Thursday, December 29, 2005
The Desire to Act Out Defiantly
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
December 29, 2005
I have an interest in understanding passive-aggressive (negativistic) personality types because I encounter so many people who fit that description, and because they pose an extreme challenge. The primary characteristic of this personality type is reflexive, reactive, pathological hostility. They are a one song juke box. Press any buttons, and you will only get hostility.
The psychology community generally agrees that such people are torn between a desire to act out defiantly and a fear of retribution for their aggression. This creates tremendous conflict within such people, and they display occasional explosive aggression.
Acting out defiantly sums up the entire leftist agenda. The issues they promote can all be seen as acts of defiance against history, religious doctrine, social norms, and social and personal obligations.
Socialism is defiance of market realities.
* *
Drug use is defiance of social norms and personal responsibility.
Abortion and birth control are defiance of nature, established religious doctrine, social norms, and personal responsibility.
Maniacal hatred of President Bush is defiance of reality at all levels, and also exhibits the reactive, reflexive, pathological hostility that passive-aggressive (negativistic) personality types display toward any situation they feel uncomfortable with. This explains why they hate President Bush. It’s what they do. They hate. The Nazis taught that unbridled, public hatred is acceptable and expected behavior, and we know what happened to them and their victims.
The most troubling aspect of passive-aggressive (negativistic) behavior is the extreme aggressive reaction to any negative input. The reaction is always grossly disproportionate to the provocation, whether real or imagined. In other words, it’s all just a great big tantrum. These people are just babies and they need to grow up. From Marx to Mao, the leftist agenda is nothing more than a colossal temper tantrum.
As for unlimited tax increases, unlimited government control, and unlimited social engineering, I see these as reactive, reflexive, pathological hostility toward the human race. After all, what have the people who instituted totalitarian governments actually achieved? They have actually achieved human slaughter on a titanic scale. I can think of no more profound and unambiguous expression of reactive, reflexive, pathological hostility toward the human race than Nazi Germany and the Communist States of Russia, China, and North Korea.
The modern Islamist movement--also called Islamofascism, they seek to destroy all people and things not purely and rigidly Moslem--exemplified by al Qaeda is another expression of reactive, reflexive, pathological hostility toward the human race. It is another homicidal tantrum on a par with Nazism and Communism.
The United States of America under the leadership of President Bush has issued the appropriate response for people who are gripped with the desire to act out defiantly by killing Americans: If you attack us, we can and we will hurt you, and you won’t be able to stop us.
May God bless America.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
December 29, 2005
I have an interest in understanding passive-aggressive (negativistic) personality types because I encounter so many people who fit that description, and because they pose an extreme challenge. The primary characteristic of this personality type is reflexive, reactive, pathological hostility. They are a one song juke box. Press any buttons, and you will only get hostility.
The psychology community generally agrees that such people are torn between a desire to act out defiantly and a fear of retribution for their aggression. This creates tremendous conflict within such people, and they display occasional explosive aggression.
Acting out defiantly sums up the entire leftist agenda. The issues they promote can all be seen as acts of defiance against history, religious doctrine, social norms, and social and personal obligations.
Socialism is defiance of market realities.
* *
Drug use is defiance of social norms and personal responsibility.
Abortion and birth control are defiance of nature, established religious doctrine, social norms, and personal responsibility.
Maniacal hatred of President Bush is defiance of reality at all levels, and also exhibits the reactive, reflexive, pathological hostility that passive-aggressive (negativistic) personality types display toward any situation they feel uncomfortable with. This explains why they hate President Bush. It’s what they do. They hate. The Nazis taught that unbridled, public hatred is acceptable and expected behavior, and we know what happened to them and their victims.
The most troubling aspect of passive-aggressive (negativistic) behavior is the extreme aggressive reaction to any negative input. The reaction is always grossly disproportionate to the provocation, whether real or imagined. In other words, it’s all just a great big tantrum. These people are just babies and they need to grow up. From Marx to Mao, the leftist agenda is nothing more than a colossal temper tantrum.
As for unlimited tax increases, unlimited government control, and unlimited social engineering, I see these as reactive, reflexive, pathological hostility toward the human race. After all, what have the people who instituted totalitarian governments actually achieved? They have actually achieved human slaughter on a titanic scale. I can think of no more profound and unambiguous expression of reactive, reflexive, pathological hostility toward the human race than Nazi Germany and the Communist States of Russia, China, and North Korea.
