Skip to comments.Psychologist teaches mainstream Americans how to beat liberals at their own game
Posted on 01/13/2014 6:56:47 AM PST by mandaladon
For Dr. Timothy Daughtry, a clinical psychologist who has co-authored a book for mainstream Americans, too many citizens think they have done their civic duty if they show up to vote and return to their normal lives.
To Daughtry, they are like summer tourists in politics, whereas the progressives are like the locals.
Weve got to get active now or we are going to lose this republic, Daughtry says. The danger is, he says, that our country is being taken away from us right under our very noses.
He believes that a historic debate is being played out about whether Americans are citizens or subjects of their government.
Conservatives are on defense too much to succeed, he thinks, but also believes that help is on the way as citizens are waking up to the problems caused by both political parties.
We have to make the left start defending socialism instead of us defending liberty, Daughtry said.
Mainstream America started waking up when Republicans and Democrats in Washington embracing bailouts, which he says fundamentally struck Americans as wrong.
Then, the widespread unpopularity of Obamacare became surprisingly irrelevant to a government that rammed it through anyway. Educational textbooks depicting American history through a distorted lens of progressive ideology that glorifies redistribution is another red flag waking up parents, Daughtry believes.
Losing cultural institutions to the left, like the media, education and entertainment, is far more significant, says Daughtry, than the harm done by the U.S. government. Daughtry also discusses how to respond to being called an extremist or a racist in this two-part interview.
He thinks conservatives should not accept the lefts premises, since the left has done incalculable damage to the black community with their policies and programs.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
The reason Hussein got elected is quite the opposite of this guy’s theory.
Hussein’s voters are ones that have never voted in their life, have NO IDEA what either candidate’s polocies are, have NO IDEA what problems America is facing but slapped an Obamam sticker on their ride and showed up to support “the brother” because JayZ told them to.
Conservatives have responded. It’s called the Tea Party. You know, that grass roots organization the Republican party is trying to crush.
And Oprah...don’t forget Oprah. Black women, especially middle aged and older, supported Obama like it was their job. Well, it was their job, since they got all sorts of free stuff by doing so.
These type of things have dividends when important decisions come up and you can approach a local politician you know.
The left is a formidable political opponent because their ideology inherently carries no moral restraints on what they will do to attain power.
...Oh yeah, then there is the white guilty liberal.
“I voted for Obama... see how cool and non-racist I am...”
Click the right path
DONATE TO FREE REPUBLIC TODAY!
But the media could easily be taken back.
Most of the media (print and TV) is controlled by just a few players (5 to be exact Viacom, AOL Time Warner, Disney, Clear Channel and News Corp). Simply have a conservative billionaire (or a small group of billionaires) buy these out and suddenly overnight conservatives would control nearly all media in the country.
Taking back education is a little tuffer but could be done over time. Unlike the entertainment industry, I don't believe that education is intrinsically liberal, if anything I think education is more naturally intrinsically conservative. But the first thing that MUST be done is to utterly and completely destroy the teachers unions like Reagan destroyed the air traffic controllers.
Here’s a perfect place to start:
Liberals constantly accuse us of being “the party of no” and asking “so what is YOUR plan, then?”
Simply point out that conservatives don’t look to a government “plan” to solve every issue. There is no bigger difference between the two philosophies, and no simpler way to explain it.
Why the Tea Party and others can’t seem to get this through their heads is beyond me. But every time the liberal trap is sprung, the “conservative” falls right into it and starts babbling about “our plan”...
Disagree. This is why the Marxist faggot was elected:
“Losing cultural institutions to the left, like the media, education and entertainment, is far more significant, says Daughtry, than the harm done by the U.S. government.”
Conservative Americans by their nature are the people that are the achievers, the hard workers with their nose to the grindstone. The liberals are the ones leaning on their shovel. They know they can't outwork the other guy, so they come up with ideas on how to take credit for the work.
Conservatives are involved in the productive industries, while liberals are involved in the regulation, communication, or education type industries.
As such, conservatives don't have the time or the inclination to "play politics". And liberals do. This is our fatal flaw.
