Liberal Logic: 101

By Danny Carlton

An in-depth analysis of the insanity and irrationality of modern Liberalism, showing its roots, its growth and its proposed future.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Danny Carlton
• Release date: Aug 17, 2020
• ISBN: 9781005872410

Danny Carlton

Danny Carlton graduated from John Brown University with a degree in Broadcasting, but has a varied career eventually settling into freelance web programming. During down times he likes to write and has now completed two novels a self-help non-fiction and a political non-fiction book. A third novel is in development. He lives in Catoosa, Oklahoma with his children, in a 20-year-old Victorian house he is remodeling.

Book preview

DANNY CARLTON

Liberal Logic: 101

Helping those of us with brains understand how Liberal Logic works.

Copyright © 2020 Danny Carlton

All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except as permitted by U.S. copyright law. For permissions contact:

Danny Carlton

1053 Ridge Lane

Catoosa, Oklahoma 74015

Cover by Danny Carlton.

Cover Artwork by Andy Mullins.

Ebook ISBN: 978-1-00587-241-0

Smashwords Edition, License Notes

This ebook is licensed for your personal use only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you're reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.

Dedicated to the memory of two great Conservative thinkers, lost in 2020: Herman Cain and Mike Adams.

Table of Contents

Preface

Understanding Some Basic Concepts • Types of Liberals • The Ruse • The Core of Modern Liberalism

Chapter One: Liberalism Defined

Classic Liberalism • Modern Liberalism • The Birth of Modern Liberalism • Enter William Jennings Bryan • The Infamous Colonel House • The Distinctions Between Modern Liberalism and Modern Conservatism • The Social Conservatives • Enter Jerry Falwell • The 1988 Election and Pat Robertson • The Christian Coalition is Born • The Core Philosophical Differences Between Democrats and Republicans

Chapter Two: Government

The Chess Strategy • The Real Purpose of Government • …Not Reason… • …Not Eloquence… • …Force… • …Fire… • …Fearful Master…

Chapter Three: Economics

The Chess Strategy • Basic Macro-Economics • Socialism vs Capitalism • Enter Adam Smith • Enter Alfred Marshall • Enter John Maynard Keynes • The Economics of Collectivism • The Economics of Individualism

Chapter Four: The Media

The Chess Strategy • Hollywood • Television • News • Social Media • Hate Speech

Chapter Five: Religion/Philosophy

The Chess Strategy • What is Religion? • The First Amendment • The Fear of Theocracy • The Religious Freedom Restoration Act • Collectivists, Religion and Hypocrisy • The Persecution of Christians in America • Christianity vs Islam • Morality • Education • Evolution

Chapter Six: Guns and the Second Amendment

The Chess Strategy • History • Philosophy • Hypocrisy • Assault Rifles • Hand Guns

Chapter Seven: Racism

The Chess Strategy • The KKK and Scaremongering • Definitions • Lowered Expectations • Anti-Semitism • Illegal Immigration / Refugees

Chapter Eight: Women & Feminism

The Chess Strategy • The Difference • The Family • Real Women • Feminists & Feminism • Transgenderism

Chapter Nine: Abortion

The Chess Strategy • Cognitive Dissonance • Embracing Atrocities • Euthanasia • The Value of Life

Chapter Ten: Morality

The Chess Strategy • Collectivism as Religion • The Collective And Only The Collective Is Allowed To Define Morality • The Double Standard • Judeo-Christian Morality • Liberal Morality

Chapter Eleven: Homosexuality & Transgenderism

The Chess Strategy • Government & Homosexuality: History • Government & Homosexuality: Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage • Government & Homosexuality: Forcing People to Endorse Homosexuality • Government & Homosexuality: Protecting Homosexuality • Double-Think • Promoting Homosexuality • The Hidden Former Homosexuals • Special Rights

Chapter Twelve: Hypocrisy

Standards • Rules • Laws

Chapter Thirteen: Stupidity

The Raw Worship of Stupidity: The Boogerheads • Presumed Expertise • Presumed Success • Presumed Experience • Presumed Simplicity • Presumed Isolation • Bureaucratic Stupidity • Parallel Blindness • Killing Flies with a Shotgun • Double Think • Tunnel Vision

Chapter Fourteen: Some of My Favorite Quotes

Afterword: Thoughts to Leave You With

About the Author

Note to the reader.

