cuts, along with some tax credits and tax rebates - entirely different animals that have never proved being more than temporarily helpful to an economy, if at all. Credits and rebates are more akin to stimulus spending than tax rate cuts. In 1975 the Ford tax credits failed, in 2007 the Bush tax rebates failed, and in 2009 Barack Obama implemented some

minimal tax credits with his stimulus package that have also been erroneously called tax cuts, but were not tax rate cuts, and had no effect on the economy either - more later (Truman did the opposite, so to speak, by implementing temporary tax increases to pay for the Korean War in 1950). The majority of Bush 43's real tax rate cuts did not begin to take effect until 2003, with a government revenue turnaround the following year.

Let's do another comparison between the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush years. The average annual capital gains tax rate (based on the average rate for each year) during the Clinton years was 22.35%, which in 2008 inflation adjusted dollars brought in government revenues at an average of $98.5B per year. The average rate under Bush was 17.77%, bringing in an average $91.5B per year. Now remember that Clinton came into office with a rising economy and left Bush a declining economy. Bush also left with a declining economy. Despite these tremendous advantages, the Clinton years only produced 7.65% more in average revenues per year than the Bush years. But here is the real kicker: The average capital gains rate was 41.7% higher under Clinton than under Bush! What happened to the 34.05% difference, gentle American? Obviously, despite the disadvantages at the beginning and end of the Bush years, the lower rates under Bush were much more efficient in generating revenues than the higher rates under Clinton. Just more evidence that tax cuts increase revenues. [798vgdo] [23]

As a bit of an aside, liberals love to pull out of context a quotation of Vice President Dick Cheney where he said, "Deficits don't matter." [yq8pnn] [24] Apparently he said this in an argument with then Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill who had expressed concern over proposed Bush tax cuts causing a deficit. Cheney was obviously saying that deficits do not matter in regard to tax cuts, because tax cuts lead to a rise in government revenue. Cheney used President Reagan's tax cuts as an example, which, as we have already seen, did indeed correlate with increased revenues, and the Vice President was correct - Bush's tax cuts did not cause a deficit, but instead correlated with an increase in government revenues. It was all the extra spending that caused the deficits (more later). Incidentally, Paul O'Neill was fired shortly thereafter - deservedly so. Shameful that a Republican Treasury Secretary could be so woefully ignorant of tax and revenue history. Didn't anybody vet this guy?

Revenue Growth Rates C

So let's see how much revenues increased after the various fixed tax rate changes we have looked at over the last sixty years (I used the following three years from each rate change because of varying schedules in the implementation year, and in some cases, new rate changes or economic events preventing a fair tabulation after the three following years):

Graph #10 :: Graphs & Tables: [83svvqf]

Are you surprised, gentle American? I am not. Every contemporary American liberal should examine this chart. (How ironic is it that Jimmy Carter's unknown tax rate cuts produced the highest revenue increases - LOL!) In the last sixty years government revenues grew faster after all six major fixed tax rate cuts than they did after any of the three major fixed tax rate hikes. (Admittedly, the 1950s rate increase is not a great example because of the skewing of the temporary war taxes, but as they say, you play the hand dealt to you.) This includes Bill Clinton's tax rate increase that liberals love to lionize as the mother of all tax strategies. Clearly cutting taxes generates more government revenue in the immediate, following years than does increasing taxes. [*3hpbaks] [25] This is easy to understand if you just turn off your scoff reflex, gentle American. Increase taxes and the marketplace responds negatively, produces less, protects more of its income by utilizing alternate untaxed compensation vehicles, and so generates less tax revenue, but decrease taxes, and the marketplace responds positively, produces more, protects less of its income, and so generates more tax revenue. That is why when President Harding cut taxes and spending in 1921 real surpluses were the result for the next eight years. So, when President Obama insists that the Bush tax rate reductions cost the government lost revenue you now know it is a noble lie, gentle American. Here is an interesting question: When government revenues fell from 2000 to 2003 were the marginal tax rates closer to Clinton's 39% or Bush's final 35% when revenues dramatically reversed? [2f3c277] [26] See for yourself:

Graph #11 :: Graphs & Tables: [83svvqf]

