support babalú

Your donations help fund
our continued operation

do you babalú?

what they’re saying






recommended reading

babalú features

recent comments

  • Humberto Fontova: “The Don is slipping.” Looks like it might be true this time?

  • asombra: There’s a misspelling on that plaque. It should have read “Esta es tu caca, Fidel.”

  • asombra: Don’t worry. Castro, Inc. knows what it’s doing, and it knows its public.

  • asombra: Either these people are pitiful idiots or they think everyone else is.

  • asombra: Because, you know, Reuters cares SO much about Cubans, so it really “feels their pain.” Just like Clinton did.

search babalu

babalú archives

frequent topics

elsewhere on the net


The top 5 lies leftists believe about conservatives

Here's an excellent five-part series of posts by Fuzzy Logic that lays out the truth about what we believe and why the idiot left can't deal with it.

Part 1: We're racist homophobic islamophobic xenophobic misogynists.

No commas, probably should use hyphens, though, as that’s the breathless, said-as-one-word description of us that they have in their tiny little brains. Wrapped up in this, of course, is the sense that we are drooling idiots who hate everyone who is unlike ourselves, toothless rednecks who shoot “others” on sight, a Bible-thumping God Squad intent on white supremacist isolationism. And they believe it. The “nuance” crowd, our supposed intellectual betters, have zero problem painting with broad brush every single conservative (though of course they are loathe to be so-stereotyped themselves).

I’ve thought about this post a lot, knowing it was coming, and have contemplated how I’ll approach it (a Fuzzy Rant seems so obviously in order, ya know?). I settled on a focus on the mindset behind it rather than debunking (yet again) the idiocy of this belief. After all, we know that we are not any of those things, with the possible exception of being Islamaphobic (that old “it’s not paranoia if ‘they’ really are out to get you” saw may be applicable here). But it’s hardly going to be a complete post without at least mentioning the flaws on the face of that assumption, right?

Before I do that, though, I want to take a few moments (paragraphs) to examine leftist “thought.”

If your entire ideology is based on one tiny, ill-conceived, hastily-written (and later retracted) “manifesto,” it’s bound to be simple(-minded). And if you have a wrong-headed belief that the way to transform something simple into something complex is to add more simple layers to it, then you just mire yourself in shallow thinking, tires spinning in tired mud. Today’s leftists start with Marx, middle with Marx, and end with Marx. Oh sure, they take their theoretical paintbrush and splash Marx paint around, but it’s always the same, simple(-minded) blather.

I used to feel so overwhelmed in graduate school, so inadequate, because my commie professors would keep insisting that [fill in the blank]ism was so “complex,” so mind-bogglingly brilliant . . . and I just couldn’t see it. I just sat there, nodding, thinking to myself that either they were complete morons . . . or I was. As a graduate student, I naturally assumed the latter, and tried and tried to find something complex (or even interesting) in Showalter, Foucault, Said, Derrida, Hegel . . . oh, the list goes on. But it was all, all of it, at rock bottom, the same damn thing (even deconstruction, supposedly rendering a “text” “meaningless” only does so because the “meaning” is “indeterminate” or non-existent as constituting an all-out attack on . . . yep, [fill in the blank]ism. Besides, if there is no meaning, then we all need the government to step in and create it out of nothingness, right? Uh huh.). [...]

Part 2: We hate the poor.

Where to start with this nonsense? I mean, it’s so patently absurd that it’s easy to dismiss, but we dismiss this one at our own peril. It’s their number 2 talking point, their number 2 reason for that annoyingly puffed up (and false) sense of superiority, their number 2 reason for thinking that they are “the compassionate ones,” and importantly, it’s their number 2 means of keeping disgruntled (D) voters in line. It’s also a complicated one to address because it means something so different to us than it does to them, but it gets straight to the heart of the gigantic difference in our ideologies, the heart–really–of what we mean when we think of “America” and “The American Dream.”

Rather than debunking the surface of this one (I’ve done this before here, here, and here–yes, and in a zillion other posts, it seems), I’ll focus instead on the bigger picture to which I’ve just alluded. After all, we already know that conservatives tend to be more religious and/or spiritual (often, but certainly not always or necessarily, Christian), we already know that conservatives tend to give more (time, money, and labor) to charity, and we already know that being more religious and/or spiritual is directly tied to caring for the poor (think tithing, etc., and look no further than BO’s lame attempts to use Christianity to justify his anti-Christian, anti-American communist agenda). So what’s going on with this “conservatives hate the poor” thing? Quite a few things, actually, but they are all rooted in the twin goals of the far left: destroying capitalism and destroying America. Same thing, you say? Naw, they’re related, but not the same.

Consider: the attacks on the American Dream that have been subtly taking place . . . until recently when they’ve become strident, shrill, desperate. The left has succeeded, I think, in making the once-magnificent American Dream something small, focused, mundane, quotidian, even silly; they’ve managed to boil it down, redefine it, narrow it to (ugh) merely home ownership. Even many (so-called) conservatives will say when asked that the American Dream is to own a home. Head thunk. No. A thousand times no. [...]