If, after reading this book, you enjoyed it and benefitted from it, please tell others about it and share the link to http://LiberalLogic101.com, so they can buy a copy. This book is not only self-published, but will face backlash from those who won’t want people to read it. Helping to let others know about that means you’ll be a part of spreading crucial information to others to defeat the control of Collectivists.

Thank you,

Danny Carlton

Preface

— Understanding Some Basic Concepts —

Very few people truly understand what politics are actually all about. It works like this. Joe has something Frank wants. Frank is stronger than Joe, so Frank beats Joe up and takes it. Eventually, though, Joe and his friends get tired of Frank’s behavior so they group together and beat Frank up and tell him he can’t take stuff. Franks finds some thugs that will help him for a share of what he takes, so they beat up Joe and his friends and take all their stuff. Joe and his friends recruit more people and they beat up Frank and his group of thugs.

Eventually, they get tired of the game and someone decides that they should establish rules they can all follow, and if anyone disobeys the rules the entire group will beat them up.

Thus is born a government of sorts or a Collective. Each Individual has a small amount of power. By itself, it’s probably not enough to affect or influence more than one or two people if that. But together their power multiplies. With enough people, you can then have a significant amount of power. Of course, that power exists as force, violence or the threat of violence. If the Individuals become emotionally invested in the Collective and the power it represents (to protect them and their families) then the Collective power increases.

To look at it mathematically, the power of any Collective is the number of Individuals times the emotional commitments each Individual has toward the Collective. So while adding Individuals to the Collective, it’s also important to increase The Individuals’ commitment to the Collective. That can be done via promises, gifts or fear.

Another important point regarding the Collective is that the Collective does not feel compassion, only the Individual does. If enough Individuals within a Collective feel compassion then it may influence the Collective’s behavior, but only if enough of them feel it and it’s stronger than any contrasting emotions felt by others in the Collective, (or that the illusion of compassion can’t be diverted toward a goal the Collective Leaders have, which has no real relation to the target of the compassion). As a rule, altruistic emotions are weaker than selfish emotions, therefore the cumulative emotions or passions within the Collective will be selfish and that will be reflected in the overall behavior of the Collective.

Integrity, honor and ethics also exist only within the Individuals, not within the Collective, and therefore can only be manifest in the Collective if it is valued strongly enough by enough members of the Collective. And again those values are typically weaker than selfishness, so the commitment to integrity, honor and ethics must be held by a sizable number of members of the Collective in a significant amount to overcome the natural selfishness that will inevitably manifest itself in a Collective.

That leads us to two types of views toward politics. Those who believe the Collective exists to serve the needs of the Individual (Modern Conservatism) and those who believe the Individual exists to serve the needs of the Collective (Modern Liberalism).

— Types of Liberals —

To explain the different types of Liberals you must understand how the hierarchy of the Collective works, and the best illustration would be a chessboard.

The Pawns. Liberals Pawns are voters. The only influence they have on the Collective is their vote. Their individual ideas, opinions, feelings and values are lost in the morass of population. All that’s needed of them is a vote, so whatever it takes to get that is the extent of concern and involvement Liberal Leaders have for them. After all, to them, the Individual exists to serve the needs of the Collective. If they suffer or die it’s irrelevant unless it affects their vote, and since in each election an estimated 100,000 or more dead people cast ballots (that we know of), their usefulness does not end with their deaths. Since it’s generally very easy to blame their suffering on the Opposition, even their suffering can add to their usefulness and the Leaders have very little motive to stop it. In fact, since their suffering can be used to the advantage of the Leaders, their motivation to make sure it remains and increases is necessary and inevitable.

The Pawns are motivated by whatever the current rhetoric or agenda may be. And this agenda can change in a moment. In the 80s the rhetoric on the 2nd Amendment was that handguns are dangerous and should be banned. The Pawns regurgitated the rhetoric and complained loudly about the need to ban handguns and voted for Democrat politicians who promised to end the deadly plague of handguns. Almost overnight, the Liberal Leaders realized that while their own Pawns were buying the rhetoric, moderates weren’t and the handgun issue was costing them votes. So they switched from handguns to Assault Rifles, an invented term used to evoke emotional imagery and fear. The deadly plague of handguns vanished much like Acid Rain did, about the same time (Acid Rain was also an invented term that Liberal Leaders realized wasn’t procuring enough votes). So now the Pawns fret over the imagined dangers of Assault Rifles and have completely forgotten handguns.

