It always amazes me how significantly politicians fail us. They take an issue of spectacular concern, and they irresponsibly attempt to solve it.
Examples: instead of deporting Islamic terrorists and illegal aliens such as MS-13 gang leaders to their country of origin, they invite them to stay and provide them with shelter in sanctuary cities (An ojjpac USA list ); cities with alarmingly high murder rates (like Chicago), which should be concerned about protecting the safety of their law-abiding citizens, are doing just the opposite by depriving them of gun ownership to defend themselves against criminals; and addictive drugs, which are casually dispensed like candy to American school children, are being allowed to enter the United States unchecked through open borders (regardless of which political party is in office).
I shudder to think how politicians would respond if Rocket Man Kim Jong Un successfully launched a payload, or if those terrorists who have been given safety in our country suddenly rose up against us at once? Would the political elite treat them like heroic warriors that have defeated a repressive American regime, or would they surprise us by taking up arms against them?
Whenever politicians try to solve critical problems “sensibly,” I have found that it is usually at a cost to our privacy (FBI wiretapping), safety (restraining police), or cost (higher taxes). At such times, I am convinced that they have either lost their minds or sworn allegiance to some other government.
To avoid addressing the truth, they have devised several techniques to distract us. One of their favorites is to set in motion a scheme to divide us. (Popular examples, whites against blacks, men against women, Democrats against Republicans, and more, ad nauseam.) Another favorite is to grab a few headlines with a little riot (Berkeley, Ferguson, and Baltimore). Perhaps their most effective technique for distraction is to employ the “genteel” sport of name calling. What makes name-calling effective is that some words are so emotionally charged, because of their conditioned connotation, that they instantly stun people upon contact. This is what makes name calling so valuable to propagandists. When wisely done, they can lead to a variety of desired results (riots, tirades, humiliation, and more) that will immediately squelch opposition.
President Donald Trump demonstrated how successfully name calling can be during his run for presidency. By tagging his opponents with what he identified as their most dominant characteristic, he was able to discredit them publicly (lying Hillary Clinton, low-energy Jeb Bush, Pocahontas Elizabeth Warren, and more). In his playful way, he revealed to America what many politicians were frequently achieving whenever they hurled damaging accusations of racism, sexism, or homophobia at their opponents. Simply put: name-calling can be a nasty sport, especially when in the hands of bullies. (This technique, incidentally, for discrediting someone is one of the twelve that Saul Alinsky, the darling of anarchists, recommends in his book, Rules for Radicals. There is no reason to believe, as President Trump has proven with his name calling, that Alinsky’s twelve recommendations, can’t be used successfully against the radical left, if done with flare and wit.)
Although name calling and other popular genteel activities score high points at winning public attention, the best way to defeat your opponent is to peel away the fallacies of their argument and unemotionally and rationally go for the jocular (the premise of the argument). We must never allow our teachers, our government, our media, anyone, to lead us along the primrose path to our doom with such magical words as political correctness, entitlement, affirmative action, and more, and keep us from understanding what they are trying to achieve by humiliating with name calling. In such cases, we must strike back.
To position yourself for such action, you will need hard facts, logically stacked and ready for quick delivery. With powerful facts to support your argument, clever wordsmiths will find it impossible to dupe you. If we don’t resist and if we allow the political establishment to continue, as they have been doing for years, unchecked, we could end up facing such horrors as civil war, nuclear attack, run-away inflation, or, even worse, the loss of our liberties – all of which seem to be real possibilities these days.
Remember always a golden rule of survival: whenever faced with a tempest of emotion or an argument that is intended to weaken, not strengthen your understanding, you can be certain that a heist is being plotted. Your job is to identify that heist and then prevent it from occurring by exposing the payoff: Who benefits and who loses?
Armed with inconvertible facts, you can do what some sophisticated players are doing. You can add a little amusement and finesse to your attack. Like President Trump, you can give it a playful Alinsky twist. It would add salt to the wound –and let the opposition know you are truly a formidable force.
In conclusion, I firmly believe the most urgent place to begin our fight against the political elite is in our schools. This is the storm center of the problem. Parents may want to read my article, 10 Recommendations for Parents, for ways to protect your child. For an overview of the problem, you may want to read my article, How the American Education System Suppresses Critical Thinking, and my novel, The Fire Within. Both the novel and the article attempt to provide an understanding on how the establishment’s propaganda machine works.
Joe David is the author of numerous articles and six books, including three novels, The Fire Within (an examination of contemporary issues in education), Teacher of the Year (the witty unmasking of an educator), and The Infidels (a poignant story about the genocide of Christians by the Muslim Turks). For more information, visit www.bfat.com