The modern Islamist movement--also called Islamofascism, they seek to destroy all people and things not purely and rigidly Moslem--exemplified by al Qaeda is another expression of reactive, reflexive, pathological hostility toward the human race. It is another homicidal tantrum on a par with Nazism and Communism.
The United States of America under the leadership of President Bush has issued the appropriate response for people who are gripped with the desire to act out defiantly by killing Americans: If you attack us, we can and we will hurt you, and you won’t be able to stop us.
May God bless America.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Lethal Mythology of the Viet Nam War
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
December 13, 2005
Many people, including enemies of the U. S., continue to believe that the formula for defeating America was laid out in Viet Nam. For thirty years, they have constructed a lethal mythology that has needlessly cost the lives of tens of thousands of people.
The U. S. lost the war in Viet Nam for only one reason: The Congress of the U. S. under the control of the Democratic Party withheld the funding necessary for the ARVN (Army of Viet Nam) to continue to fight off a North Vietnamese invasion in 1975. That’s it, folks. And here is the terrible truth: The Congress did not cut off funding in 1975 to cause American troops to withdraw; the Congress cut off funding because most American troops had already withdrawn.
There was no popular uprising in favor of the Communists in 1975 in Viet Nam (or in any other year). It was a full blown, all out, old world style invasion with tanks and infantry.
In Afghanistan, the Taliban believed that they could draw American into a protracted bloodletting and eventually win (a stalemate on your own turf constitutes a win because the foreigners will have to withdraw). The Taliban invited the Americans to fight, and the Americans swept them out of power in about 90 days. Hardly the Viet Nam style ten thousand day conflict the Taliban and the other enemies of American had envisioned.
It isn’t going any better for the so-called insurgents in Iraq. Where are their tanks? Where will they get the funding and the unconditional support of any nation State? Where are their supply lines and avenues of retreat? Where are their safe havens?
Even if all allied forces withdraw from Iraq tomorrow, the enemies of self-government in Iraq will be outnumbered and slaughtered by the reconstituted Iraqi Army, and much more ruthlessly than the Americans. The terrorists don’t have the manpower and the arms to stand up to a nation State, even one as new as the Iraqi Republic.
The idea that an insurgency can overthrow an established government and set up a new nation when that insurgency is not supported by at least one nation State is a lethal fantasy that ensures the defeat of the people who believe it. The terrorists are throwing away their lives believing that the impossible is possible. Worse, they are throwing away the lives of innocent people for a war they cannot win.
The so-called insurgents, like American and European leftists, believe that America was defeated in Viet Nam. America was not defeated; America was distracted. In fact, the fall of South Viet Nam could not even be considered a military setback for the U. S. The U. S. didn’t lose territory and influence in the region.
America has sufficient manpower and resources to carry on several military actions even when public support is against one or more of those actions (American troops are currently active in Germany, Korea, the Balkans, the Caribbean, the Panama Canal, Iraq, Afghanistan, and several oceans).
As long as the terrorists believe they can win by fighting like the Viet Cong, then they will die like the Viet Cong. But then, if they had any capacity to understand simple facts, they wouldn’t be terrorists.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
December 13, 2005
Many people, including enemies of the U. S., continue to believe that the formula for defeating America was laid out in Viet Nam. For thirty years, they have constructed a lethal mythology that has needlessly cost the lives of tens of thousands of people.
The U. S. lost the war in Viet Nam for only one reason: The Congress of the U. S. under the control of the Democratic Party withheld the funding necessary for the ARVN (Army of Viet Nam) to continue to fight off a North Vietnamese invasion in 1975. That’s it, folks. And here is the terrible truth: The Congress did not cut off funding in 1975 to cause American troops to withdraw; the Congress cut off funding because most American troops had already withdrawn.
There was no popular uprising in favor of the Communists in 1975 in Viet Nam (or in any other year). It was a full blown, all out, old world style invasion with tanks and infantry.