The above percentages represent the top marginal income tax rates that have been the focus of controversy over the last ten plus years. As can be seen, the top marginal rate for 2001 declined by only 11% of the total Bush rate cut. In 2002 it had declined by another 11%, but in 2003, the reduction was the remaining 78% of the total Bush rate cut. So, in effect, for the years 2001 and 2002 the top marginal rate was little changed from Clinton's 39.6%, and yet we see a decline in government revenues for both years. Was this because of the rate reductions? Hardly - the revenue reductions were a result of the tech bubble bust, crashing financial markets, the recession and following malaise, the Enron, etc. collapses, the non-petroleum trade deficit, and 9/11. The economy was just not producing as well as it had been in prior years. If the revenue reductions were caused by the miniscule tax reductions of 2001 and 2002, then there should have been significantly more revenue reductions after the much larger 2003 tax rate reduction (2003 also included significant capital gains rate cuts). Instead, we see a massive reversal of government revenues in 2004, continuing through 2007. In fact, the Bush tax rate cuts reversed a shrinking of annual revenue into gains 36% higher per year than resulted from when Clinton had originally increased income taxes in 1993. So, when Obama says that America needs to return to the income tax rates of the Clinton years, how can he explain that in the following years from Clinton's 1993 tax rate increase, revenue growth was much lower than the following years from Bush's full fixed tax rate decrease of 2003? Again, the liberal claim that Bush's tax rate cuts wiped out trillions in anticipated revenue is nothing more than a noble lie. Here is more evidence:

Average annualized quarterly GDP rate from 3rd quarter 1997 to 2nd quarter 2000 = 4.7%

Average annualized quarterly GDP rate from 3rd quarter 2000 to 2nd quarter 2003 = 1.4%

Now you explain to me, gentle American, how President Obama and other liberals expected tax revenues to continue at the same rate with a fall of the GDP growth rate by 70% as a result of the tech bubble bust, along with the plunge of the financial markets for the next three years, the recession, the Enron, Tyco, Worldcom, Arthur Anderson, Global Crossing, Nortel, Rite Aid, Xerox, etc. fiascoes, the non-petroleum trade deficit, and 9/11. Notice that this fall of the GDP rate began during the Clinton administration - Bush stepped into a soft economy. By the time Bush had full control of the executive branch at the end of the second quarter of 2001, the growth rate of the economy had already been declining for four straight quarters. Did you get that, gentle American? For a complete year the economic growth rate had been declining before President Bush ever had the reigns of power. Is it any wonder government revenues went down, gentle American? Did the reduction have anything to do with Bush's income tax rate cuts? Obviously not - 78% of Bush's cuts were not implemented until the end of this revenue and GDP reduction period. By the third quarter of 2003 both government revenues and the GDP began an upswing that developed into an up trend until the housing bubble bust. Those up trends were a result of the massive 2003 Bush tax rate cuts. [3htp3z6] [27]

No, gentle American, there was nothing magical about Bill Clinton's higher income tax rates. The calamity of the tech bubble bust and other economic problems overcame any effects of the previous income tax rate increase by Clinton and the decreases of other taxes by the Contract. If in 2003 Bush had stayed with the status quo or had gone back to Clinton's full marginal rate, as liberals claim would have been best, there is every reason to believe that government revenues would have continued to decline, but, when Bush implemented his full tax rate reductions in 2003, government revenues immediately expanded in 2004 and continued to expand until the housing bubble burst (expanded just as they had after every other major fixed tax rate reduction in the last sixty years, and more so than after Clinton's tax rate increase). Obama's proposition to increase taxes back to Bill Clinton's rates is the least likely method for generating higher revenues or stimulating the economy (and don't forget that Clinton's tax rate increase was with an expanding economy of 4.3% annualized GDP growth for 1992, hardly the case today in mid 2011 with a 1st quarter annualized GDP equaling 0.4%, and a 2nd quarter annualized GDP of 1.3%). Every major fixed tax rate cut since the Great Depression has generated higher increases in government revenues than every major fixed tax rate increase. So, the obvious solution for increasing government revenues and reversing the current malaise is to further cut income tax rates and other tax rates.

