There was a post over at Bruce Charleton’s blog, where he noted how Liberals (or Commie Bastards, ie CBs), will always go for the ad hominem attack, rather than confront a non-Liberal truth. They will attack their opponent’s character, morals, motivations, and ignore any facts which get in the way. In this way, Liberals are attempting to launch the very out-grouping attack which would most terrify them.
As Bruce Charleton points, out, Conservatives attempt to argue with facts, and avoid such attacks. I suspect this is because Conservatives project their psychology upon the masses. They assume the masses will ignore ad hominem attacks, and look at facts, so as to find the truth.
Of course the truth is, different elements of the mob will respond to different methods of attack. Those who are not Liberal will look at facts and logical arguments. However there is a substantial idiot brigade of Lemmings, which will go with the group, right or wrong. To capture their support, Conservatives would be wise to combine their logical attack with the more Liberal strategy of out-grouping. By making it appear that the Liberal is about to be ejected, the Lemmings will side with the Conservatives, much as the Ethics in America panel conclusively sided with Colonel Connell, once Mike Wallace had been effectively out-grouped.
In this post we will examine out-grouping, which is one of the emotional stimuli Liberals are most susceptible to. I suspect the most deadly time for Liberal ancestors, in our evolutionary past, was when the environment turned K-selective, groups were competing violently, and suddenly an r-type pre-Liberal was caught in his treachery, and expelled from the group.
Once an r-type Liberal no longer had the group to protect them, and had to fend for themselves, they were not long for this world.
After eons of evolution, the pre-Liberals who survived most effectively, were the ones who most feared out-grouping, and avoided it most aggressively, while continuing to pursue their more individualistic, selfish strategies in group competition. As one result of this, we see characters like Mike Wallace, whose entire lives are devoted to trying to point at other honorable men, so as to focus the group’s animus upon them. Notice, Wallace never hoisted the black flag himself, and led a charge. Indeed, in time of war he even admitted he would think nothing of allowing his in-group’s Warriors to be killed. He was a rank coward who spent his life trying to keep the focus off of his treachery, by pointing to those he felt were vulnerable to out-grouping. He was the evolutionary apex of the modern Liberal.
So how to out-group the Liberal? First there must be a group of observers. Out-grouping is vastly less affecting in a private, one on one debate. Then one must design the argument to portray Liberal ideals as deviant, compared to the mores and values of the group. This is unusually easy, since by advocating Liberalism, the Liberal is exposing to the world a psychology which espouses ideals which run directly contrary to those of the majority of our populace. Remember, the Liberal is an r-type psychology, espousing r-type mores, in a K-selected species. This makes them uniquely vulnerable to out-grouping, merely by virtue of the aberrant nature of their ideology compared to the psychology of the majority of the species.
Thus it is most productive to familiarize oneself with the goals behind the K-selected mores, and show how the Liberal opposes these goals, and opposes these mores. In showing how Liberal goals and mores run counter to our species K-selected ideals, it is possible to present to the Liberal a stimulus approximating the threat of out-grouping which would have, in our evolutionary past, resulted in their demise.
For example, the K-selected human is a group competitor. As a result, loyalty is paramount. When you combine the K-selected moral of loyalty, with the Liberal’s fear of out-grouping, you get Colonel Connell’s brilliant attack on Mike Wallace. Colonel Connell described a scenario, in the midst of a battle, where Mike Wallace was on his own, and needed the very Warriors he had betrayed. Mike’s out-grouping was so logical an outcome of his argument, even he had to say it was a reasonable reaction.
All r-type mores will run counter to our population’s K-type natures, and make the Liberal vulnerable to out-grouping. We value courage, loyalty to group, competitiveness in individuals, and as the treatment of our sports stars shows, we idolize success achieved through hard work, daring, and risk. Liberals oppose all of that. In discussing cultural promiscuity, point out that the promiscuous girl is inherently disloyal, and even offers the prospect of cuckoldry to her mate. Point to studies showing infidelity and number of sexual partners is directly correlated. Point out that no man of any intelligence or options will marry such a girl as that. Then add in the K-type desire to see children raised optimally, by adding that if we care for our young girls, we will teach them that open promiscuity is a prescription for an unhappy life of old spinsterism, cat hoarding, and a Maureen Dowd-like outlook on life. (Notice the implication of inferiority is assumed. Heartiste might call it assuming the rejection.)
