Why are many opposed to discussion of “politics” and who most typically are?

Many folks have declared the discussion of politics to be off-limits; impolite; a prohibited topic of discussion, whether at a social event, casual lunch, or during a family visit.  Being among homo sapiens whose predisposition it has been from ages past to classify things, I have asked myself this question:

Why are many opposed to discussion of politics and who are those most likely to oppose? 

I’ll speculate the answer to this question by putting myself in the mindset of wanting to avoid such discussion.

What might my reasons be?

First, it might be that my mind is made up.  I know I’m right. I don’t want to be bothered by someone else’s opinion.  It would be a waste of time.

Second, it might be that I just don’t care – a "Que Será, Será” attitude:  Whatever will be, will be.  Or shorthand in today’s vernacular:  “Whatever.”  Leave me out of it.

Third, it might be that I want to avoid an “argument” because in my life experience I’ve come to consider “spirited discussion” to be argumentative and unpleasant; I need my “safe space”, I am a “snowflake”.  In short, I want to be “polite” via self-censorship.

Fourth, it might be that I have an overly broad definition of “politics.”  I might consider a number of essential human interactions to be encompassed by the word “politics” and I just don’t want to discuss them because I consider them to be “political”; too dicey; too controversial; too subjective.  What are some of the verboten topics some consider to be components of politics that are declared off limits?

• Economics and tax policy
• Appropriate size and reach of government
• The extent that our human affairs are regulated
• Ability to possess our own means of self-defense verses a mandate to rely solely on government law enforcement
• The extent to which man or cosmos controls climate
• The extent we allow our nation to be controlled by outside (international) regulation and control
• The extent we control who enters or who is prohibited from entering our nation, and on what basis
• The aspects of “religion” that are subject to first amendment protections and what aspects should not be.  Examples:  Santeria rituals; Islamic Sharia.

There are likely many more topics that folks might place under the umbrella of “politics” as an excuse to avoid discussion.

All too often, we avoid discussing a broad array of topics that should be discussed such as the topics listed above because we or others have a waaay overly broad definition of “politics.”

So this brief analysis causes me to wonder what ideological predispositions might tend to cause one to avoid discussion of “politics?”

In my own life experience, and tempting the label of bigot and various forms of –phobery, here is my list and reasons for their inclusion:

• The clueless because they don’t know any better
• Willfully ignorant because they refuse new information
• Those caught up in social media, career, grandchildren, health issues, sports, TV and Hollywood entertainment personality cults because they have no time or interest in anything else
• Narcissists because they are self-centered; no room for interests outside of “self.”
• Liberals and progressives because they look down on conservative thought and conservatives, no matter how well informed, as backwards and not worthy of respect or discussion with them.

Whenever any of these classifications of folks are opposed to conservative thought, the polite ones merely refuse discussion.  The others resort to demonstrations (sometimes violent),  name calling and mockery.  Most of our colleges and universities do both.  Public schools, overall, stifle the open discussion of “politics” because such discussion might conflict with the official socialist indoctrination agenda.

And the Churches.  Ahh, the Churches.  Most choose to avoid discussion of “politics” at all cost.  And by their avoidance they avoid applying Biblical doctrine to many crucial aspects of our lives.  For that omission, our culture is paying dearly.

This concludes my primordial urge to classify those who dislike political discussion.

Not an invasion? Here’s your sign…

There are quite a few folks out there who convinced themselves that the 5,000 to 10,000 Hondurans, Guatemalans, Mexicans, and unknown others promising to enter our nation illegally is not an invasion.

For this group comprised of liberal media, globalists, never-Trumpers, millennials, progressives, socialists, social justice warriors, Democrats wanting more illicit votes, and those who couldn’t care less about national security or American culture, here’s your sign:

Here are a number of signs that those of average intellect or better would cause one to conclude that this migration is indeed an invasion.

• The migration has been planned and organized with the intent to “invade”, I.e. enter another nation illegally
• Most migrants have expressed an intent to enter the United States illegally
• Many migrants are carrying the flag of their home nation (giving the impression of a national force intending invasion) which begs the question then of “why are they leaving their home nation?”
• Many within the migration have already demonstrated their lawlessness by breaking through barriers and forcing their way through the national borders of Guatemala and Mexico.
• Most of the migrants expect to be employed in the US, lowering wages and filling positions that entry level employees who are currently US citizens must now compete for – a form of plunder.
• Most of the migrants expect to receive US “booty” in the form of free health care, free education, subsidized housing, and reduced in-state tuition for “illegals” offered by a number of state governors – another form of plunder.
• Though denied by liberal media, it is otherwise common knowledge that some unknown hundreds are comprised of MS-13 gang members, ISIS, or others whose ideology is at odds with US culture and laws. See HERE and HERE
• It is not likely that everyone is unarmed.
• It is not likely that everyone is free of transmissible disease.