I have a question for you, gentle American. If we could magically bring back either the JFK tax decrease or the Clinton tax increase, based on the revenue results of the following three years after each, which would you prefer. As we just saw, government revenues increased at a rate of 8.6% per year after the Clinton tax increase. After JFK's tax cuts government revenues increased at a rate of 10.7% per year, a full 24% higher than during the Clinton years. The Clinton annual GDP rate averaged 3.4%, whereas the JFK GDP average was a robust 5.1% per year, a full 50% higher than Clinton's. Which one would you prefer, gentle American? Pretty obvious - huh? In fact, you could substitute any of the other tax cuts for JFK's and get similar results. Why liberals think

that Clinton's tax rate increase was so great is beyond me. It resulted in less revenues and less GDP growth than any of the major tax cuts in the last sixty years (except for Bush 43's GDP rate - but remember, Clinton inherited a rapidly rising economy from Bush 41, while leaving Bush 43 a crashing economy, and except Jimmy Carter's, who also inherited a dismal economy). How about you, gentle American? Can you get past your scoff reflex and accept the historical reality that tax cuts benefit revenue and economic growth much more so than do tax hikes?

(As an aside, Herbert Hoover's and FDRHoover's tax rate increases and subsequent revenue increases do not correlate with our other cuts and increases because of so many unique, mitigating circumstances that skew the results, making direct comparisons impossible. For instance there were industrial quotas, multiple industry favoritism and protectionism, extremely high import tariffs, new social program taxes and direct government involvement in private sector industry, all policies that are more or less foreign to our other examples. There was also an average 29% non-farm unemployment rate during most of the Dirty Thirties, illustrating the utter failure of these policies - hardly a legitimate tradeoff for increased government revenues. I'll expand on the unique failures of the Dirty Thirties in a following chapter.)

I have another question for you, gentle American. Remember that liberals erroneously think that Bill Clinton produced budget surpluses in the years 1998 to 2000 (dealt with in chapter three of book one). While there were no actual surpluses, the size of the budget deficit did go down each year. Since the Contract tax cuts came about in 1997, how could the budget deficit have gone down for the next three years, if tax cuts cause deficits? Oops...

Spending C

If tax cuts didn't cause the deficits, what did? There's only one other alternative - excessive government expenditures. How can we determine this for a fact? By determining the natural growth factor comprised of inflation plus population growth necessary to maintain the status quo operation of the government from one year to the next, then comparing that to the percentage revenue growth and the percentage debt increase for each period. We'll look at the following three years from each tax cut:

Table #1 :: Graphs & Tables: [83svvqf]

Government revenues increased on average over twice as much as did population growth plus inflation following each tax cut. The deficits were small during the JFK and Contract years, corresponding with relatively low spending growth (government expansion). But, following the Carter, Reagan and Bush tax cuts we see giant leaps in the overall debt, indicating massive government expenditures (the latter including significantly ramped up military spending, and in the case of the Reagan tax cuts, a broken promise by congress to cut non-military spending beginning in 1982 - instead the Democrats increased it, and did it again in 1990 to President George H.W. Bush). To maintain the status quo government spending only needed to be increased by the rate of population growth plus inflation, but the status quo is never enough for politicians. They irrationally think that they must expand government every year. Even then, if their spending rate increases after any of these tax cuts had just been kept to between the population growth plus inflation rates and the revenue increase rates, surpluses would have resulted with no need to cut any programs - indeed government would have still expanded. Did you get that, gentle American? I'll say it again: Government could have still expanded while producing a surplus at the same time if the spending percentage increase had just been kept between the population growth plus the inflation increase and the revenue increase. This is what I call the surplus range (revenue increase minus the population growth plus inflation). Not only did government expenditures increase each time more than the population growth plus inflation percentages necessary to maintain the status quo, they also increased more than the revenue increase percentages that otherwise could have produced surpluses - within the surplus range. Again we see that tax cuts do not cause deficits - the over spending of excessive government expansion causes deficits. In case you are curious, here are the numbers since Barack Obama has been President (only two years - if you thought Reagan's numbers were bad, look at these):

2009 & 2010    population growth plus inflation = 2.3%    revenue increase = 12.5%    debt increase = 35.3%