... a historic debate is being played out about whether Americans are citizens or subjects of their government...
This is very true. Liberals have done a good job of using language ( usually insults and crass accusations) to intimidate those with conservative values into silence. Many good people stay silent out of fear.
Changing minds and hearts must include being unafraid to speak the truth in public even if it comes with personal consequence. Involvement can be as simple as speaking up at the kids bus stop or at the water cooler at work. It requires being unafraid of being labeled a whole host of unpleasant nouns.
The people that own those corporations are part of a very select group. They share an identity. They know the power they wield. The purpose of owning these corporations is not to make money but to control that power and to deny it to anyone outside their group. They would never willingly give up those media assets to anyone other than the "right" people.
A true conservative American patriot with a Trillion dollars and a map to the Fountain of Youth wouldn't even be let in the front door.
============================================= WHAT AMERICANS USE TO KNOW ABT THE DEC/INDEPENDENCE
The first several generations of Americans understood that the Declaration of Independence was the ultimate states rights document. The citizens of the states would delegate certain powers to a central government in their Constitution, and these powers (mostly for national defense and foreign policy purposes) would hopefully be exercised for the benefit of the citizens of the "free and independent" states, as they are called in the Declaration.
The understanding was that if American citizens were in fact to be the masters rather than the servants of government, they themselves would have to police the national government that was created by them for their mutual benefit. If the day ever came that the national government became the sole arbiter of the limits of its own powers, then Americans would live under a tyranny as bad or worse than the one the colonists fought a revolution against.
As the above quotation denotes, the ultimate natural law principle behind this thinking was Jeffersons famous dictum in the Declaration of Independence that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that whenever that consent is withdrawn the people of the free and independent states, as sovereigns, have a duty to abolish that government and replace it with a new one if they wish.
This was the fundamental understanding of the meaning of the Declaration of Independence that it was a Declaration of Secession from the British empire of the first several generations of Americans. As the 1, 107-page book, Northern Editorials on Secession shows, this view was held just as widely in the Northern states as in the Southern states in 1860-1861.
Among the lone dissenters was Abe Lincoln, a corporate lawyer/lobbyist/politician with less than a year of formal education who probably never even read The Federalist Papers.
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE PREAMBLE We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...
What came after the Declaration of Independence was the "bill of particulars" against the colonial ruler--King George III ---that justified the declaration and subsequent colonial rebellion.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance, reads one of Jeffersons indictments against the king.
Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
It’s more than attending political meetings. Obama has taken social media and marketing to new heights. While we attend meetings.
The biggest mistake that I have see conservatives makes, over the years, is to think we can win solely from the top down. That is to say, thinking all we have to do is elect a conservative president or Congress and we have won the ideological argument and conservatism will âtrickle downâ. Liberals on the other hand are masters at winning from the bottom up, the âcommunity organizingâ the packing of colleges, school boards, civic groups, the media and local governments with other liberals. This forms an effective âfirewallâ for when conservatives do elect a candidate to a high position, their attempts at reform of stymied by the liberal bureaucracy.
Our “plan” is that, though imperfect, the conservative way — the Constitution and capitalism — is the best there is. They keep believing in utopia. Like Obamacare: the attempt to get everyone “covered” resulted in far fewer people covered than before they started.
Why go through the trouble.....when we have keyboards at our disposal?
We should not dismiss the potency of the internet, social media, and the vast reach of the computer----these are huge factors in framing public opinion.
Newspapers have clearly taken a back seat as a means of influencing p/o.
Some enterpreneurs are now using youtube for current events talk shows....completely bypassing broadcast and cable TV.
Conservatives might explore that, as well.
Well, he’s clearly right. Conservatives must replace the current defensive strategy with a much more offensive strategy. It’s about controlling the initiative.
It’s hard to make the left “defend socialism” when 99% of them won’t admit that that’s the ideology that they advocate.
I worked on that for a few months about decade ago, producing a series of short tracts on numerous topics. I couldn't get readers to review it.
I spar with liberals a LOT on the internet. This line especially rings true: “He thinks conservatives should not accept the lefts premises...”
