Skip to comments.Guilt by Association - Liberal Secularists are Bloodthirsty Monsters!
Posted on 03/26/2013 4:32:16 PM PDT by DeprogramLiberalism
[(DIRECT LINK to original entry) This post is the intro to a compendium essay on liberal hate, demagoguery and violence in America. It is written to liberals in the first person, but is illuminating for conservatives as well.]
Using guilt by historic association is a popular demagogic tool of contemporary liberals to demonize conservative opponents. As an example lets examine the animus contemporary liberals have towards Christianity. Yes, of course, many liberals claim to be Christians, but they seem to have a hard time standing up for Christianity when it is demagogued by secular liberals. They often seem to be ashamed of their faith to the point that they feel they have to hide or even overtly criticize their own professed religion to prove to secular liberals that they would never let their beliefs in Christianity take them off the liberal reservation. Lets deal with one of these arguments.
Secular liberals are compulsively paranoid about Christianity, with delusions about tyrannical theocracies and witch burnings. They love to demonize Christianity by asserting that it is a barbaric world view that leads to mass murder. To make their point they, of course, bring up the Crusades, claiming that barbarous Christians slaughtered unbelievers in the name of Christianity, but my question to them is, So what is your point? Sure Christians killed mostly Muslim invaders that had first killed Christians when overrunning peaceful Christian countries. Liberals have a problem with that?!? If Christianity had not reacted to the Muslim invaders, but turned the other cheek as these secular liberals seem to suggest they should have, the West would not currently exist and neither would secular liberals. We would all be Muslims still living in an extended Medieval age. Is that what secular liberals would have preferred?!? [/incredulousness]
And whats with liberals having to stretch back to Medieval times to make a dubious claim about Christianity being a religion of mass murder? Estimates of deaths over the period of two centuries that encompass most of the Crusades go from one million to as high as five million (this high estimate by an author with obvious animosity toward Christianity, and probably bias in his numbers). And many of those deaths were Christians who died at the hands of the Muslim invaders. [4v64kpz] 
On the other hand, lets take a look at secularisms rich history of mass murder, and we need not go back a thousand years to make the point. Here are the 800 pound gorilla death totals from some notable secular leaders from the recent past (from the book Death by Government by R.J. Rummel):
Here we have the most murderous tyrants in history, all secularists. Just seven of them managed to kill 122 million people, most of them their own fellow citizens. (And new research suggests that these numbers are conservative in the cases of Stalin and Mao who may have been responsible for more than 60 million deaths each.) [mfjc78]  None of them genuinely killed in the name of any religion (Hitler shrewdly used his Aryan superiority delusion and Christian knowledge from his upbringing as religious propaganda tools to cater to a largely Christian German populous, separating himself from the openly atheistic communists, while at the same time planning the ultimate destruction of the church as outlined in The Nazi Master Plan). All were ideological and killed to advance their own power (or in the case of Hideki Tojo, his emperors power). Additionally, Kim Jong Il and his father Kim Il-sung in North Korea doubtlessly killed millions and should also be added to the list. Millions more have been killed by a multitude of less prominent secular tin pot dictators in Asia, Africa and South America, including liberal hero, Che Guevara. So, for you secular liberals who go around stamping your little feet insisting that Christians condemn their own religion for something done a thousand years ago, try looking in a mirror at your own world view first. If we play your own game of guilt by historic association, the person looking back at you is a bloodthirsty monster! (Besides being very delusionally paranoid.)
Is it possible to deprogram a liberal?
Thats what happens when people with no moral compass are put in charge.
And they have to have ‘like-minded’ henchmen around them, who do not object to implementing these horrors.
The only one thing to respect about Militant Islam is what they do to folks who threaten them.
Sooner or later, we are going to have to make libs worry when they display their normal tendency to lie.
That’s worry, as in wish they had a concrete bunker.
Think I am kidding?
Liberal guy and gal walking home from movie and are accosted by two large thugs one of whom barnadishes a large knife. They are robbed and the girlfriend is raped by the one not holding the knife at the guy's throayt. As it all ends, the girlfriend straightens her clothes and goes off with the thugs, leaving the liberal guy standing in his own piss.
Works every time; liberal guy buys a gun or two and starts sending rounds downrange at a loacl gunclub, learning how to defend himself.
No, I don’t think you are kidding.
But I do think that liberals can be converted to conservatives. See my link to dragonblustar.
