To continue the food metaphor, it’s akin to watching red and green seedless grapes argue over who has the “prettiest” skin.

I will admit, it must be comforting to believe that all the worlds problems are the responsibility of “them”.

But the superfluous nature of this discussion, while impressive, reminds me of a House Salad with too much Ranch Dressing. You can’t taste any of the vegetables.

It is basically a cover for their own weakness, their own doubts. Check out George Soros, the Jew hating Jew, the guilty Nazi and Halliburton collaborator trying to de-Nazify and de-Haliburton things with his money.

I mean it isn’t that hard to check out whether the Left is the real deal or not people. But none of this matters to the true believers on the Left, for they adopted dishonesty and the decay of their individual will a long time ago. Perhaps too late for them now. Many people who believed in the Leftist mantra have moved over to the Republican side. Many. Which means that those who are left are the die hard fanatics.

Btw here is another good illustration of the behavior Book is writing about.

The bottom line is that, to support their pain-killing delusions, malignant narcissists just pretend they are true. They also train everyone around them to play along. How? By simply making your world as obnoxious as a raging three-year-old throwing a temper tantrum makes it, if you say or do anything that reminds the narcissist that he isn’t a god.

But a narcissist doesn’t want them to have these things they need. Is he any different then than someone who tries to keep another person from getting any food?

http://narc-attack.blogspot.com/

Only good people can resist evil and advance human progress. Human rights is part of human progress. If someone tries a con game of saying he will provide a service and a benefit to you, then he has to make good on his promise, or else he simply destroys.

Whenever I heard people talk about Neo being this that or the other, back when she was blogging at blogspot, I just went back to irreducible fundamentals. Using inductive logic, I traced evidence down concerning people’s comments and actions. A statistical sheet so to speak. After I had collected memories or current data on Neo’s comments and actions, and on the comments and actions of her accusers, I would then use deductive logic to choose one course over another. Basically I had to decide which was on the path to furthering human progress and who wasn’t. So I decided Neo was furthering human interests, rights, and progress, while her accusers were undermining and destroying things of value.

Then all you need is to wait for verification. If Neo wishes to promote human progress and does promote human progress, then in the future we can expect her actions on these subjects to be A, B, and C but not Z. If Neo is acts as I predicted she would act, this strenghtens my deductive logic and the premises I based it upon.

This seems like a simple process to me. When people have to decide whether the Left is the real deal or not, they have access to logic to work it out. But obviously it doesn’t seem to be easy, because most people don’t use logic. Not of the formal kind certainly.

You take what the Left said and did about race and sex and equal treatment, combine it with their actions in a spreadsheet matrix. Then you take what the Right has said and done, combine it. And then you choose which side is on what path. Are people like Book on the path of human progress? Or are people like Gridlock greg furthering human progress and protecting lives against entropy’s encroachment?

Book said before that she used to vote the Democrat party/ticket line. So obviously Book had previously decided that the Democrats were the party of progress and goodness, but also obviously Book must have eventually found out that her expectations and assumptions about what a party of progress should do, was inconsistent with the reality and behavior of her party. So she rechose.

Rechoosing is good, it is an exercise of free will and human freedom. Neo brought up this question about why there are so many “changers” from the Left to the Right, but few if any changers from Right to Left (Ramsey Clark). My answer is rather simple. I tend to see it as people in the South (Democrat powerbase) becoming more cosmopolitan and less racist and evil. As the people in the Democrat party became better human beings, their expectations for the party increased. And if you had good Democrat leaders like Truman or JFK, then the expectation of classical liberals were fullfilled. But Jimmy Carter and Johnson… well. As time went on, the Democrat party sort of regressed back to its slavery and KKK roots (Robert Byrd)

The Left has talked for so long about they and only they are the crusaders for GOOOD against Republikkkan that they actually produced some true believers. (KKK Kleagle Robert Byrd is the most senior Senator therefore third in line for the Presidency after Vice and Pelo, but he’s a Democrat not a Republikkkan) True believers are people who believe in the things that the propaganda masters of the Left espoused. They believe it is true, therefore true believer. But there’s a difference. You could have true believers in the party line, but they aren’t “classical liberals” like Book here. No, to get a classical liberal from Leftist indoctrination, you have to combine equal parts true belief with honesty and curiosity.

So the result of this is that the Left creates people like Book, who then starts questioning why the behavior of her party is inconsistent with what she believes to be the cause that her party is fighting for. This creates political demographic changes, like the South voting Republican during and after Reagan.

Southerners had learned much from their failed Confederacy and slavery roots. They produced better people because of such experiences, as time went on. Those more cosmopolitan and humane people desired and demanded a political party that was true to their beliefs, their cause, and their purpose.

I’ll sum this up with some basics that I use to build most everything else on. Basically, people who are weak and cannot resist the desire to blow stuff up and hurt others, cannot serve the cause of Good or preserve/advance human rights. The Left is weak, weak in their souls, in their hearts, spirits, and minds. This is the primordial assumption, which reality rather supports.

The Left says they fight for environmentalism and progress and all these other goodies. Con Game, of course.

Street theater is not strength. It saps energy better put to other uses. The focus we’ll be dedicating to the next gaffe sometime in (this time I’ll give myself a little more wiggle room) May will mean that much less commitment to addressing black people’s real problems.

People know this already. They know the Left is weak and promotes weakness. And they KNOW that weakness and being susceptible to entropy’s decay of human values and works, is a bad thing for human progress. They know this already, as should we all. But the Left doesn’t seem to know, now do they.