On Sale Now atPart 1: How to debate a Commie
“Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy,” Mao Tse Tung.
Well personally, I wouldn't recommend it. There's basically no way you can win. You can't convince a commie that he's wrong. The basic commie thinks that they are superior intellectually to anyone who doesn't agree with their ideology. Therefore they see no reason for an honest intellectual debate. The debate will actually turn into a lecture about how stupid you are. There are two reasons for this:
One, the commie knows that he's full of it, however embraces it anyway. He knows that he can hoodwink enough people into conceding their liberty and thereby giving him political power. This is done under the guise of providing security and/or free stuff. This tactic is often reserved for the higher echelons of the communist party. Consider Chairman Mao for example, on the surface babbled platitudes about equality and opportunity but his real purpose was to crush his enemies and obtain absolute power.
Two, some people actually believe this stuff. This is usually reserved for the younger crowd, or for those really naive waifs of suburban largesse. They have little life experience and eagerly devour idealistic canards concerning the workingman and classless societies. It would be easier to convince the Pope that he isn't Catholic than to convert a commie from their religion of Marxism.
So keep in mind, you can't win the debate. But if you act appropriately, and make your comments calmly, you may convince them that you are one of the few "good ones" out there (i.e. "free marketeers") as I've sometimes been told.
Part 2: The Sacred Tenets of the American Commie
"The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property," Karl Marx.
"Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff." Frank Zappa. (Who also had such pearls of wisdom as: "Don't eat the yellow snow."
1. The most important character trait a commie can have is obedience to the party. Party loyalty trumps all other virtues such as honesty, charity, humility,responsibility, unity and competency.
2. The rights of any constructed or invented "group" are more important than any individual's rights.
3. Greed, power, and oppression are vices solely possessed by capitalists. It is impossible for the poor, government employees, or union leaders to posses these traits.
4. There exists an unlimited amount of wealth (somewhere) that can be taxed, collected, and distributed.
5. The root cause of all worldly ills stems from the genetic malady known as the white male. This genetic defect causes them to exploit and oppress the rest of humanity, plus all known and unknown species of the plant and animal kingdom. They also have an inborn penchant for poisoning all air, water, and arable soil that the earth possesses. Exceptions, (as Mark Steyn calls it) "self neutering eunuchs" loyal to the cause, media celebrities, and college professors. All others who have succumbed to the dogma of the public education system and tout the party line are also excused for the time being.
"A revolution is impossible without a revolutionary situation; furthermore, not every revolutionary situation leads to revolution." Lenin.
"There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel," Lenin.
You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before," Rahm Emanuel.
Part 3: Why you can never win a debate with a commie using logic
Opposition to these tenets are not based on logic, actual historical references, or deductive reasoning. If you don't agree with these premises, you must be either/or:
(1) Filled with hate, fueled by racism, misogynistic, homophobic, usurious etc, you know the list.
(2) Mislead by church leaders, talk radio show hosts, Neo Nazi's, et al.
(3) Just really too stupid to understand the true genius of their lofty positions.
Part 4: An example of how you win but actually lose
"A lie told often enough becomes the truth," Lenin. "The bigger the lie the more people will believe it," A. Hitler and J Goebbels.
Using the above rules, anything someone someone says can make perfect sense. For example, when some one states that the best way to stimulate the economy is though food stamps and unemployment insurance:
“It is the biggest bang for the buck when you do food stamps and unemployment insurance. The biggest bang for the buck,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
You may wish to respond with a logical conclusion, by saying something like, "Well, why doesn't everybody quit working, go on unemployment insurance and collect food stamps. According to your analysis, wouldn't that send the economy into orbit?"
This should be a knock out punch, right? But no. In pointing out the absurdity of the statement by taking it to a logical conclusion, you will be branded as racist and insensitive to the plight of the poor. The plight of the economy has now been linked to insensitivity and racism and you have lost the debate. How? By not wanting to squander limited government resources you have just proved that you are a racist and uncaring capitalist. You may want to argue, "Even if I am insensitive and racist, what does that have to do with the economy?" Forget it. The only way to win a debate with a commie is to prove you are not a capitalist, and that's not going to happen.
Part 5: The other Deception, "Experts have shown....
"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bulls**t," W.C. Fields
A definite tip off that a preposterous statement is about to be said is when the phrase, "Experts have shown..." or "Scientific studies have proved..." is used to introduce it. These intros are meant to intimidate and make you look stupid for disagreeing with them. Often the references will be made to Harvard or another Ivy League school, which we all know have the smartest people. For example, "A study by top economists at MIT clearly agree with me that the best way to stimulate the economy is to drop money out of helicopters over poor neighborhoods. It's shown that for each $1,000,000 of cash dropped creates 10 new jobs." OK, even though the statement is ridiculous, all they have to due is emphasize that it is an "MIT study" and that automatically makes it great. Besides, who are you, who probably took wood shop in high school, to challenge their wisdom? You may try to refute it with actual experience outside of academia, but don't waste your breath. The Mighty Oz has spoken and there's not much you can do about it.