My unashamed attitude about homosexuality on those liberal sites is very 1950’s, but in the “polite” way. It means I don’t call them queers or fags. But I also don’t call them “gay”. And when they say I’m behind the times, my response is always along the lines of, “Really? Please tell me what has changed that should change my viewpoint.” There are few remotely legitimate arguments they can make, and then I shoot those down easily. The fact that I have known a lot of homosexuals in my day, and none of them really live on the same plane of joy or happiness that the rest of us can aspire to. This is something I KNOW from experience and these folks can’t shout me down.
Ultimately they start calling me names, but it drives them nuts that my attitude is shouted from the rooftops on the internet and, being products of their own progressive circle jerks, they don’t know how to handle it and are baffled that folks like me and the Duck Dynasty patriarch exist.
But they’re starting to figure out that they are not really in the majority and what little strength they have is in the folks in the middle that really don’t think about it much. We’re trying to get them to think about it.
That’s true. Another problem is that seniors are the most reliable group when it comes to showing up on election day and virtually every senior is now on the dole, dependent on government for their health care and income.
The left is a formidable political opponent because their ideology inherently carries no moral restraints on what they will do to attain power.
I started saying, in the mid-1990’s, that I felt like a Jew in early 30’s Germany. It was that I felt completely out of step with the direction the world was going, and especially the US. When Bush was elected, I said we just put off the inevitable for another four years. But then, he (and the republican majority) is what pushed me out of the R party.
I have spent many years feeling like a Jew in “mid-30’s Germany” but it is now the late 30’s. And I think the next two years will be VERY bad, and progressively so.
However, there is another meaning to my Jew/Germany analogy. Sure, September 1st, 1939 is coming, but so is May 7th, 1945. Though I think this time it will be via the second coming of the Lord. Yes, I think it will get that bad.
I have a sense of imminence as well...
If we bought the MSM out we could give balance to knee jerk liberals who have been brain-washed into thinking the 'internet' is only rumors.
Our folks can afford it.
Most democrats have never heard a conservative idea that wasn't filtered through liberal hate...
Regarding stuff going on in the US the last 20 years, I am very mindful of Revelation 18:4.
It’s why I moved from Seattle to rural KY.
LOL - we're talking about King Obama, right? Good one Liz.
I picked up some land a couple of years ago -
struggling to have enough time to get it “up and running” though.
It does come down to a failure of the Republicans to get their message heard. That is party because they do not have a cohesive message any more.
Most have not read the following which is “standing on the shoulders of giants”. But reading this requires a “thinking cap” which offends some people here when I say that:
those are all publically traded companies, nothing could prevent someone with enough money from buying the majority of the shares.
That is a very important point. Much has been written about the massive database and targeting operation done by the Obama campaign. In large part what they did is identify specific messages that would win over a voter and then direct those messages to that voter. Many of the messages I saw would never have stood up to widespread public dissemination, but were effective when sent to gullible voters likely to believe them.
For example, people identified as supporters of abortion rights got messages saying things like "Republican candidate so and so fought against a requirement that hospital X provide abortion services...instead a woman would be left to die in the emergency room.."
Of course the truth was that the candidate had opposed a requirement that a hospital without an emergency room, which didn't offer any emergency services, should have to offer training on emergency abortions to its staff, none of whom were remotely qualified for that kind of medical care anyway. The campaign message could never have been made publicly, or broadcast, because it would have been immediately shown to be false. But when sent in an email or letter to a small group of voters the message was not corrected - how would the Republican candidate even know who got the letter?
These highly targeted letters often cited as sources obscure blogs as if they were reliable publications. In one case even the posters on the blog rejected the article, but Obama's allies ran with it anyway.
These highly targeted, and often misleading messages are very effective in generating high turn out of particular groups of people. They do however undermine democracy, but conservatives need to know about the technique, and either neutralize it or use similar, but more ethical techniques.
Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
The second rule is: Never go outside the experience of your people.
The third rule is: Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
the fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
the fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is mans most potent weapon.
the sixth rule is: A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
the seventh rule is: A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
the eighth rule: Keep the pressure on.
the ninth rule: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
The tenth rule: The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
The eleventh rule is: If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.