These two years of numbers are terrifying. Obama's debt increase has exceeded the value of the surplus range by 350%! (12.5-2.3=10.2, 35.3/10.2=3.5, 3.5x100=350%) Reagan's increase over three years was only 348% (still bad, but not Obama bad). But, is this really fair, gentle American? Since Presidents are not dictators let's make a comparison based on House, Senate and presidential party control. Let's compare the Democrats two years of 2009 and 2010 to the Republicans of 2005 and 2006:

2005 & 2006    population growth plus inflation = 8.5%    revenue increase = 15.9%    debt increase = 15.3%

The Republican's debt increase exceeded the surplus range by a mere 210% (still thoroughly disappointing). (15.9-8.5=7.4, 15.3/7.4=2.1, 2.1x100=210%) However, that makes the Democrat's 350% excess a 67% increase over the Republican's amount when each party had respective control of all three branches of government! When it comes to deficit spending Republicans are bad - Democrats are much worse. (This comparison of spending between the two parties based on who controlled each of the House, the Senate and the presidency will be examined in greater detail later.) [yfmyqcs, 6n3v86v, 5rzdfor, 38nmoq, 2werbr] [28]

Conclusion C

Now, we have examined the six major tax cuts of the last one hundred years (and one modest one with extenuating circumstances) and found that only once did government revenues temporarily decrease and coincide with an annual deficit for two years (Bush 2001-2002 - but again, these were mostly tax credits and rebates, with minimal tax rate cuts). The decreasing revenue was a result of an ailing economy inherited from the Clinton administration plus an almost 2 trillion dollar hit on the financial markets markets from 9/11. [book citation] [29] The 2003 tax rate cuts overcame the downward momentum of the terrible economy left over from the Clinton administration and the economic shock of 9/11, reversing the GDP, employment numbers, the stock markets and government revenues. So, there are six 800 pound gorillas in the corner of the room, truisms illustrating that tax cuts do not cause deficits. Will you choose the self-interest of what you can see for yourself, or what group-interest demands that you accept, gentle American?

One last thing. Another way to gauge federal spending is by percentage of GDP. Go back to chapter three of book one and look again at the various definitions of debt, deficit and surplus and their relationship to government revenue. Not one uses percentage of GDP. The definitions all use total dollar amounts, the same as we have used in this chapter. It is only where a percentage of GDP level for total national, state and local government taxation is limited that a percentage of GDP becomes relevant. It has been determined that including all three levels of government, 25% of GDP is the maximum percentage that still allows for maximum economic growth. [*27pxz94] [30] Any more taxation reduces GDP growth. Currently America taxes at about 34% of GDP - leaving a lot of room for tax cuts and improved GDP growth. This also explains why cutting taxes correlates with increased government revenues. Obviously, until one reduces total taxation down to 25% of GDP any tax rate cuts would allow for an increase in GDP, which of course would result with increases of total tax revenue to the government. This is the reason the tax cuts examined above did not cost the government revenue, but actually resulted in increased revenue. At the current rate of 34% of GDP, total taxes could be reduced a whopping 26% from that number without costing government revenues and with the added benefit of an improved economy! This is what you call a win/win scenario, gentle American.

Deprogramming Lessons C

The moral of our lesson is that broad based tax cuts on a national scale do not cause deficits as groupthink liberal paranoia proclaims. As I asserted above, the static pie model view of tax revenues is simpleminded. In fact, tax revenues are dynamic and change with the rate of economic growth. Tax cuts spur growth and revenues as well. Deficits are obviously caused by the only alternative, an increase in government spending that amounts to more than the increased government revenues brought in. See again for yourself here that deficits are a result of out of control spending: [*66vt9hw] [31] At almost any time, following any of the tax cuts discussed, if the increase in government spending had only been held to within the surplus range, real surpluses could have been realized. Unfortunately governments have a nasty habit of increasing spending significantly each year so the debt climbs and climbs and climbs. In fact, it has been found that since World War Two for every dollar of inbound tax there has been $1.17 of

outgoing spending. There is your problem, gentle American. It is not that there is not enough coming in - it is that there is too much going out. Always remember this:

~ "Politicians will always spend every penny of tax raised and whatever else they can get away with."~ Milton Friedman [22tjyw8] [32]

