I recently posted a blog in response to a piece in Rolling Stone Magazine by Jesse Myerson who feels that now is the time for his cohort of millennials to fully embrace and agitate for full-scale socialism.  I saw modest traffic on the post, few replies on the blog. I did however get several responses directly via email.  In each one of them, I was informed of how my opinion displays my hatred for this class or that group.  One went as far as to say that I hated blacks because I just couldn’t stand the thought of “little black children being educated”.

New definition: debate tactic used when one runs out of substantive arguments.

New definition: debate tactic used when one runs out of substantive arguments.

Huh? I re-read the piece several times and wondered what blog this friggin’ asshat might have been reading.  I never mentioned race, let alone little black children.  Ahh, such is the risk of showing any type of conservative tendencies.  The left never misses an opportunity to show us how and whom we hate, even if the target of our supposed vitriol is never mentioned, explicitly, implicitly or otherwise.  Rule 13 applies here: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”  I deleted the email without response.  I don’t feed trolls.  I refuse to be intimidated by stupidity and projection masquerading as honest debate.  In fact, I often see little intellectual honesty in a lot of the debate from the left. A lot of emotion, a lot of passion, a lot of vitriol, but very little honesty.  The sad part is, most of them don’t even know it.  Like Pavlov’s well-trained shepherds, they have been conditioned to regurgitate activist talking points at the mere mention or even slight whiff of anything that disrupts their narrative of victimization and inequality.  Facts be dammed.  One must be outraged to speak truth to power.  Or something to that effect.

I noticed this during a back and forth exchange with a long time friend who views abortion through a different lens than I.  Of course, it meandered down the path of me wanting to control a woman’s body to ultimately me hating women, which would be slightly amusing if the three most important people on the planet weren’t the three women in my life.  I had to break the news to my daughters; daddy hates you; I know this because a liberal told me so.  Repeatedly.  With great passion and persuasiveness.  And with a few veiled threats.

I may have inadvertently pissed my friend off by employing her own rule #4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”  She got heated enough to tell me that if I didn’t want an abortion then I shouldn’t have one.  Ouch.  Rapier wit, I was bleeding profusely.  I had to acquiesce.  I agreed.  I wouldn’t have one.  I wouldn’t buy one.  I refuse to be forced to pay for one.  See rule #4.  At which point she instructed me that I could either pay for abortions or pay for the unwanted children of women who couldn’t afford them.  Otherwise I hate women and I’m trying to restrict their reproductive choices.  Neat trick that.  If I don’t want one, I still have to pay for them.  Try that argument with someone who is anti-gun sometime.  Don’t want one?  Don’t buy one.  Of course when I employed that line, I got the response that guns kill innocent people everyday.  Yup, said with a straight face.  Almost 55 million children have been aborted since Roe was passed and not one of them was an innocent victim.

Of course, I tread at my own risk here; Abortion is the ultimate sacrament in the religion of liberalism.  One wonders if the numbers will ever mean anything to the left.  Or the victim groups they woo to keep them in power.  Margaret Sanger should have been wearing a white hood given the recent success of her eugenics program, supported whole-heartedly by the likes of Jesse and Al.  Recent numbers show that more black children are being aborted than birthed in New York City.  Of course pointing that out means I hate black women especially.  Unless I can find a way to blame Bush.

My stance against the president’s profligate spending means I hate black people.  Of course I hated him all along because he was black.  Or so I’ve been told.  Can’t be that I found his socialist leanings a bit disturbing.   Actually, I only hate one half of him because he’s half white.  Yup, I’m fine with his other half.  Although both halves are driving this country into the ground, morally and financially.  But hey, at least I got half a pass anyway.

Interesting that liberals are always so ready to tell me who I hate at the same time they call me a Neanderthal, a knuckle-dragger, a bitter-clinger and a tea-bagger.  That last one I had to Google and it seems to me that there’s probably a liberal demographic that more closely identifies with that phrase than I.   Does that mean liberals hate them?  No sure.  I don’t know who hates whom; I don’t have the ability to see into everyone’s soul the way a liberal does.

Oh by the way, John Kerry doesn’t have the time to have a meeting with folks like me who don’t believe the “science is settled” on global warming.   I’m a flat-earther you see, and he doesn’t have the time or the inclination to debate the over abundance of global warming piled up on my roof or frozen in great heaps in my driveway.  John doesn’t hate me though.

If I didn’t hate the brown folks coming across the border so much, I wouldn’t want current immigration laws enforced the way I do.  If I didn’t have so much hate in my heart, I could understand how someone breaking the first US law they encounter coming to this country couldn’t possibly be called a criminal.  I could be a Supreme Court justice if I could just get over my penchant for supporting and enforcing immigration laws, or for calling someone who breaks the law a criminal.  Merriam-Webster and I have too much hate in our hearts; how else does one explain their definition of a criminal as someone who breaks a law?  Those heartless bastards….

I have always remarked on how the welfare state is destroying generations of families, leaving many far more hopeless than before.  Thank goodness I have liberal friends who taught me that welfare reform is a buzzword for racism.  The lesson was hard though; I just couldn’t shake those nagging questions and contradictions.  If it’s true, as my liberal friends tell me, that reducing welfare impacts people of color more severely, than I must conclude that more black people are on welfare.  Asking for clarity on that point earned me another rap across my racist knuckles.  If there are not more blacks on welfare, why does welfare reform impact blacks far greater than whites?  Ouch, again on the knuckles.  If I didn’t hate black people so much, I’d get it.

It appears that I’ll never get it.  I’m doomed by the disease of conservatism that ravages my mind, causing me hallucinations where people are free and responsible for their own choices, to rise or fall by their own merits and get to keep what they earn with their sweat and labor.  Maybe one day I can be saved; I can learn the liberal definitions and values.  Maybe like a liberal, I can define compromise based on what I can force you to give up without anything in return; I can define tolerance by how much you’re willing to accept my position while I insist you discard your own principles.

And maybe one day, I’ll be able to look at other humans in this country and using my liberal Jedi-mind tricks, without knowing anything about them, tell them just whom they hate.

Advertisements