It doesn’t need to take such a traumatic event. Almost every liberal is conservative in their core beliefs. By showing them this it can lead to a transformation.
The numbers for Lenin, Stalin, and Mao are way off.
A Russian friend tells me that in his Russian public school they taught him that Lenin murdered more than 20 million people, mostly Russians, in Lenin’s first five years. This was part of his plan to eliminate the bourgeoisie, most of whom were Kulaks. If any farmer owned one or more horses, he and his whole family were eliminated - from the ancient right down to babies. Of course, the horses went to the Soviet government.
Mao’s numbers are closer to 90 million, and Stalin’s are closer to 60 million.
I see you don’t actually know any real liberals.
Nobody really knows how many Stalin or Mao murdered no way to take a count.. merely estimates conservatively..
The death rate in hamlets, meadows, barns and forest glens who can tell..
even those not outright murdered but starved, worked, and harangued to death..
Those same seven made lives miserable for 10 times as many.. or more..
Why Socialism is NOT made ILLEGAL in western country’s is a mystery to me..
If only for the death rate forget the misery index..
American liberals should be shot on sight.. if not for stupidity then for the pure evil of it..
But then there are degrees of liberalism.. no doubt even being a democrat is a major “tell”..
Even if they appear to be “NICE”.. they are NOT..
THEY WANT YOUR FREEDOM......... and it looks like they will GET IT..
Yeah, its hard to know for sure.
But the point is the big picture.
I think they should be pittied for living a life of paranoia. In fact, that should be the conservative reply to everything liberal. Liberals are paranoid of almost everything. That’s why they want to control everything.
> But the point is the big picture.
I remember, when I was just a boy, seeing a Life magazine, or maybe it was Look, about 1953. You remember how large those magazines were, about the size of a tabloid, only with thick, stiff, glossy pages.
There was a photo that was spread across two pages with thousands upon thousands of headless bodies as far as the eye could see. It was one of Mao’s great social programs being put into practice.
All for a noble cause, no doubt.
You cannot succeed if the goal is to convince them Christianity is not evil because they believe (religiously) they are good and anything opposed to what they believe must be evil. You want children to starve and they want to feed children, You want people to die from lack of medical services and they don't. Nothing you say can penetrate that closed, unconditional goto loop.
I don't know how you deprogram these people, or if you can. But I will give it some thought from the insight I got here reading the article and posts.
If you go to my home page from there I provide information and a strategy with small tactics that can be used to transform liberals into conservatives. The first essay begins with a question which gets to the core of a liberal’s belief system. When answered, most liberals reveal to themselves that in their core beliefs they are actually conservatives. That is the starting point.
There has never been a “progressive” socialist state that has not created human suffering and human misery and ultimately murder on a mass scale.
> All for a noble cause, no doubt.
What could be more noble than the dictatorship of the proletariat?
What could be more noble than the grand vision of the Dear Leader?
I believe we get the term, “Politically Correct” from “The Thoughts of Chairman Mao”, affectionately called “The Little Red Book” by the SDA acolytes in my college days.
Those are the people running the country now.
I think I lay the blame at the feet of both the ideology itself and the leaders of that ideology.
I think paranoia is a misdiagnosis. I have found most liberals are elitist and though they may not be on top of the elitist pyramid, they are way above the masses at the bottom. They see control as necessary for the good of the masses and by virtue of their superiority they, or people they approve, should be the ones exercising control. The masses are on about the level of a herd of cattle; stupid and aimless.
Here is the key point; life is an accident and by strictly by accident they were made superior to most people and have an obligation to control the less fortunate people. It is nice, tidy and unassailable as long as there is no God.
Rules for Radicals
By the way, GREAT profile page. I’ve also pulled up your http://deprogrammingliberalism.com/#Nuclear page.
I will be studying this.
You are quite welcome. Thanks for the compliment.
> Thanks for the compliment.
And I don’t think you’re bombastic. Confidence in what you believe is a GOOD trait. Especially when what you believe is right. :)
Now you are embarrassing me. ;-)
Most of these liberals I know also consider themselves Christians, and perhaps that is where we see such a great difference between them and secular liberals, of whom I know very few. But paranoid, living in fear - no way. Confused about the tenets of their religion and why Christianity is conservative - most definitely. So where does control fit in? You can't create paradise unless you control everything that might spoil paradise.