Part 3: We're anti-government war-mongers.

A personal fave because what more clearly illustrates the inherent logical fallacy that denotes the majority of leftist thought than “anti-government war-mongers”? Let’s get this straight, we hate government and don’t want any (they think/say/whine), but we, simultaneously (miraculously) want sufficient government to “police the world” and wage war on a whim (after all, if they can’t understand it, then it’s always insupportable, belligerent for the sake of belligerence (or oil), and “imperialistic”). Uh huh, no contradictions there.

First, obviously, if we are Constitutional conservatives (and I am), then we (duh) support the Constitution, and the Constitution, in its turn, establishes our form of government. Therefore, we support the form of government established by our Constitution (see how cleanly that works? No faulty syllogism, no convoluted crap designed to obscure the obvious). Our Constitution, of course, establishes a particular form of limited government, a form that leftists loathe because it doesn’t give them total control over every aspect of our lives (actually, our Constitution gives little control to the federal government and much more to the states and to the people), so to their tiny little minds, if we don’t want totalitarian control (the only type leftists like), we must be, have to be “anti-government.”

Clearly that’s not true, but they like to say it because it makes us sound . . . well, rather like they actually are (yes, more leftist projection. As always). Conservatives do believe in government (well, not in the Santa Claus kind of way that leftists believe in big government), but we think its powers should be, must be, limited in order to preserve individual liberty, and yes, even a moral sort of order that “infringes” on government’s right to dictate our religious, political, and other forms of free expression.

Far from being “anti-government,” we conservatives are very pro-government, even pro-authority–as long as that authority is limited and truly dedicated to American principles. Conservatives support our troops; leftists don’t, not really, they make noises, but it’s more Code Pink-style than actual support of our guys’–and girls’–mission; they’re the ones who limit funding, tie our troops’ hands with ridiculous ROE, and otherwise handicap our troops’ ability to do their job. [...]

Part 4:We're anti-science Neanderthals.

I pretty much love this one because it’s based, most often, on two unproven scientific theories–lefties don’t understand that science is about theories, i.e. positing a hypothesis based on known qualities/quantities and developing a theory that is just that, a theory–and the way that they work (or actually, don’t work) together, most clearly demonstrate the fallacies of leftist “thought” when it comes to science. Scientific findings can be and are very often proved wrong (forget about Pythagoras and Galileo, think of Einstein’s theory of relativity being called into serious question just last year: particles were found to travel faster than the speed of light, a thing Einstein claimed was impossible). But hey, if Al Crazed Sex Poodle Gore says that there’s a scientific consensus, there must be . . . even if the UK won’t allow the showing of the Goracle’s “documentary” without qualification that there are at least nine proven fallacies in it.

The leftists’ two pet scientific theories are AGW and Darwinism; however, it seems pretty clear that you can’t have both (as I noted in my post Evolution or Global Warming: You Can Pick Only One); if humans are responsible for global warming or climate change (or whatever the accepted term is this week), then there should have been no marked climate change prior to the Industrial Revolution. And if there was no climate change (though we know from the fossil record that there have been multiple Ice Ages followed by global thaws), then there can’t possibly have been evolution (even Darwin said that species adapted to environmental changes such as global warming and cooling). Darwin was insistent in The Origin of Species that environmental adaptation was required for survival of the species: so why, if humans evolved from monkeys due to an unacceptable environment, are there still monkeys? Species simply don’t evolve in a static environment, nor do the faulty species who did not adapt and evolve survive the inhospitable environment that first prompted evolution of that unfit species. Or if they do, Darwin was wrong. So you see the conundrum for addled lefties. [...]

Part 5: We're Fascists (this one is my personal favorite).

This one always cracks me up because as most of us–including BO and his traitorous horde–know fascism is rooted in and indeed cannot exist without massive government. Fascism focuses on “private-public partnerships” (i.e. the state dictating which businesses succeed, which don’t, how they operate, what they produce and to whom it is distributed and by what means, etc.). It’s totalitarian and communist in nature (this is why Hitler had to defeat communists and socialists: his National Socialist Party–i.e. “Nazi” Party was their nearest ideological rival, the truest competition for statist votes). Mussolini distinguished fascism from liberal (in the classical sense) capitalism in his 1928 autobiography:

The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity. The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill. (p. 280)

“Selfish individual,” “collectivity,” and “productive work” . . . sound familiar? The collective, aka The Greater Good, is supreme, with the individual minimized, trampled, oppressed, rounded up, “re-educated,” imprisoned, murdered, etc. by the state if the state deems it “necessary.” Up twinkles? Capitalism is the enemy of fascism, just as it is of socialism, communism, and every other statist, totalitarian ideology. Today’s leftists hate capitalism and the free market, they want the state to regulate and centrally-control everything; indeed, that’s the very root not only of BO’s own plans for “fundamental transformation” but of his “ows” movement. [...]

Comments are closed.