Pawns to the Liberal Leadership are merely tools to be molded and shaped and used for the benefit of the Collective, which they, the Liberal Leaders, want to rule.

The Rooks. In chess, the rook is represented by a piece that looks like a part of or a whole castle. It represents the physical infrastructure of ancient kingdoms. In politics, it represents the rank and file party and political workers. The precinct captains, the phone bank workers, the people who put up signs for candidates, the people involved in elections and campaigns from dog catcher to President. This would apply to both parties. As far as I can see the treatment of The Rooks by both parties is about the same. They are an important part of maintaining, as well as gaining, political power.

However, Liberal Rooks buy into the same rhetoric that Pawns do but also see a bit more of the dishonesty behind the process, but excuse it as a necessary step in achieving good, which they fail to notice is also a vacillating concept, changing with the mood of the Liberal Leadership.

The Bishops. In chess, the Bishop represents the power of the church in an ancient kingdom. In modern times both parties utilize thought-leaders and influencers. The main difference, other than the Democrat party using them much, much more than the Republican party is that Liberal thought-leaders’ focus is on what to think and believe, while Conservative thought-leaders focus more on why you should think or believe something.

Yes, church leaders can be Bishops in the political sense, but so are TV news anchors. Political Bishops can be TV actors, movie stars, Hollywood writers, directors and producers. Journalists, bloggers, op-ed writers and social network CEOs are also Political Bishops. And yes, people who write political books would also be Political Bishops in the chess game of politics.

The Liberal Bishops tend to be more jaded about the ultimate goal of Liberalism. They see more in-depth the nastiness behind the scenes as well as the lies and subterfuge they are asked to spread. Their commitment to Liberalism is more pragmatic than idealistic. They see their function as necessary, therefore securing a place in the hierarchy. They understand that the Pawns will ultimately get the raw end of the stick, but believe that they, the Bishops, will be part of the winning end.

The Knights. The Knights would be the lower-level politicians as well as government bureaucrats and functionaries. Governors, Senators, members of Congress, State Department employees as well as FBI agents are all Political Knights who can use their position to bolster whatever agenda the Liberal Collective wants pushed at the time. Using a non-political position to push a political agenda requires a massive lack of integrity so we see it being done almost exclusively by Liberals (we’ll explain Liberal Morality in a later chapter). Conservatives, as a rule, have too much integrity to pervert a non-political position that way, but there can be some rare exceptions.

The Knights also understand the inherent flaw in the idealistic portrayal of Collectivism and understand that Collectivism only really works for those within the upper part of the organizational structure. Thus their devotion is not really to the Collective (as in all people) but to maintaining that fiction so they can continue to enjoy the privileges of being part of the Ruling Class.

The Queens. In chess, the Queen is the most powerful piece. In politics, the Queens would be the very top level of government that currently is held by Liberals. These are the people who set the agenda and have their daily marching orders passed down the line. Ironically, as I write this, the #1 Queen is indeed a woman, Nancy Pelosi. But Political Queens don’t necessarily have to be a politician. Billionaires who use their power to influence the political agenda are also Queens. When the President is a Democrat, then he or she will also be a Queen.

The Queens fully understand that Collectivism is a ruse to convince the masses to surrender their rights, privileges, freedom and security for the benefit of the Ruling Class. Since they are solidly part of that Ruling Class, their motives are very strong in maintaining the illusion.

The Kings. You’re probably wondering how the President could be a Queen in this game and not a King. In chess, the King has very little power. Its moves are limited, however, it’s very vulnerable, since losing the King means you lose the game. Have you ever wondered why so much time and effort is spent by the Democrat party protecting the reputation of their former leaders? If the misdeeds and even crimes of their former leaders became known (to the point of criminal charges being brought) it would be devastating to the illusion the leadership creates to convince their underling of the importance of their party. That’s why Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Harry Reid and all the other, former DNC leaders remain protected and treated like royalty. Losing even one of them to an actual scandal that the Liberal Press wouldn’t be able to ignore could possibly collapse the entire house of cards. In the chess game of politics, they are the Kings.