In Afghanistan, the Taliban believed that they could draw American into a protracted bloodletting and eventually win (a stalemate on your own turf constitutes a win because the foreigners will have to withdraw). The Taliban invited the Americans to fight, and the Americans swept them out of power in about 90 days. Hardly the Viet Nam style ten thousand day conflict the Taliban and the other enemies of American had envisioned.
It isn’t going any better for the so-called insurgents in Iraq. Where are their tanks? Where will they get the funding and the unconditional support of any nation State? Where are their supply lines and avenues of retreat? Where are their safe havens?
Even if all allied forces withdraw from Iraq tomorrow, the enemies of self-government in Iraq will be outnumbered and slaughtered by the reconstituted Iraqi Army, and much more ruthlessly than the Americans. The terrorists don’t have the manpower and the arms to stand up to a nation State, even one as new as the Iraqi Republic.
The idea that an insurgency can overthrow an established government and set up a new nation when that insurgency is not supported by at least one nation State is a lethal fantasy that ensures the defeat of the people who believe it. The terrorists are throwing away their lives believing that the impossible is possible. Worse, they are throwing away the lives of innocent people for a war they cannot win.
The so-called insurgents, like American and European leftists, believe that America was defeated in Viet Nam. America was not defeated; America was distracted. In fact, the fall of South Viet Nam could not even be considered a military setback for the U. S. The U. S. didn’t lose territory and influence in the region.
America has sufficient manpower and resources to carry on several military actions even when public support is against one or more of those actions (American troops are currently active in Germany, Korea, the Balkans, the Caribbean, the Panama Canal, Iraq, Afghanistan, and several oceans).
As long as the terrorists believe they can win by fighting like the Viet Cong, then they will die like the Viet Cong. But then, if they had any capacity to understand simple facts, they wouldn’t be terrorists.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Self-Hate
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
December 8, 2005
By “liberals”, I really mean “radicals”, and I think that Limbaugh and other conservative talk-meisters have the same idea in mind. A true liberal does not seek radical change. People who seek radical change are radicals, not liberals. Liberals seek to amend the status quo. Radicals seek to overturn the status quo. In that regard, those seeking to establish massive Federal welfare programs in the 1930’s would be considered radical for their time, and those seeking to overturn those same massive Federal welfare programs today would also be considered radical today. For the sake of consistency with my conservative audience, I will use the word “liberals” instead of “radicals”, but I really mean “radicals”.
Conservative talk-meisters correctly identify hate as a primary motivation for liberals. They suppose that there must be some target for this hate. That’s how conservatives think. If someone offends you egregiously enough, it’s permissible to hate him. If there is no offense, then hate is not permissible or appropriate. Conservatives don’t believe that they have given offense sufficient to warrant the hate that liberals display. What could liberals possibly be so upset about?
In a word, “helplessness”.
Liberals consistently demonstrate that they feel overwhelmed by a sense of their own helplessness. They feel intimidated, even threatened by the normal events of life. They dread weakness in themselves and loath weakness in others. They mercilessly torment and bully those weaker than themselves. Other symptoms include anger, rage, depression, alcohol and drug use, hypersensitivity to criticism, pathological jealousy, a tendency to exaggerate facts, a tendency to fabricate facts, dramatizing ordinary events, over-dramatizing stressful events, blaming, complaining, guilt-giving, accusing, grudge holding, obsession with revenge, manipulating, intimidating, and lying.
The lying is perhaps their most confounding behavior. They will lie to you when they know that they are lying. They will lie to you when you know that they are lying. But, what is most astounding about these people is that they will lie to you when they know that you know that they are lying. They will lie to you about things that you know you have never done, as though they actually expect you to agree with them.
People who observe this behavior, people who are averse to lying because they are afraid of being accused of lying, don’t understand why people behave this way. There are two main reasons: 1) The lying helps the liar cope with the nagging sense of helplessness, and 2) they don’t think there will be any negative consequences for telling lies. Lying makes them feel empowered.
A general disdain for the truth and an unfounded faith in fantasy are consistent characteristics of liberals. They despise things that are and dream of things that can never be. David Horowitz calls a belief in utopianism the central failing of the left (meaning leftist radicals), that the world we live in must be deconstructed and a new, utopian order built in its place.
Utopia is a place of unassailable safety. People who feel helpless want to feel safe.
