Via Doug Ross, Stella Paul has a fabulous idea. We should re-brand the Democrat Party. They re-brand Republicans all the time. We need to start using their Alinksyite tactics against them. They are now the Destructive Party, which is quite fitting because it’s entirely accurate.
They concoct a simple negative label for anything they want to defeat and then relentlessly shriek it in unison. You know the drill: “racist,” “homophobe,” “bigot,” “right-wing lunatic,” etc.
Then, they sanctify with positive language whatever lunacy they’re in the mood to shove down our throats today. Consider the irrefutable beatific glow of “economic justice” and “social justice.” Once something is defined as “justice,” you’re automatically the bad guy for resisting. What’s wrong with you? Don’t you want justice?
Here’s a hypothetical conversation to help you get started.
DESTRUCTIVE: Well, I guess Rush Limbaugh and all the other right-wing loonies were wrong. Obama crushed Romney just like we said.
YOU: Yeah, you’re right. That was a brilliant victory for the Destructive Party.
DESTRUCTIVE: Limbaugh is eating dirt today!…Wait…The what party?
YOU: The Destructive Party. You know. The one that always destroys the economy. As soon as Obama won, the stock market crashed 400 points and 35,000 people were laid off.
DESTRUCTIVE: Come on. That had nothing to do with Obama winning. That’s just a few rich employers trying to squeeze more profits by punishing their poor workers.
YOU: Well, that’s what the Destructive Party always says, so that’s why they always destroy the economy – and a lot of people’s lives, too. Great going, Destructives!
There are more samples at the link, including how to talk to them about health care and gay marriage. It’s fun.
@lonelycon I like calling them Utopian Nitwitts lmao
Like or Dislike:
0
With a little help from Led Zeppelin, “Democrats, keepers of the gloom!”
Like or Dislike:
1
sounds exactly right. You could also call them the DayDreaming party Last nite there were 2 libs on the radio blabbering on about different ethnic outcomes in schools – of course, it is all the school’s fault if people do not succeed. yeah right. They also believe all that ‘human potential’ baloney. hey – if Einstein had all that potential then he would have figured it all out. But the fact is, making sense of things is actually difficult.
Like or Dislike:
1
Hayek warned of this danger. The word “social” as an adjective has essentially lost all meaning. When used it implies the existence of a “social body” wherein everyone is in consensus. A kind of anthropomorphic fascism arising as the figurehead of a cult of democracy. A secular God that feeds on human instincts for animism, while also seemingly conforming to rationalism. In any case, I always refer to “progressives” as “regressives” instead. They are neo-ludites with what Hayek called “an atavistic longing for the noble savage.” They believe in moral relativism when it was the development of morals that made trade between groups possible and allowed for civilization. The left so arrogantly believes they can recreate even more favourable conditions a priori when they fail to recognize the process by which current success has been had? And how could they? Who but a God could see the whole economy in all its variables? It is a fallacy of scientism, an attempt to apply rational order to complex systems. It always backfires. The left’s policies always backfire. Yet to them, results don’t matter. Facts don’t matter. Only principles and feelings do. It is the downfall of man.
Like or Dislike:
1
Einstein was terrible politically. Should have stuck with science. As an intellectual, he overestimated the significance of his own intelligence. Ironic considering his quote on human stupidity. Einstein seems to have wanted a kind of Socialism. As a scientist he worked in a kind of rational framework with isolated variables and distinct methods. So he committed a fallacy known as scientism in assuming those principles could be applied to management of government and the economy. If the economy resembles any of the sciences it would be chaos theory or systems theory. We can’t control these things because it is just impossible to know all of the relevant variables in time. That’s the argument for free markets. An overwhelming majority of intellectuals commit this fallacy and overstate their own abilities. Like a stick in the eye of God. They are the university professors and the left’s leadership class. Another thing, making sense is very difficult. Humans are different from other animals because we can have abstract thoughts. Even then, we struggle to do so and have to personify our abstractions. That can take the form of religion or the idea of a Social Body which the left is so fond of and is a euphemism for fascism. Abstract thought has also lead to fear because of human instinct. In the middle ages this meant condemning the village blacksmith as a sorcerer because the masses were ignorant of his work. In modern times this means groups like Occupy Wall Street who have an instinctual fear of Economics, an abstract science. The left are a bunch f savages and have been for centuries.
Like or Dislike:
1
I first saw Demo☭rats here at TLC
http://lonelyconservative.com/2012/10/democrats-gang-up-on-and-harass-female-gop-volunteer/
Demo☭rats
demo – n. informal – Demolition
☭ – Communist party symbol
rat – n. informal – a despicable person
It works too.
Like or Dislike:
1