Fruity Rubble

One of the first things any man learns in the Manosphere is to assess a woman’s character based not on her words, but on her actions. Of course this principle applies to anybody, and it reflects a great Biblical Truth:  Ye shall know them by their fruits.

This perspective mirrors that of the K reproductive strategy, for in a harsh environment of limited resources, we’re required to observe the actions of others to determine who we can trust.  The most unethical and unreliable idiot on the planet may be amazingly gifted with words, but words don’t bring in much of a harvest.

The trust that everything will work out for the best, the faith in the smooth-talker, is limited to those of disposition r.  When belief is what heats your home in the winter, he who inspires belief is obviously the best leader.

Moreover, we know who we can trust based on how much somebody cares.  Somebody who cares believes in the right things, and if they believe in the right things, we’ve no need to pay any attention to “their fruits”.

If any of you doubt my analysis, I present to you a Matthew Lynch, Ed. D., author of “12 Reasons Why Obama Is One of the Best Presidents Ever” (admittedly an extreme example, but don’t blame me, blame HuffPo’s racial quotas).  Of his “12 Reasons”, all twelve begin with “He is for…”  Reasons 1, 2, 5, 7, and 12 make no reference to achievement whatsoever.  He has “spoken on behalf of the disenfranchised, the underdog and the most controversial members of society” (his “excellent example” of gay marriage being a flip-flop), gave a speech in support of the middle class, and “is one cool cat” in how he relates to Americans.  “[H]e cares about what is best for the greater good”, “ha[s] always been motivated by a sincere desire to do what is best for the majority”, and “there is something about him that makes him real and relatable”.  He has “promoted”, “never lost sight of”, and “has been an advocate for” wonderful people and things.

Accomplishments?

“In just a few short years, Obama’s professional achievements and continued demonstration of equality and integrity have done wonders for race relations. America has never been more unified as a people than it has been under the direct leadership of Barack Obama.”

He’s passed laws that “demonstrate care and compassion toward its constituents with healthcare that serves all” (especially all those folks getting cancellation letters), “the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for African-Americans and the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics to ensure equal education for people of color”, and “a bill specifically designed to annihilate wage discrimination barriers for women”, “fully funded the Violence Against Women Act, which addresses the criminality of sexual assault and domestic violence and provides women with the services needed to overcome such atrocities”, “has set a goal for the U.S. to have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020”, “has increased federal funding and doubled the amount of grant money allocated to students seeking a higher education to cover rising tuition costs” (thus inflating the higher education bubble), and “was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009”.

Again, he conflates goal-setting, award-winning, increasing federal funding, and passing laws intended to accomplish noble ends as actual achievements.

Yet despite his emphasis on Obama’s speeches and intentions in making him “is one of the best presidents EVER”, he manages to sneak in an actual accomplishment or two.  “Obama nominated two women to the Supreme Court, including the first Latina justice in American history” (lefty women ruling the same idiotic ways as lefty men),  “reduced oil imports by more than 10 percent from 2010 – 2011” (which happened despite his policies), “ended” the wars in Iraq (for us, for now) and Afghanistan (after almost tripling US deaths compared to Bush) and some sort of environmental accomplishments he references with a broken link.

Eat your heart out, George Washington.  Obama got bin Laden!

Calling Out the Nonsense

In dealing with lefties, this emphasis on intention is a flaw in their reasoning that I consider to be an incredibly important leverage point.  All too often we get defensive when they claim that we don’t care as much as they do, and we let them get away with the erroneous assumption that wanting to do good somehow equals actually doing good.  Whether it’s the War on Poverty or Obamacare, you’ll find that their defense of disastrous programs is akin to “that law was intended to help…”, with the implication that their good intentions somehow ameliorate the disasters that follow.

This isn’t exactly a rhetorical technique, but it’s something important to keep in the back of your mind when talking to them.  They assume that noble=effective, and almost never are they actually called on it.  So what if your policies were meant to help the poor, here on planet Earth they made things worse.  We’ve no right to wreck real people’s lives just so you can feel good about yourself.

Listen to lefties, and you’ll continuously hear references to intention.  Fortunately, as we’re seeing with the reaction to the Obamacare rollout, most people stop caring quite so much about how much you care for them once it’s been shown to them that you’re driving them straight to hell.

So when you hear somebody defend something based on how much whatever politician cares, call them on it.

One of the left’s ostensibly favorite Bible verses is Matthew 7:1, “Judge not, that ye be not judged”.  Yet every time you hear them wail about how their opponents hate poor people (which is a lot), they violate it, and we can use this as a defense.  After all, can they really know who we hate?

Although we assume that “judge not” just applies to negative judgments, it also applies to positive ones, to giving somebody the benefit of the doubt before he or she deserves it.  We simply can’t see into another person’s soul, and trusting a silver-tongued knave with our economy can bring judgment our way just as swiftly and severely as unjustly condemning the innocent.

Which is why we’re told to know people by their fruits, by what we can observe, by their results.  We’re instructed to heed each other’s fruits for worldly matters and leave the questions of intention and purity of soul up to God.

Leftism does the opposite.

This entry was posted in Feminism, Politics, Race, Religion, Rhetoric. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Fruity Rubble

  1. Liberalism, from top to bottom, deals in ideals. Not the way things are or the way things will probably turn out but the whole idea of what things should be and could be if only (insert whatever scapegoat here). The fact that beliefs don’t actually turn into actions 99% of the time is quickly dismissed as being a problem with the system as a whole. “Obama can’t be that awesome guy we know he is because the system/the right/the task at hand is holding him back from it.” All things being equal, this big bad world stunting progress at every turn, the guy that preaches that things can change > than the guy that doesn’t.