People who feel helpless despise people who do not feel helpless. Liberals feel helpless. Conservatives feel challenged. The only good end for liberals is to retreat into a place of safety, far away from problems. The only good end for conservatives is to resolve the problems so that they can feel safe wherever they go.
Liberals feel rage at conservatives because conservatives continue to confront the challenges that face them instead of seeking safety and comfort. Conservatives seek final resolution and in so doing make a lot of trouble. Liberals seek to avoid trouble. Avoiding trouble is more important to liberals than securing victory.
Liberals possess an unrealistic anxiety about the power of the people who threaten them. They fear winning because they fear their opponent’s revenge. Appeasement seems safer than victory to liberals.
Conservatives can’t understand this anxiety. They therefore can’t understand the rage that ensues. Conservatives can’t connect the rage that liberals feel with anything rational, and with good reason. There’s nothing rational about it. Conservatives conclude that liberals are afflicted with self-hate.
Conservatives recognize the hate, but they incorrectly conclude that liberals hate themselves. On the contrary, they tend to think much too highly of themselves. Thinking themselves much more capable than they really are helps liberals cope with their sense of helplessness. Feeling omnipotent helps ward off feelings of helplessness.
Rage gives liberals the sense of courage they otherwise lack. They direct their rage toward those they blame for causing their problems, the problems that they themselves are helpless to resolve. Lying about how terrible conservatives are serves to feed the rage. The lies have value for the emotional effects they provoke, not for revealing any substantial truth. The truth is finite; lies are infinite. Liberals could tell any lies at all, but the lies they tell about their targets have in common the intent to provoke rage against their target.
To be fair, many conservatives foment rage against liberals in much the same manner as liberals foment rage against conservatives for much the same reasons. Such people feel intimidated by their opponents, and look for any opportunity for revenge.
Confident, capable, accomplished people cause liberals considerable anxiety. People who can actually do what they say they can do antagonize liberals’ sense of helplessness, and tend to provoke extreme jealousy. Jealousy is most commonly expressed by denigrating and humiliating the target. Jealousy is not always a sense of coveting what others have accomplished. In many cases, jealousy is a feeling of having been bested or humiliated.
Rather than face the fact that they have lost, liberals tend to redefine the situation so that defeat is actually victory in some manner. Winners are redefined as oppressors, losers are redefined as victims, and victims deserve “justice”, usually meaning “revenge”.
Liberals feel easily intimidated. They feel like paper tigers, full are rage, but otherwise empty and ineffectual. When they are in a state of rage, they feel empowered, but if they are directly confronted, they crumble.
Liberals don’t suffer from self-hate. The hate that they feel is not directed inward. It is directed outward. This is called “externalizing” your feelings. People who externalize their feelings have difficulty taking responsibility for their feelings. They cannot admit that they feel angry. Their anger is always the fault of some external source. In their minds, liberals are not angry; they are innocent victims of unjust assaults. Something always makes them angry. In their minds, their anger is the unavoidable result of unjust misbehavior by malicious others.
The final determination of the legitimacy of any other person is the anger that liberals feel. If they feel angry, then the perceived external source of their anger is irrefutably and irrevocably at fault.
The sense of helplessness and intimidation, the overwhelming desire to avoid the necessary challenges of life, and the tendency to mete out condemnation solely on the basis of anger give liberals an infantile quality. Reason and facts do nothing to quell the anxieties of these fearful people, and if anything, tend to inflame their insecurities.
There is no happy ending. It is impossible to dissuade fearful people of their fearfulness. Give them a warm blanket and assure them that you won’t bother them as long as they don’t bother you. Sympathy, encouragement, criticism, advice, anger, or exasperation will only drive them farther into feelings of helplessness and provoke more passionate expressions of hostility. The harder you try to help them, the harder they will fight you. If you are so foolish as to extend the hand of friendship, expect to pull back a bloody stump.
Liberals are not afflicted with self-hate. They are afflicted with hatred of others. And they are, unfortunately, very comfortable with their own hatred.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
December 8, 2005
To the excessively fearful, the chief characteristic of power is its arbitrariness.Rush Limbaugh says repeatedly that liberals can never understand conservatives. I won’t argue with that. However, conservatives aren’t having much better fortune understanding liberals.
--Eric Hoffer
The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety.