In such an attack, the point of the spear is aimed emotionally, and it’s target is out-grouping. Facts may be used to support it, but they do not change the thrust of the attack.
Now imagine a Liberal supporting a ban upon firearms. Here, a typical Conservative will respond with a plethora of statistics such as preseted by John Lott in his book More Guns, Less Crime
Here, I would play off the Liberal’s cowardice, and disloyalty. K-types are programmed to be repulsed by both qualities, and seek to eliminate such individuals from their group. My argument would go like this.
“I can’t grasp how you could support a ban on firearms. Personally, I cannot understand why you would not want to own a firearm, yourself. To me, the most fundamental responsibility of a man is to protect his wife and children, at all costs. I could not imagine rendering myself helpless – wholly unable to protect my wife and child, in the event of some form of trouble. Truthfully, I am aghast you would willingly allow yourself to be so remiss in your duty to protect your family. I can’t believe you would leave your wife and child vulnerable, due to your own cowardice with respect to firearms.”
“Of course, you have every right to do so. But what is really galling, is that not only are you content to be remiss in your own responsibilities to protect your wife and child, you expect to be able to make others be similarly disloyal cowards, remiss in their responsibilities to their own wives and children. You demand the right to make all of us be remiss in our duties to protect our families, all because guns scare you. That is true gall.”
This is an example of how an argument which could be cold and logical, and wholly unaffecting to a Liberal’s amygdala, can be turned emotional, converted into a clear attempt at out-grouping, and then used to shock the Liberal into a Mike Wallace-like state. Notice, it focuses upon the emotional response to seeing such a coward, and how the crowd should feel in being forced by such a coward to exhibit cowardice themselves. You ned to actually use such an argument on a Liberal, to see how different the effect is from simply presenting facts to them.
It is easy to formulate these types of emotional out-grouping arguments yourself, since the in-group is the K-type human population, while the Liberal, by virtue of their Liberal ethos, espouses innately r-type mores and virtues, which the populace is programmed to be repulsed by. All of which says nothing of the repulsion a K-type crowd will feel at being forced to exhibit r-type mores and behaviors themselves, which is the standard Liberal modus operandi.
Where the K-type populace values loyalty, the r-type Liberal will be disloyal, from immigration, to war, to sovereignty, to foreign policy, to intelligence, etc. Where the K-type human wants to protect children, and see children reared carefully, the r-type Liberal supports single parenting, gay parenting, and all other sorts of unconventional parenting schemes, with no concern at all for their effects upon the children. Where the K-type human want’s freedom, thirsts for competition, respects success, and demands responsibility, the Liberal seeks to thwart all of that. Where the K-type human respects ability, determination, and effort, and demands that it be rewarded, the r-type seeks to reward failure, sloth, and cowardice, and force the successful to endure the cost of producing the reward. Where the K-type human wants to win, the r-type seeks to prevent it.
Every facet of Liberalism is tailor-made for out-grouping, because by it’s very nature, Liberalism is a psychological out-group within our K-selected species. Indeed, one of the most galling facets of the work behind this site, to Liberals who understand it, is that it is a completely logical argument, highlighting the aberrant nature of the Liberal psychology within the human race.
For too long we have left the Lemmings within our nation to be easily converted to cowardice and disloyalty by the Liberals. It is time for this to stop, and for us to diversify our argumentative technique to acquire this low-hanging electoral fruit.
Next up, Part VI – Additional Stimuli
Touching the Raw Amygdala: An Analysis of Liberal Debate Tactics
Table of Contents
Touching the Raw Amygdala: An Analysis of Liberal Debate Tactics – Preface
Touching the Raw Amygdala – Part I – Foundational Understandings
Touching the Raw Amygdala – Part II – Mike Wallace Debates a Marine
Touching the Raw Amygdala – Part III – Mike Wallace’s Amygdala On Overload
Touching the Raw Amygdala – Part IV – The Presentation
Touching the Raw Amygdala – Part V – Distilling the Stimuli
Touching the Raw Amygdala – Part VI – Additional Stimuli
Touching the Raw Amygdala – Part VII – Amygdala Development and Inducing Maturity
[…] the debate when they’ve aligned themselves with the biggest group, as outlined in an amazingly interesting piece I recently ran across. So naturally, the first order of the day is to try to downplay the […]