As a further “sign”, here is the FreeDictionary.com definition of invasion:

Definition of “invasion”:

1. (Military) the act of invading with armed forces

2. any encroachment or intrusion: an invasion of rats.

3. the onset or advent of something harmful, esp of a disease

4. (Pathology) pathol the spread of cancer from its point of origin into surrounding tissues

5. (Botany) the movement of plants to a new area or to an area to which they are not native

The characteristics of this “migration” clearly meet one or more definitions of invasion.

Here is a video from a knowledgeable Judicial Watch expert discussing the nature of this migration:

And of course Snopes and other leftist truth sites claim that there is nothing to see here – anyone who claims there is anyone but good upstanding Hondurans yearning to breath free is merely a “conspiracy theorist.”

To these I say: Here’s your sign.

By the way, HERE is DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen's description of why we need to have deep concerned about this "non-invasion."

Victimhood tactics of the left…

Everyone believes that sometime in their lives they were a victim of something.  But the “victim”/"victimizer” similarities with the self-identified victimhood of the left stop there.

As discussed in a previous blog, the left, inclusive of Antifa, BLM, MeToo, Progressives, Socialists, Communists, and Democrats use their “victim” label as an excuse to demonize and often physically attack those with whom they do not agree.  Most recently, these targets of their wrath include Conservatives, Christians, Men, Caucasians, and the elderly.  These are all considered the “victimizers” – those who are responsible for the victim’s status as victims.

The point, however, goes well beyond the mere self-declaration of victimhood.  It goes to the reaction of leftist “victims” – the words and actions the victims use to demonize, slander, threaten, intimidate and commit violence against the alleged victimizer group.

The overwhelming tactic of Conservatives and Christians, when felt to be victims - and many of us increasingly feel thus – is to write, call, talk, pray, forgive, dialogue,  and base our arguments on faith, facts and reason.

Not so with the left.  These conservative tactics are but a small pea shooter within the arsenal of tactics used by the left.  The left uses the playbook of Bill Ayers, Barack’s and Michelle’s pal, who relished blowing up buildings.  They use the playbook of their favorite historical heroes like Lenin, Mao, Che, and Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.”

One of my favorites from “Rules” is this one:

“…you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments.”

And that is exactly what we have been experiencing from the left.  This “rule” is a rewrite of the Marxist phrase “the end justifies the means”, a Machiavellian concept that describes any crafty or deceitful action used for one's own advantage.

And the left has done this in spades.  Every slander (think Kavanaugh); every accusation (think Trump/Russia); every violent, destructive demonstration (think Antifa); every rant against men (think “MeToo”); every demonstration against cops (think Black Lives Matter) – each of these is done under the cloak of “moral superiority.”  And such moral superiority is felt to justify ANY MEANS – lie, cheat, steal, rig votes, promote violence, destruction and vilification – to accomplish the purpose of the victim, which is what?

To discredit, overcome and gain superiority and control over the alleged victimizer.

And the labels of “victimizers” are not limited to just the justifiable individual perpetrators.  They extend to entire classes of people:  all men, all cops, all Conservatives, all Christians, all whites, all patriots.  This is called “discrimination”, but far be it from the left to admit that.

The distinction is that the left does NOT take the moral high road in spite of the image they wish to portray.  Conservatives and Christians, for the most part, do.  We do not believe “the end justifies the means.”  The moral high road is sticking to moral means to achieve a moral end.   The left believes that any immoral, illegal, or violent means is justified by their end - which completely discredits whatever their purpose and goals may be.

How the Social Justice agenda distorts words and ideas to slander its opposition…

You may be “white”, aka “Caucasian.”  You might also love your country, want it to prosper, want to defend it.  That might describe a “nationalist.”  Actually, a common definition of “nationalist” is “devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.”  But to the left, this means you are a racist white national.