--H. L. Mencken
There’s nothing that has the power to immunize against thought so much as ideology -- and if you’re an ideologue, evidence doesn’t matter, facts don’t matter. You’re an ideologue, which means that you have a priori beliefs which cannot be dislodged by any evidence or any experience.
-- Bill Bennett
Rudeness is the weak man’s imitation of strength.
-- Eric Hoffer
Hatred is the coward’s revenge for being intimidated.
--George Bernard Shaw
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
-- Isaac Asimov
By “liberals”, I really mean “radicals”, and I think that Limbaugh and other conservative talk-meisters have the same idea in mind. A true liberal does not seek radical change. People who seek radical change are radicals, not liberals. Liberals seek to amend the status quo. Radicals seek to overturn the status quo. In that regard, those seeking to establish massive Federal welfare programs in the 1930’s would be considered radical for their time, and those seeking to overturn those same massive Federal welfare programs today would also be considered radical today. For the sake of consistency with my conservative audience, I will use the word “liberals” instead of “radicals”, but I really mean “radicals”.
Conservative talk-meisters correctly identify hate as a primary motivation for liberals. They suppose that there must be some target for this hate. That’s how conservatives think. If someone offends you egregiously enough, it’s permissible to hate him. If there is no offense, then hate is not permissible or appropriate. Conservatives don’t believe that they have given offense sufficient to warrant the hate that liberals display. What could liberals possibly be so upset about?
In a word, “helplessness”.
Liberals consistently demonstrate that they feel overwhelmed by a sense of their own helplessness. They feel intimidated, even threatened by the normal events of life. They dread weakness in themselves and loath weakness in others. They mercilessly torment and bully those weaker than themselves. Other symptoms include anger, rage, depression, alcohol and drug use, hypersensitivity to criticism, pathological jealousy, a tendency to exaggerate facts, a tendency to fabricate facts, dramatizing ordinary events, over-dramatizing stressful events, blaming, complaining, guilt-giving, accusing, grudge holding, obsession with revenge, manipulating, intimidating, and lying.
The lying is perhaps their most confounding behavior. They will lie to you when they know that they are lying. They will lie to you when you know that they are lying. But, what is most astounding about these people is that they will lie to you when they know that you know that they are lying. They will lie to you about things that you know you have never done, as though they actually expect you to agree with them.
People who observe this behavior, people who are averse to lying because they are afraid of being accused of lying, don’t understand why people behave this way. There are two main reasons: 1) The lying helps the liar cope with the nagging sense of helplessness, and 2) they don’t think there will be any negative consequences for telling lies. Lying makes them feel empowered.
A general disdain for the truth and an unfounded faith in fantasy are consistent characteristics of liberals. They despise things that are and dream of things that can never be. David Horowitz calls a belief in utopianism the central failing of the left (meaning leftist radicals), that the world we live in must be deconstructed and a new, utopian order built in its place.
Utopia is a place of unassailable safety. People who feel helpless want to feel safe.
People who feel helpless despise people who do not feel helpless. Liberals feel helpless. Conservatives feel challenged. The only good end for liberals is to retreat into a place of safety, far away from problems. The only good end for conservatives is to resolve the problems so that they can feel safe wherever they go.
Liberals feel rage at conservatives because conservatives continue to confront the challenges that face them instead of seeking safety and comfort. Conservatives seek final resolution and in so doing make a lot of trouble. Liberals seek to avoid trouble. Avoiding trouble is more important to liberals than securing victory.
Liberals possess an unrealistic anxiety about the power of the people who threaten them. They fear winning because they fear their opponent’s revenge. Appeasement seems safer than victory to liberals.
Conservatives can’t understand this anxiety. They therefore can’t understand the rage that ensues. Conservatives can’t connect the rage that liberals feel with anything rational, and with good reason. There’s nothing rational about it. Conservatives conclude that liberals are afflicted with self-hate.
Conservatives recognize the hate, but they incorrectly conclude that liberals hate themselves. On the contrary, they tend to think much too highly of themselves. Thinking themselves much more capable than they really are helps liberals cope with their sense of helplessness. Feeling omnipotent helps ward off feelings of helplessness.