Part 6: The economic debate should be easily won but ..
"The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation," Lenin
Economic factors should be an easy debate topic to win, just look at the areas that are more capitalistic compared to communistic. Oh sure there are some small European countries such as Sweden that have high standards of living. Nothing against the Swedes, but face it, these countries are not very ethno-diverse and have a population close to New York City. In trying to explain the merits of capitalism by explaining how low taxes and little government regulation encourages the industrialism for all will likely earn you retorts of "you've drunk the kool-aid", "capitalism was formed by slave owners", and "big oil wants to ruin the planet". So once again, the argument shifts from the facts to slander. i.e. If you believe that "free market" is capitalism the best way to reduce poverty you are an oppressive slave owner exploiting mother earth and the poor, blah, blah, blah.
Part 7: The Second Amendment
“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun," Chairman Mao. "One man with a gun can control 100 without one," Lenin “Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas,” Papa Joe Stalin. “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” and old mobster line, but apparently our 44th president thought it was pretty cool too.
I must admit, I was getting soft on the right to bear arms, but then I started thinking, why would a government care if it's law abiding citizens owned firearms? Of course the logical argument is that these guns get into the hand of criminals and mentally unstable individuals, which does make sense. However, the nation has seen so many other issues, such as prohibition, the current drug trade, and speeding on the highways, to know that simply outlawing the behavior does not eliminate it. The politicians obviously know this so what is their ultimate purpose? If you look at the above comments, I was surprised to see that all top communists had statements about gun control. Obviously preventing the citizen from fighting back must be high on each one's list.
Part 8: The University, Putting the "U" in Gulag
“Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.” "Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted," Lenin.
Odds are if you're in your twenties and were educated in the public school system of the United States, especially if you attended an Ivy League or state run university, you're probably a Commie and don't even know it. Many of our fine public schools for education have been replaced and our now merely communist indoctrination centers. (I ought to know, I was a teacher until I was exiled to the Gulag.) I am amazed at the extent to which the individual is taken out of education today. Very few students have their own desks anymore, everybody sits around tables and most "work" is done in groups. Learning is now focused around group projects rather than individual achievement. Of course, the answer is that businesses need people that can work in teams and groups, and that if we are to survive as a community we have to learn to work as a together. Sure, we want people to work together, but here they are misdirecting the argument again. Basically what they are teaching is the answer to any problem is through a group or committee format. This in turn leads to the development of endless bureaus and teams that meet, discuss, and do nothing except plan to meet again at a later date. It also perpetuates the illusion that talking about a problem invariably leads to the solving of a problem. In this way very little gets learned as reflected by our national test scores. The solution is often hiring more teachers, but if the teaching methods are ineffective, this will only perpetuate the problem. Most administrators seems to endorse the continuation of a dogma that purports endless meetings and continued spending as the solution to any problem. The group format also may encourage not very smart, basically lazy, or otherwise unmotivated individuals to thrive off the fruits of the smarter or more industrious members. The truly industrious person becomes disenfranchised and prefers to work alone, not having others drag them down. This only characterizes the industrious members as uncaring, racist, etc.
Part 9: The Family Unit
"Destroy the family, you destroy the country," Lenin
Another topic is that of gay marriage. As a matter of personal opinion, I really don't care if someone is gay, I don't think most people care either. Of course, if you oppose gay marriage you are homophobic. You couldn't be making your decision on higher principles such as trying to protect a tradition that has been pretty much destroyed anyway. Since many oppose gay marriage on a religious basis, that opens up a whole new arena, where if you belong to a church you are responsible for the Crusades and any other atrocity committed in the past two millennia in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. If you do believe in God, you are uneducated, unhip, and glaringly ignorant of modern science which easily disproves any existence of God. So how do you explain that you are simply protecting the family unit from further deterioration without being so callous as "denying the right of anyone to marry anyone they want too?" It's ironic that marriage, originally a religious institution, is now taken over by the state for purpose of tax deductions and social security benefits- thereby replacing the family unit by the state. It is also noteworthy that many of the schools and hospitals were originally started by religious institutions and now have been taken over by the state. Notice how the state likes to gobble up everything?
Part 10: The Freedom of the Press
"He who now talks about the "freedom of the press" goes backward, and halts our headlong course towards Socialism." “Print is the sharpest and the strongest weapon of our party," Lenin.
I'm just thankful that I can write this stuff and publish it. It seems the internet is the last bastion of freedom where anything goes. NPR and PBS are government run, other pseudo media outlets are run by major corporations controlling all content. I've noticed that a majority of the public is assured that government sponsored media is somehow unbiased and pure. In one debate where I questioned the need for the six (yes six!) PBS stations my local cable company carries, my naive counterpart responded with, if it's a commercial station they have to run programming that the sponsor wants. The obvious answer is then, well doesn't PBS have to air programming that their sponsor, i.e., the government wants? To answer that question is not even relevant to the commie, because you see the government is the truth, it is not biased like capitalists trying to sell their products. The government could not possibly be selling products to increase government, to make government look better, to make you want government. No, these sleazy techniques are only reserved for the nefarious capitalist, motivated by his own greed and the oppression of the poor for his own power. To imply that the commie would oppress the rich for their own immoral gain is not a possibility within their realm of thought. So it's worthless to pursue this avenue.