If we were talking about Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler et al., paranoid without any doubt. It seems to me we are not talking about the same thing. I will spend much more time examining your website and thanks again for the link.
Of course, liberals do not think they are paranoid and don’t overtly act fearful in the way a person fears a spider. It is an ideological fear. But there is much too much to explain here. I am glad you are willing to read more at my website. I suggest you read at least the first and second essays. You will understand the role of parnoia much better.
Actually, the paranoia theory is not new. It dates back to the early 1960s to a historian who studied historical ideological groups in America. His essay on it is quite famous in his realm of study. I explore it in essays #2 and #5.
I’ve always thought of liberals as seeing people in social levels, and who ever is the alpha male/female on that level will dominate the thought pattern of that group. Liberals will look down on people they think are beneath their level and worship those above them.
The only way to reach a liberal is to appear to be on a level above them.
My experience is that one on one it hinges on what you can subtly get liberals to reveal about them self to them self. I find that the best way to this is through leading questions whose answers you already know how to respond to. Always let the liberal think they are leading the conversation. Let them think they are the smart and informed one you are the one looking for answers. Once you have them in this position, with the appropriate questions you can lead them right where you want them to go, all the while they think they led conversation there.
They have a moral compass. It points south.
Or down. ;-)
My liberal friend is a fire protection engineer, just as I am and we tend to see risk differently than other people. But his liberalism is rooted in a statement he made: “government should take care of ITS people.” He sincerely believes that and if we give government control, it will take care of its people. Your compilation of “some evil monsters” is a good list and a few of those would appear on his list, but not as evil. He thinks those on his list are just backwards, unenlightened and an obstacle to real progress. He doesn't fear them, he just doesn't like them or doesn't agree with them.
But note the use of the possessive pronoun in my friend's statement of philosophy. That is the Achilles heal of his liberal philosophy and in conflict with his Christianity. He was "red" when I first met him and now he is "pink", so I am making some progress but it sure is slow and with occasional relapses.
I'm have not finished reading your essays but I will try to get to them all over the next several evenings.
I mean it rhetorically, for the most part. (That is just a small list - I have literally hundreds of examples of "monsters" throughout the essays.) The idea is that liberals see the things on that list as opposed to utopia. And they fear anything that may halt utopia and stop all of the bad things happening in society. The issue is whether a person wants to direct their own life and let others direct their own lives with the attendant risks that involves, or does a person want the government to make everything safe for everyone (utopia), even if that means taking away everyone's individual liberty.
He was "red" when I first met him and now he is "pink", so I am making some progress but it sure is slow and with occasional relapses.
Glad to hear it. Hope my essays can help you.
I'm have not finished reading your essays but I will try to get to them all over the next several evenings.
Don't bother rushing. There are over 1,000 300-word pages plus hundreds of source links. My advice is to begin with essay #1 and read them in order. However, if something in an essay down the line catches your fancy read it right away to satisfy your interest. Have fun. :-)
I have started reading your articles, thanks for posting.
Thank you - and you’re welcome.
Interesting diagnosis “liberalism” of progressives is fear.. sometimes paranoia..
I think your WRONG!.... because of over simplification..
Sometimes they fear sometimes not.. (as we all do)..
The progressives are lazy, intellectually lazy..
They have accepted easy answers by and large to most things..
Thats why good ideas do not effect them..
They do not want to think so they let others do their thinking for them..
but they are careful to make sure the thoughts are not too deep.. taking effort..
They are LAZY you see.. not just kind of lazy but bone lazy...
Easy answers, easy solutions, easy effort.. simplistic mechanics..
They are willing for hard work to happen but just not by them..
Thats why they are for high taxes for YOU.. they can connive there way out of paying them..
If they are afraid of anything its fear of WORK..
They are smart enough to get YOU to do their work.. (they think)..
Take Congress as an example.. Obama couldn’t spend a dime were it not for Boehner financing him..
Obama is the poster boy for laziness.. a Grasshopper..
And Boehner and the republicans are the Ants.. (metaphorically)..
It appears the ants are afraid of the grasshopper but the real problem is laziness.. NOT fear..
Coddled, enabled laziness.. by the ((( ANTS )))....
The only thing that will cure laziness is HUNGER... or thirst..
Liberals fear being found out that they are lazy..
A lazy conservative is not conservative.. he is liberal..
Usually a journalist, professor.. or a Union member..