Rage gives liberals the sense of courage they otherwise lack. They direct their rage toward those they blame for causing their problems, the problems that they themselves are helpless to resolve. Lying about how terrible conservatives are serves to feed the rage. The lies have value for the emotional effects they provoke, not for revealing any substantial truth. The truth is finite; lies are infinite. Liberals could tell any lies at all, but the lies they tell about their targets have in common the intent to provoke rage against their target.
To be fair, many conservatives foment rage against liberals in much the same manner as liberals foment rage against conservatives for much the same reasons. Such people feel intimidated by their opponents, and look for any opportunity for revenge.
Confident, capable, accomplished people cause liberals considerable anxiety. People who can actually do what they say they can do antagonize liberals’ sense of helplessness, and tend to provoke extreme jealousy. Jealousy is most commonly expressed by denigrating and humiliating the target. Jealousy is not always a sense of coveting what others have accomplished. In many cases, jealousy is a feeling of having been bested or humiliated.
Rather than face the fact that they have lost, liberals tend to redefine the situation so that defeat is actually victory in some manner. Winners are redefined as oppressors, losers are redefined as victims, and victims deserve “justice”, usually meaning “revenge”.
Liberals feel easily intimidated. They feel like paper tigers, full are rage, but otherwise empty and ineffectual. When they are in a state of rage, they feel empowered, but if they are directly confronted, they crumble.
Liberals don’t suffer from self-hate. The hate that they feel is not directed inward. It is directed outward. This is called “externalizing” your feelings. People who externalize their feelings have difficulty taking responsibility for their feelings. They cannot admit that they feel angry. Their anger is always the fault of some external source. In their minds, liberals are not angry; they are innocent victims of unjust assaults. Something always makes them angry. In their minds, their anger is the unavoidable result of unjust misbehavior by malicious others.
The final determination of the legitimacy of any other person is the anger that liberals feel. If they feel angry, then the perceived external source of their anger is irrefutably and irrevocably at fault.
The sense of helplessness and intimidation, the overwhelming desire to avoid the necessary challenges of life, and the tendency to mete out condemnation solely on the basis of anger give liberals an infantile quality. Reason and facts do nothing to quell the anxieties of these fearful people, and if anything, tend to inflame their insecurities.
There is no happy ending. It is impossible to dissuade fearful people of their fearfulness. Give them a warm blanket and assure them that you won’t bother them as long as they don’t bother you. Sympathy, encouragement, criticism, advice, anger, or exasperation will only drive them farther into feelings of helplessness and provoke more passionate expressions of hostility. The harder you try to help them, the harder they will fight you. If you are so foolish as to extend the hand of friendship, expect to pull back a bloody stump.
Liberals are not afflicted with self-hate. They are afflicted with hatred of others. And they are, unfortunately, very comfortable with their own hatred.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Hurried Writings 3
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
December 6, 2005
Not much time for posting these days. Between working for a living and having very little useable subject matter to work with, I haven’t found a reason to repeat what others have already said so well. Here are a few things that don’t warrant full blown posts.
The obsolescence of Islam
Islam reached its zenith the in modern times with the Turkish conquests. Since the Turks smashed themselves against the gates of Vienna in 1683, Islam as a political and military force has been on the decline.
Islam does not permit self-examination, and is therefore incapable of admitting to weaknesses. Failing to recognize weakness, Islam is incapable of strengthening itself. Islam tends to be rigid and doctrinaire, preferring to answer new challenges with old dogma.
The radical elements of Islam are attempting to rouse their religion from its sloth through hatred and violence, using money collected by doing business with the very infidels they have declared they will exterminate.
While some pundits foresee the Islamification of Europe within the next 50 years, I see the dilution of Islam by the Western consumerism even sooner. Calls for democratic elections in countries like Egypt and Syria make is certain that Moslems will keep Islam as a comforting relic, but reject it as a system of government.
Killing women and children
Critics of America’s war in Iraq complain bitterly about American troops killing women and children. Yet, these same critics never utter a peep about the tens of thousands of women and children American troops have saved from the fallen regime of Saddam Hussein, and from the so called insurgents how rape and murder civilians at will in the areas the Americans don’t yet control.
Don’t try to reason with them
The modern Democratic Party is a reflection of modern American culture. American children beginning in the 1950’s were taught to be consumers of entertainment, and therefore to be nothing more than passive spectators.