Part 11: On equality
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," Marx
“Genuine equality between the sexes can only be realized in the process of the socialist transformation of society as a whole,” Chairman Mao.
As the great Oklahoma quarterback and representative JC Watts quipped, "Affirmative action is a little like the professional football draft. The NFL awards its No. 1 draft choices to the lowest-ranked team in the league. It doesn't do this out of compassion or guilt. It's done for mutual survival. They understand that a league can only be as strong as its weakest team." Even with this advantage there are still only a few teams that repeatedly make it to the playoffs, win the World Series, or make the NBA Finals. Ever wonder why the LA Clippers are perennial losers and the Lakers always winners? Even with preferential draft choices, the big teams are always beating up on the little teams. Instead of allowing the weak teams to fail, they are continually propped up so the big teams will always have someone to beat up on. So likewise affirmative action always ensures that some group is inferior and will always need help. This in turn supplies a codependent class, never being allowed to make it on their own, but always grateful to be able to play in the league."
Communism: "Ensuring equality for all by making everyone equally miserable" (Unless you're a loyal member of the party of course, where you will be lavished praise and gifts until you're no longer useful and then be trashed like yesterday's diapers), Your Humble Author.
Part 12: Abortion Anybody?
“A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic,” Joseph Stalin.
Along with owning stuff, people also like freedom of choice. A good example is of redefining the abortion debacle from the morality of slaughtering human fetuses to about a woman's choice. The commie's primary debate tactic is to shift the argument from the issue at hand to one of character assassination and insults. So in the abortion example, if a person is genuinely concerned about the morality of killing the unborn, the debate easily shifts to the person being a woman hater, infringing on her God given right to choose, and of wanting her to remain barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. "Papa Joe" Stalin's quote is a good example here. The fact that 30 million potential human beings have been murdered is never debated. The debate shifts to a rather few sensational cases dealing with rape or incest, or with the killing of an abortion doctor.
Part 13: What about God?
Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people," Karl Marx
American Commies are pretty snooty about their atheism, but they have simply replaced the old religion with a worship of themselves through communism. To paraphrase Friedrich Nietzsche, from "The Parable of the Madman" (1882), "We have killed God, now must we ourselves become the 'new gods'?" Once again, the commies have neglected one of the the basic natures of mankind- that human beings since the beginning of recorded history have believed in a higher purpose, a Supreme Being, if you will. The tribes of the Americas, Africa, and Eurasia all had or have some sort of religious ritual. They believe that man is not perfect, that perfection lies only in the creator of this world.
It's stunning that the a by-product of our highly advanced eduction and technological society is the profundity of atheism. The commies believe that the earth materialized by chance from a mass that somehow materialized out of nothing. They believe that this serendipitous world was perfect until a genetic mutant, the human being, was conceived. This gross mutant wreaked havoc and preyed upon the unsuspecting like a modern day T-Rex (only the T-Rex was perfect you see, because it didn't exploit the weaker reptiles according to their race, color, gender, etc.) There was no salvation for mankind until the great communist thinkers came into being. Through another unspecified mutation, they alone were spared the faults and grievances that all other mortals posses. If we let them reign over us as lord and master, all sins would be forgiven and a present day Utopia would ensue. Just one problem, what do you do with the people that don't agree to the new dogma, the heretics so to speak?
Well, you only need to look around and not too closely to see the result. The icons of the old religious institutions are taken down, we have many watchdog groups to ensure that not one bit of old school religion remains in a public place. Elaborate tribunals and inquisitions are set up to make sure that no sect ventures outside its sacred halls into the public arena. So how can you debate this? First of all you as a believer are held in contempt because you are too stupid to figure out that there is no God, so don't try to use logic or Bible quotes for what can only be felt in the heart. The best thing is to bear witness as you do anyone else. Remember, the commie, though as arrogant, pompous, and hypocritical as any Pharisee, is still a child of God. God loves them and wants their adoration like all his children, and you need to return the commie's contempt with love and kindness. Over time this has always proved the best way.
Part 14: So what to do?
Well, I wouldn't get to worried about it. There's always going to be snake oil salesmen and people who by Ginsu knives and "Veg-O-Matics". You watch the guy on TV and he is just slicing up a storm, his knife cuts through bricks like butter. And the slogan at the end is that, "It Really, Really Works!" They wouldn't lie to you right? So you send away for it and it doesn't work at all, it was all a con job, but you bought it because you hoped that there was something out there that defied logic, that really, really worked. But then the realization that life is what it is, and no gizmo is going to change it that much. So my advice is to stick to your guns, you will lose a lot of fights, but be true and you will win in the end.