The twelfth rule: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
You’re doing what a lot of us should be doing...keep up the good work.
This is very true. . and I have seen the frustration as Tea Party agendas seem to gravitate toward lobbying efforts, twisting arms of politicians or helping the campaigns of Tea Party friendly candidates. . .only to be confronted again and again with the reality that once someone is elected they seem to taper off in their Tea Party enthusiasm.
The nature of the problem is this. . .elected officials are not our "leaders," they are "representatives" of the people. Look at how many elected officials are winning their race by a slim percentage. However, slim margins only effect those that see themselves as "representatives of the people." Therefore, they do not effect Democrats. . who only see themselves as experts over the helpless masses. Also, look how many Americans simply are not even interested enough to go vote. This is our problem. . .we the people. . .are divided between those who seek representatives and those who want experts (and those who could care less either way).
In the 2012 Presidential election, I worked the local polls on election day. I spent nearly a whole day next to Democrat Party grassroots supporters. I can't tell you how, on the one hand, they were so nice. . and, on the other, they were so stunningly sick in the head and uninformed. This is the problem. . .good and noble people are being completely duped by evil ideologues who seek nothing less than the destruction of our founding principles. . which are essential for liberty.
We need to reach these people. . we need to swing a percentage toward conservatism. . we need to send representatives to Washington that are empowered by 60% of the voting public who will stand firm behind their representative, even in the face of a condescending media and popular culture. THEN, things will change.
We have to reach out beyond the choir. We have to inspire the human heart with the living ideals that stand at the root of our nation's birth. We have to expose and eradicate all the tenticles of Progressive ideology and its detrimental effects on our free society. It means we have to take the truth and go into the enemy camp and change hearts and minds. I've experienced it being done and I know it works, but I've also seen how people feel reluctant or not confident to step into that arena. It is easier to pretend we are doing something by inviting a Trevor Loudon to come speak at the next Tea Party meeting about "The Enemy Within".. that is, to tell us what we already know or could learn by perusing freerepublic.com for 5 minutes.
I agree completely. Don’t let the libs get away with the “presumptive” question (Have you stopped beating your wife?) or the false dichotomy (Would you prefer Obamacare or wholesale deaths of uninsured?)
Challenge their most basic assumptions: “diversity is good.” (Why?) “It takes a village.” (No, it doesn’t.) “This country was founded on a separation of church and state.” (No, it wasn’t.) “Slavery was wrong.” (No, it was a perfectly legitimate institution in its time.) “The US is an imperialist power.”(Really? How many colonies do we have? How much territory have we acquired through war?
Gore their sacred cows. Knock over their straw men. Disprove their presumptuous axioms.
Slavery was wrong. (No, it was a perfectly legitimate institution in its time.)
The institution of human slavery always has been, and always will be, morally wrong.
When I saw your post about a conservative billionaire buying up the MSM and I thought you were silly. I though the market caps were too high but I ran the numbers and it is doable for a few of those.
AOL-Time Warner 3.5B
Clear Channel 3.5B
The others are probably too big for all but the richest of superbillionaires.
The other problem you have with buying those is that it would be a hostile takeover. The liberal billionaires who own it would bid you up and you would be paying way more than the current price even if you could win.
If we attack Wall St. and its too big to fail mentality and its “creative” derivatives scams and its greed lust for money and its neocon handlers and its ruling class pretense and its self-serving anti-patriotism and its manipulation of markets and its commodity bubbles and its tendency towards monopolism and its history of supporting fascism, why I think we’d have a glimmer of hope of overcoming our own stupidity.
He was elected because he was black.
And yet it has been a fixture of human culture since the earliest recorded histories. So to single out the United States as the greatest offender of human dignity because of its inherited use of slaves is intellectually and historically dishonest.
I never singled out the United States as the 'greatest offender of human dignity.' The majority of African slaves during the slave trade never came to North America.
All I said is that human slavery was, is, and always be, morally reprehensible.
Do you agree with that?
:) and remember they don’t even have to buy 100% only controlling interest 50.1%