So, does being “white” and being a “nationalist” make one a racist, hater and bigot?  Advocates of Social Justice would like to make us think so.

Just who advocates “social justice?”  Generally, leftists, socialists, progressives, Communists, Antifa, and Black Live Matter, MeToo, and most feminists.

What do these groups have in common with social justice?  Each group has two primary attributes:  1) They believe they are a victim, and 2) they believe anyone who is better off is the victimizer, the oppressor, an evil being, or hater.

Being a victimizer, oppressor, an evil being or hater of course justifies being demonized.  Call whites who love their country a “white nationalist” or “racist bigot hater.”  Call males “chauvinist pigs”, “misogynists”.  Call anyone who has a bigger house or nicer car a “greedy no good capitalist.”  It won’t matter that these alleged “victimizers” are upstanding, hardworking, moral individuals.  That is beside the point for social justice leftists.

The ages old sin of envy and jealousy is deployed as a weapon to further the cause of the left and the cause of social justice in particular.

What motivates social justice warriors?  What is their underlying belief system?  First, they believe “equal outcomes” is much more important than “equal opportunity (*).”  They not only want the “opportunity” playing field to be leveled, they demand that the distribution of resources be leveled:  Income, capital, assets, possessions.  Anyone who possesses less for any reason, including indolence, incompetence, or poor life choices is the victim.  Anyone who has more than they have for any reason, including hard work, good fortune, or wisely applied intelligence, is the oppressor.   Victims must be celebrated and promoted.  Oppressors must be condemned, demonized, and in some examples in world history, slaughtered en masse (Jews were seen as wealthy bankers who  financially oppressed others.  Nazi’s and Muslims grabbed onto this belief as an excuse for genocide.)

So, here’s what happens to our words in furtherance of the social justice cause:

White means racist because whites are seen as the ones at the top of the food chain.

Male means domineering and mean, because males are seen as historically domineering over females.

Nationalist means hating all other races and nations because Globalism promises “equal outcomes” more than freedom does.

Patriot means dangerous, militant far right radical because patriots want to defend their nation.

Merriam-Webster provides an excellent comparison of  “Patriotism and Nationalism” HERE.  The article demonstrates the recent  negative twist to our understanding of “nationalism.”  It won’t be long before the word “patriotism” suffers the same fate at the hands of globalists and the left.

Here are some matching concepts to consider:

Conservatism invokes ideas of…

• Nationalism
• Patriotism
• Strong borders
• Equal opportunity
• Capitalism
• Common law-/Bible-based justice
• Promotion of self defense including gun rights
• Honors creativity, hard work, self-motivation, self sufficiency
• Tolerates most opposing views
• God honoring, Bible believing (mostly), traditional family oriented; reliance on God for justice, mercy, help, protection.
• Perception of Islam as a historically violent, supremacist ideology and a proven threat to Western civilization
• Promotes using words in their traditional sense without distorting the language to mean the opposite.
• Lower taxes, less regulation, smaller government
• Use of  facts more than emotion
• Equates with “libertarian”, “Constitutionalist”, “Republican” (mostly)

Progressivism invokes ideas of…

• Globalism
• Protester, seditionist
• Open borders
• Equal outcomes
• Forced wealth redistribution
• “Social justice” as a ruse to promote forced equality of outcomes
• Opposition to effective self defense, especially via use of guns
• Honors victimhood, protecting desires to do nothing productive
• Intolerant of most opposing views, often with violence, while it calls for “tolerance”
• Atheist (mostly), against traditional morality and families; reliance on government to take away from the “haves” to give to the “have nots”.
• Perception of Islam as an oppressed “religion of peace”
• Promotes distorting our language:  Homosexual becomes “gay”; believers in morality become “intolerant”, those against evil behavior become “haters”; titles of legislation are purposely misleading such as “’Affordable’ Health Care” actually becoming unaffordable for many.
• Higher taxes, more regulation, bigger government
• Use of emotion more than facts
• Equates with Socialism, Communism, liberalism, Democrat, RINO

HERE is an article that further discusses problems with the Social Justice movement.

__________________

*  I could argue that even “equal opportunity” policy of our federal government is a giant step toward social justice.  Affirmative action legislation, for example, is a form of reverse discrimination.  It takes opportunity away from those who have earned it or who are best qualified, and give it to those who have not earned it or who are less qualified.  Equal opportunity is an “equal outcome” policy in sheep’s clothing.