This learned passivity has resulted in a mentality of reflexive, reactive opposition rather than overt assertiveness. The expression of this reflexive, reactive opposition is mostly in the form of callousness and rudeness. Eric Hoffer said that rudeness is the weak man’s notion of courage.
The meanness that Americans take for entertainment is little more than an expression of personal impotence. People who actually stand up for themselves are considered to be overbearing and oppressive. People who verbally snipe from a safe distance are considered to be courageous. From what I have seen, what Americans consider to be acts of courage are little more than frantic expressions of impotent anger.
The left wing of the Democratic Party is the domain of impotent people. Impotent people are attracted to the Democratic Party by the promise of being cared for by big government.
You can’t reason with them because they hate you. They don’t hate you because you are strong; they hate you because they are weak. You can’t use the truth to counter their lies because the truth reminds them of their impotence. They hate the truth. You can’t sympathize with them because your sympathy reminds them of their impotence. They hate your sympathy. Your faith in God also reminds them of their impotence. They hate God.
They are spoilers. Their ability to upset you emotionally, to thwart your happiness, to ruin your dreams is all they have that makes them feel in any way powerful, so they use emotional provocation as their main tool. If you are not provoked, then they are impotent once again.
Don’t try to reason with them. Set limits where you must, and come to terms with the fact that they will never allow you to be their friend.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Opinion © 2005, by Guy L. Evans
December 6, 2005
Not much time for posting these days. Between working for a living and having very little useable subject matter to work with, I haven’t found a reason to repeat what others have already said so well. Here are a few things that don’t warrant full blown posts.
The obsolescence of Islam
Islam reached its zenith the in modern times with the Turkish conquests. Since the Turks smashed themselves against the gates of Vienna in 1683, Islam as a political and military force has been on the decline.
Islam does not permit self-examination, and is therefore incapable of admitting to weaknesses. Failing to recognize weakness, Islam is incapable of strengthening itself. Islam tends to be rigid and doctrinaire, preferring to answer new challenges with old dogma.
The radical elements of Islam are attempting to rouse their religion from its sloth through hatred and violence, using money collected by doing business with the very infidels they have declared they will exterminate.
While some pundits foresee the Islamification of Europe within the next 50 years, I see the dilution of Islam by the Western consumerism even sooner. Calls for democratic elections in countries like Egypt and Syria make is certain that Moslems will keep Islam as a comforting relic, but reject it as a system of government.
Killing women and children
Critics of America’s war in Iraq complain bitterly about American troops killing women and children. Yet, these same critics never utter a peep about the tens of thousands of women and children American troops have saved from the fallen regime of Saddam Hussein, and from the so called insurgents how rape and murder civilians at will in the areas the Americans don’t yet control.
Don’t try to reason with them
The modern Democratic Party is a reflection of modern American culture. American children beginning in the 1950’s were taught to be consumers of entertainment, and therefore to be nothing more than passive spectators.
This learned passivity has resulted in a mentality of reflexive, reactive opposition rather than overt assertiveness. The expression of this reflexive, reactive opposition is mostly in the form of callousness and rudeness. Eric Hoffer said that rudeness is the weak man’s notion of courage.
The meanness that Americans take for entertainment is little more than an expression of personal impotence. People who actually stand up for themselves are considered to be overbearing and oppressive. People who verbally snipe from a safe distance are considered to be courageous. From what I have seen, what Americans consider to be acts of courage are little more than frantic expressions of impotent anger.
The left wing of the Democratic Party is the domain of impotent people. Impotent people are attracted to the Democratic Party by the promise of being cared for by big government.
You can’t reason with them because they hate you. They don’t hate you because you are strong; they hate you because they are weak. You can’t use the truth to counter their lies because the truth reminds them of their impotence. They hate the truth. You can’t sympathize with them because your sympathy reminds them of their impotence. They hate your sympathy. Your faith in God also reminds them of their impotence. They hate God.
They are spoilers. Their ability to upset you emotionally, to thwart your happiness, to ruin your dreams is all they have that makes them feel in any way powerful, so they use emotional provocation as their main tool. If you are not provoked, then they are impotent once again.
Don’t try to reason with them. Set limits where you must, and come to terms with the fact that they will never allow you to be their friend.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