The Kings have been fully aware of the ruse of Collectivism and now enjoy their status as protected emeritus members of the Ruling Class.

The Player. We often forget that the most crucial element of a chess game isn’t any of the pieces, but the player, the one moving the pieces. The Player devises the strategy and decides which pieces should be moved where and when. The Player decides which piece can be sacrificed and which can be used to attack the opponent. The game is about what the Player wants and the win is his (or hers).

In politics, the Players are people we rarely hear about, and there’s a good reason for that. The Player sees mankind as a gold mine of resources there for the taking for anyone with the intelligence, creativity and drive to take it.

Imagine you discovered gold in a field, but the field was being used to grow corn or feed cattle. If you dug a little here or there you could take the gold and claim it as your own. You could tell yourself that since the owner of the field doesn’t know the gold is there and probably never would, it’s not like he’s really losing anything, right?

The Elite see people going about their normal everyday lives producing, creating, doing, being human--and they see nuggets of gold. The resources of the Collective are the gold mine of the Elite and have been since the beginning of time. It’s their right to claim it, they tell themselves. The people certainly don’t understand the Collective power just lying about, unspent, unused, going to waste.

— The Ruse —

Liberal Leaders, the Ruling Class of the Collective, want you to believe and fully trust two ideas. They have these ideas preached constantly and drilled it into the heads of the Pawns, Rooks and Bishops until they become a mantra that controls all of their actions.

Rule #1. There are rich powerful people that want to control every aspect of your life, even if it harms you.

They want their Pawns to be very frightened of the evils of any politician that isn’t part of the Collective Ruling Class. These Evil Power Brokers, they claim, want to enslave everyone and use them for their own benefit, regardless how much the people suffer or how much the world suffers. You see it on TV shows and movies were the bad guy is an Evil Corporation, or an Evil CEO and an Evil Capitalist, worshipping greed and indulgence. They are to be feared and never trusted.

Rule #2. There are no rich powerful people trying to control every aspect of your life, even if it harms you.

In case any of the Pawns actually starts to think that the motives and plans of the Evil Capitalists might also be motives for Collectivist Leaders, the Elite want their Pawns to know that it’s ludicrous to believe there are rich and powerful people trying to control them. Even thinking such an idea is foolish. They mock conspiracy theories and ridicule anyone that suggests such an idea. The Bishops follow suit and scoff at the idea that any group of people would try to plan to control the masses for their own profit and pleasures.

And furthermore, they’ll scold their Pawns; don’t assume rules #1 and #2 are in any way contradictory. If the Ruling Class say they agree then who are you to question it.

— The Core of Modern Liberalism —

And there we have the very foundation of Modern Liberalism. What George Orwell called Doublethink: Holding two mutually exclusive ideas, while insisting that they agree.

For example, Liberals will politicize absolutely everything, but then claim it has nothing to do with politics, but if you dare disagree with them, they’ll accusing you of dragging politics into it.

As long as Liberal Leaders can keep their Pawns devoted but stupid, then they will remain easy to manipulate and mold. Eradicating logic, reason and common sense is the first step in that goal.

Chapter One

Liberalism Defined

— Classic Liberalism —

While Modern Liberals have co-opted the term Liberalism for their political ideology, it has very little to do with what Liberalism used to be or mean.

Our story of Frank and Joe and the violence that led to them and their cohorts establishing government is a story as old as time itself. But through history, the Collective was seen as the property of whichever person found himself (and on rare occasions, herself) in control. Whether King, Pharaoh, Czar, Emperor or whatever the Ruler wanted his subjects to call him, it was considered an absolute that the Ruler more or less owned his subjects. Those who served directly under the top Ruler, his generals, military and regional Rulers all benefitted from this belief. It was a belief that the subjects existed to serve the Ruler, and the Ruler, hopefully, would then take care of his subjects. This was a Collective. It was a group of people, bound together by force or coercion to the group, who were expected, no, demanded to put their individual needs aside for the good of the group as dictated by whoever was in charge of