Alpha liberals put out the noble lie that tax cuts caused deficits during the tremendous economic success of the Reagan administration (you didn't think it was in reaction to JFK's tax cuts, did you?). This was a mother robin strategy to divert from the fact that massive increases in congressional spending were the real cause of those deficits, and to blunt the credit Reagan was legitimately receiving for the recovering economy. Beta liberals adopted this groupthink mantra and from then on liberals in general simply presume that tax cuts cause a reduction in government revenue. This is a prime example of the liberal principle: Contemporary liberals embrace the strategy of the noble lie. Our little study also proves the accuracy of this liberal principle as well: Self-interest and critical thinking are enemies of contemporary liberal groupthink. And have you noticed your scoff reflex having been tested over and over? Contemporary liberalism relies on a programmed, instinct-like scoff reflex to preserve itself from the consequences of critical thinking.

So what are your answers to our MCTE questions now, gentle American? I asked if tax cuts or hikes led to higher government revenues. Now we know that the correct answer is tax cuts. I also asked for periods of tax cuts and tax hikes that led to a lower national debt. Since the year 1900 the only time that the national debt has gone down consistently year after year is after the tax cuts of the Roaring Twenties (more later). So which do you think adds more liberty for Americans to direct their own lives, tax cuts or tax hikes? Well, obviously, if more money is left in each American's bank account, and the government benefits with more revenues, tax cuts most certainly produce more liberty for each American to direct his own life.

I know this is a tough one for you, gentle American. Tax cuts causing deficits is one those foundational liberal doctrines, like the mythical Clinton surpluses. I realize it is a real double kick in the chest for you, but if you can get over these, you will be able to handle almost everything to come. Take some time, then gather yourself up, and in the next chapter we'll explore so-called liberal compassion.

Deprogramming Exercise C

Federal deficits and debt are crushing the American economy, gentle American. As we saw, raising tax rates under Bush 41 and Clinton generated less revenue growth in the following years than did cutting tax rates under JFK, Carter, Reagan, the Contract and Bush 43. We also saw that before the Reagan and Bush 43 tax rate cuts government revenues were falling, so leaving the rates unchanged would have led to less revenues than those generated by the cuts. Indeed, it is apparent that the tax rate cuts reversed the problem of falling revenues. It is time for you to speak out against adding more to the debt. Tell the politicians in Washington to emulate the most economically successful presidents in history, Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge. Tell them to stop playing stupid, pretending that FDRHoover was some sort economic genius for prolonging the Great Depression for over twelve years with his massive spending, turning the thirties decade into what should only be spit out of the mouth as the Dirty Thirties. Tell them to

drastically reduce spending, cut the size of government, lower taxes and cut regulation so the economy can recover and people can have jobs. Start phoning and emailing, gentle American.

Again analysis trumps ideology, gentle American. And again self-interest trumps groupthink. The choice to direct your own life includes the choice to think as you choose, not as others choose for you through their presumptions. It is the choice of analysis of the results of tax cuts over the irrationality of liberal presumptions about deficits based on demagoguery. Your choice of analysis over ideology is commendable, gentle American. It also again reveals that at your core you are not a liberal. Here is a summation of some of the points made above with some good research links if you wish to explore more about tax cuts: [*6s4pu8b] [33] And here are some interesting videos for your entertainment - choose at will, but definitely check out the GPA ones: [*3pkkkux] [34]

Remember this chapter's graphs when you go to sleep tonight, gentle American. In fact briefly look at them again before turning off the light.

Humor, Sort-of C

Riddle me this, gentle American: What is the difference between California voters and the passengers on the Titanic? Answer: The passengers on the Titanic didn't vote to hit the iceberg. [2c6eth5] [35]

What was the difference between the voters of the Dirty Thirties and the passengers on the Titanic? Again, the passengers on the Titanic didn't vote to hit the iceberg.

What was the difference between the misery of the Dirty Thirties and the prosperity of the Roaring Twenties? Everything! (Much more later.)

End of sample chapter

Deprogramming Liberalism Companion blog: [763p544]

Order Other Deprogramming Liberalism series ebooks: [84bua87]