Liberals Argue to HIDE Damaging Truths
Liberals ONLY argue to hide key evidence that works against them. It is a key rule in Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”:
“Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”
We have ALLOWED liberals to argue with Alinsky’s fault-hiding, hate-labeling tactics, so they employ the tactics even more as we accept this con-man behavior. Con men only tell you how their “game” will benefit you, right? Then, when you ask them about the trick you have spotted, they steer you away from it. Or, in the political “con-game”, they say you hate some group if you oppose their policy idea.
Playwrite David Mamet best summarized the remedy for this liberal behavior:
“Those who promise to relieve us of the burden through their personal or ideological excellence, those who claim to hold the Magic Beans, are simply confidence men. Their emergence is inevitable, and our individual opposition to and rejection of them, as they emerge, must be blunt and sure”
How to Stop Their Truth-Hiding Tactics – Confront the First Lie
The liberals’ basic tactic is built around these 4 steps. These were cultured from the merging of Alinsky tactics of disruption, and standard “baiting”/”trolling” behaviors refined during the 90s on the first internet blogs.
- The liberal makes a false, outlandish, or insulting claim. Often it is directed at a group, of which the conservative is a part, so you are an implied insult target. In their minds they imagine this is not really an insult since it was generally directed with a group label.
- If the opposition argues with the liberal, the liberal will gladly engage as if they believed their first comment was true. They continue to use the #1 step each time the conversation moves toward “best practices” discourse, and away from their “solutions” – which typically have never worked to fix anything. (Don’t bother asking them if their solution worked – they know their ideas “work”, because they have redefined what “works” means: All liberal solutions “work” simply because they were imagined to work. Failure cannot exist when intentions are good, they use the logic of the pigs in “Animal Farm”.)
- If the opposition exposes the liberal made a false or knowing outlandish claim, they begin deceiver behavior, like direct insults, indignant they’ve been questioned, topic changing….there are 11 tactics Columbo looked for when someone was hiding truth: Eleven Tactics of Deception . The liberal will insist the opponent exposing the false claim owns the anger and insults they “don’t normally have”.
- Wash, Rinse. Repeat.
Use step 3 to stop a liberal from lying, it works every time I’ve tried it so far. Simply find the first thing they say that you know is false, and say “<Insert lie here> can’t possibly be true, you are trying to argue with a false claim, please remove it or explain it.” Every liberal I’ve tried it on begins deceiver behaviors immediately.
Conservatives relent and become apologetic when they’re told they appear deceptive. They attempt to explain, as honest people would.
How I Finally Confirmed Their Truth-Hiding Tactics – Detailed Exhibit
All I had to do to expose a liberal was using disruptive Alinsky debate practices – hiding truth – were the following tactics:
- I confirmed a provable fact the liberal recited to show I recognized his supporting data’s validity, like “Yes, the New York Times said Benghazi was not a cover up.” I asked them, “Do you see I recognized your article?” I got them to affirm my acknowledgement of their claim. Next I asked them to do the same.
- I found a key, well proven fact against his case from a liberal media outlet so he could not claim source bias.
- I gave the liberal the hyperlink and line number of the damaging fact, and then asked him to cut-n-paste the solid fact against his case to show me he was honest about all the facts, not just hiding ugly, highly credible damaging facts and trumpeting agreeable ones. I often ask liberals to post General Ham’s testimony on page 34, where he says no one was told there was a riot going on in Benghazi. None of them would post the damaging fact – they KNEW it proved Obama, Hillary and Rice….and the whole Democrat party….were lying.
The Chairman. I appreciate that, both of those times, so I
can get kind of a handle on that. Okay. The attack started at
9:42. I do not see any mention here about a demonstration,
just simply an attack. Do you know if there was some kind
of demonstration before this attack?
General Ham. I am not aware of one, sir. It became pretty
apparent to me, and I think to most at Africa Command
pretty shortly after this attack began, that this was an attack.( The transcript has since been removed from public viewing at http://armedservices.house.gov )
- When the liberal failed to cite this powerfully expository fact, I relentlessly hammered the liberal’s fact hiding behavior. I asked the liberal:”How can we have a debate if you are simply hiding all the evidence that exposes your claim is false, evidence you are repeating a Presidential lie?” (I tried this on around 10 liberals that were knowledgeable and chatty about Benghazi – but none of them would recite the fact or acknowledge it existed. They KNEW it was powerful.)
Trumpet Socrates, Impugn Alinsky
Have liberals scolded you when you talked about “negatives”? Well, the negatives are what exposes the truth. How so?
Socrates clearly states that focus on conflicts and faults is critical to truthful inquiry into any idea, event, or system. In court rooms, the veracity, integrity and conflict in the evidence is FIRST priority. Evidence in conflict with the accusations is considered paramount to exposing a false charge or claim.
To “honestly” hide a lie, liberals ONLY discuss 1000 truthful things other than the lies they covet to hide the truths they know.
To “honestly” expose the truth, we must ONLY discuss the false and conflicting things that expose their coveted lies.
EVERY policy has positive and negative effects, the liberal is in public debate only to practices Alinsky’s deceptive practices, like ONLY recognizing data that supports their claim.
Socratic Debate Principles Must Be Demanded in Public Discourse, Otherwise We APPROVE Their Tactics
Honest debate requires BOTH parties to acknowledge ALL facts for and against. Socrates mandated decorum. Remind the liberal that truth is evaluated based on CONFLICTS in the claims and facts, not only the consistent, supporting data.
For example we can cite all the rules of Poker to prove it’s a fair game. But, if we don’t talk about the cards up some players’ sleeves, the cheater in a game is going to remain hidden.
“It is a dialectical method, often involving a discussion in which the defense of one point of view is questioned; one participant may lead another to contradict himself in some way, thus strengthening the inquirer’s own point.” – Wikipedia
Remind the liberal that all of western culture is based on Socrates’ techniques which expose fidelity of claims: Court room trials, medical inquiry, engineering failure analysis, college thesis reviews, etc. To expose flaws, the CONTRADICTIONS must be prioritized, not the consistent claims and facts.
Also remind the liberal that FACTS must come BEFORE their opinion in a truthful discussion. Ask them if they can imagine a court room trial where the guilty opinion was rendered before the evidence and conflicts in the evidence were presented? Well, maybe don’t ask them – they won’t answer directly, because they know the answer.
Ben Franklin Documented A Great Solution
Ben Franklin recognized the damaging impact of opinions in debate. So, he banned opinion in his civic meetings:
“…all expressions of positiveness in opinions, or direct contradiction, were after some time made contraband, and prohibited under small pecuniary penalties.”
When I implemented these contraband rules on my Facebook wall, decorum skyrocketed. Participation from truth seeking readers increased. Compliments for quality of information and honesty become frequent.