    “you hear them wail about how their opponents hate poor people (which is a lot)”

    Guilty. This use to be my Big Thing.

    “Although we assume that “judge not” just applies to negative judgments, it also applies to positive ones, to giving somebody the benefit of the doubt before he or she deserves it. We simply can’t see into another person’s soul, and trusting a silver-tongued knave with our economy can bring judgment our way just as swiftly and severely as unjustly condemning the innocent.”

    True and a good point. But there is also the fundamental issue of the idea of what it means to help the poor. Helping = loving/caring, right? So we should be asking how we can truly help the poor out. But instead liberalism purports to already have that answer making anything else decidedly not-helping which means decidedly not-caring. Instead of having the conversation that needs to be had (“how can we help the poor?” or, better yet, “should the poor be helped?”) the conversation begins at a false start point (“this is how we help (in liberal speak: “love, care for, give a damn at all for”) the poor.”) Telling liberals they simply shouldn’t trust what someone is saying about their intentions to help the poor only gets to part of the problem. The root is that liberals have largely abandoned critical thinking for political dogma (their answer to religion). They aren’t looking for answers they think they already have the answers and are going from there. But it’s worse than that- they truly believe these “answers” are Absolute Truth, so much so that they are above question. The premiss, out of the gate, is false. So even if they decide not to believe what that guy is saying they still aren’t going to believe the other guy is right about it because, in their mind, that other guy doesn’t know about the Absolute Truth of helping the poor.

    tl;dr- liberals believe they hold the monopoly on righteousness. That is the root of the problem. Preaching the gospel of liberalism > not preaching the gospel of liberalism.

    • I managed to talk about liberalism objectively from the “outside”. There is hope for me yet!

    • Martel says:

      “So even if they decide not to believe what that guy is saying they still aren’t going to believe the other guy is right about it because, in their mind, that other guy doesn’t know about the Absolute Truth of helping the poor.”

      Very good point. This is why I emphasize humanizing myself when dealing with them. If I don’t at least seem to have some stake in their all-important CARING, at best I’ll come across as an effective doubter, somebody who maybe makes them lose faith in leftism but who’s incapable of leading them in another direction. When I establish that I’m also an actual person with many of the same cares, I get less resistance and have more of an effect.

      I also try to call attention to how their “faith” makes things worse. This gets more resistance, but if I’ve established that I share in their humanity, calling attention to the contrast between what they say they want to happen and what actually happens can be pretty effective.

      But getting things to that point is NOT easy.

      And I’ll get back to your email soon. I’ve been somewhat swamped.

  2. I just found your blog just now and I love it.

    • Peregrine John says:

      Yeah, this is one of those places where I either have too much to say on the subject (and it’d take more time than I have on a given day to compose it properly) or it’s complete enough that I’ve nothing to add (and I hate to clutter with frequent Amen! comments), and so I say fairly little compared to the amount of thought it provokes.

  3. Pingback: Taking Out the Trash | Alpha Is Assumed

  4. Mina says:

    …”“that law was intended to help…”, with the implication that their good intentions somehow ameliorate the disasters that follow.
    …They assume that noble=effective…”

    So the best follow up would be “and how did that actually work out? do you think we should be taking the time and making the effort to ensure that noble efforts really were effective but checking back later and seeing if the end result matched up to the intention? Why or why not?”

    Then, let them explain why they should be checked and then say “and if the results did not match up to the intention, what then?”

    The big problem as you know, is that their answer is almost always “well obviously we didn’t do ENOUGH and must do more! (pile on)”

    I can reference Quantifying Easing, the Bailout and Gun Control for this argument.

    How to counter the “well the idea was good, we didn’t go it enough and now need to do more” argument?

    • Mina says:

      should have read : “really were effective by checking back later”

      (the but really did change the sentence’s meaning)

    • Martel says:

      “The big problem as you know, is that their answer is almost always “well obviously we didn’t do ENOUGH and must do more! (pile on)”

      There’s an Alinskyite “breakthrough” belief implicit in this suggestion. Alinsky’s advice that whenever things look darkest to fight EVEN HARDER is a great way to follow through on a religious belief, but it wreaks havoc on an economy. Thus, the underlying assumption you’re fighting is that a mindset that works for a religion instead applies to public policy.

      So here I emphasize the world AS IT IS and draw a distinction between that and fantasy-land. If they’re not screaming at you, Socratic questioning can work. “Let’s just say that Upstanding Bob and Thug Trevor both have an assault weapon. Are you with me so far?” Yes. “If ban assault weapons, who do you think is more likely to turn his in, Upstanding Bob or Thug Trevor?”

      They won’t want to answer this, but grasp onto it and make sure they do. Use something simple, real, easy to grasp to demonstrate how a beautiful Ideal can have a detrimental effect in the real world.

      You’re likely to find them changing the subject to global warming or Iraq or something, but don’t let go. The most basic results of a law are IMPORTANT, and they subconsciously recognize this, which is why they won’t want to acknowledge it.

      If you can finally get them to admit that Bob will turn in his gun but Trevor won’t, you’re in dialectic territory.

      There are thousands of ways they’ll still try to weasel out, but I prefer to work with simple truths that are hard to deny. I could make this into an essay all on its own, but I hope this helps (if it doesn’t, ask away. I’ll answer more promptly this time>)

  5. Pingback: the Revision Division

  6. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/11/27 | Free Northerner

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s