How to Use Violence When Arguing with Liberals

Anonymous Conservative Blog ^ | January 19th, 2013 | Anonymous Conservative

[antidisestablishment]

I don’t have time to respond, but I want to comment that your posts have rekindled my interest in FR. At one point the appeal of forums was reason, but that seems to have been superceded by a simulacrum of social commentary increasingly deviod of content.

Thank you. Classical liberalism is not taught, but caught.

[AnonymousConservative]

I disagree. Rabbits are more likely to try and get wolves to genocide others by fomenting conflicts. Clinton, Weiner, Obama, aren’t going to wade into a battlefield when everyone is going at it. But they will send armed feds to do it for them if they can.

They will try to get others to kill for them, also. Look at democratic politics and you see this strategy - class warfare, race warfare, sex-identity warfare, political ideologue warfare, “workers” vs capitalist warfare, even immigrant vs citizen warfare. If they lived in our nation, they’d get Chinese nationalist PRC people fighting with the tea party. Even the Nazis were just a helpless socialist worker’s party until they happened upon nationalists vs jews/blacks/disabled/non-Aryans.

r and K are the game. That said, it can also be viewed as adaptation to the need to fight, vs adaptation to avoiding the fight. In that case it is amygdala development vs amygdala atrophy, and because we evolved to house rearing/sex/loyalty in the amygdala, development or atrophy of the amygdala ends up dragging in the full suite of r and K by changing all of that too.

To answer your question - What happens when the rabbits have guns? It depends, does everyone else have guns, or have wolves disarmed the populace for them? In that latter case, a rabbit would kill, but they would much rather give the order to whoever is willing to kill for them.

But if everyone is armed, the rabbits won’t do shit. They’ll try to get two groups of wolves shooting at each other and then hide, but if that didn’t work, they will just plain hide.

r/K will be validated when the economy collapses and marriage and family return afterward along with a vigorous tendency to form a group identity and be loyal to the group.

The book on it should be free Monday and Tuesday in ebook form at Castaliahouse.com , if you want to see the sum of the research behind it.

[AnonymousConservative]

Some examples of using mortal salience with liberals.

Gay tolerance : Point out the CDC data on disease carriage of homosexuals (STDs/AIDS, but things like meningitis, MRSA, Gay Bowel Disease, etc as well), and make the case that homosexual aversion is a rational, evolved trait designed to help one avoid disease exposure. Point out that if a pandemic hits, all those who are homo-tolerant will rapidly be culled from the population, and since a pandemic is unavoidable, homo-intolerance will be normal soon enough. Do it unemotionally, even slightly bemused by it, and Libs will shut up fast.

For guns I like to combine mortal salience (mention of death) with shame over their helplessness, shame over their disloyalty to their loved ones in not wanting to protect them, shame over their own lack of honor, and shame over their own impotence and likeliness to get killed. So I’d comment on how shocked I am that not only are they so disloyal to their own family that they have no desire to be able to protect them from being killed by a thug in a violent encounter, they have the gall to demand that I be remiss in my duty to protect my own family.

Observers, not wanting to be seen as disloyal, cowardly, helpless, weak, and impotent like the liberal, will immediately side with you, giving it a social punch threatening the leftist with social isolation as well.

Leftists argue differently. Facts, logic, truth, being right mean nothing compared to trying to socially out-group the opposition with ridicule, or just mob-alliance against the opposition, often based on the “bad feelings” associated with the opposition position.

But in the liberals head is a switch. Colonel Connell hit the button on Mike Wallace with that interview after a whole swath of people arguing logically could not, which is why I think anyone who argues with liberals needs to watch it.

Google “Touching the Raw Amygdala” if you want more on the technique.

[AnonymousConservative]

Thank you.

[wintertime]

I will check out this You Tube. Hopefully, there will be tips on how to confront the Government School Defenders.

[right way right]

This helps me to understand why my liberal neighbor won’t talk to me any more. I shamed him badly for voting Obama twice and no other neighbors came to his aid.
Almost feel bad...almost.

[antidisestablishment]

We don't really disagree on arming bunnies. My perhaps poorly stated observation is that r Types have no problem seeing others slaughtered and excel at causing those deaths.

Much of my experience with amygdala response has been with aberrant individuals, and parallel your anecdotes to some degree. I am of the opinion that the amygdala regulates neural response similarly to the way the hypothalamus regulates hormonal response. I would also categorize narcissists (and perhaps liberals) as having a hyper or overactive amygdala. Psychopaths on the other hand, appear to have a hypo or malformed amygdala .

While your technique may show promise on the hyper amygdala, I wonder about the response of the hypo. I believe many in powerful positions tend toward this side of the spectrum. Do you address this in any of your articles?

I plan on downloading your books, so I’ll hold the rest of my inquiries. Thank you for at least raising the questions. Conservatives tend to believe everyone is driven by logic, and this may be a way to bridge the message gap. I pray it doesn’t take another world war to bring us back to our senses, but as an historian, I fear it may be too late to avert.

[AnonymousConservative]

I think we are splitting into different directions on the definition of amygdala activity. I think you are seeing amygdala activity as being production of aversive stimulus (which is admittedly a popular view I disagree with). I see amygdala activity as seeking answers to shut off aversive stimulus, which I believe is triggered by the amygdala (and could be triggered mistakenly due to maladaptation in some cases). The panic though, is actually produced by the Anterior Cingulate Cortex.

So my hypothesis based on a lot of readings and personal experience (and I do have formal training in Cognitive Neurosci) is the amygdala encounters threat, triggers the ACC, and the ACC then forces, via panic/brain-pain, an amygdala-driven search of the brain for all possible actions and outcomes, until it hits on a potential act that could shut off the ACC’s panic response somewhat.

The panic then drives the action. In this model, the ACC is the driver using punishment, and the amygdala is the guy whose job is seeing reality honestly and trying to diminish the punishment by finding something to do to the world around you to turn off the punishment. I ignore the studies about anxiety and amygdala size and connectivity, because a narcissist may show no panic, not because he is good with coping with stress, but just because he denies all reality, and even if he didn’t he would lie about feeling panic to his last breath. I also look at liberals, who say Conservatives are panicky because we want guns when passing through a dangerous neighborhood, while the liberal doesn’t panic because they would walk through the neighborhood unarmed. Yet it is conservatives who head off to war, and liberals who would dodge the draft due to panic even as the Nazis were at the gates. Which is maladaptive? Which si panicky?

So conservatives have larger amygdalae, smaller ACCs, and less panic under threat and more comfort with threat (even as they feel panic) - because they have greater amygdala-linkage to the rest of the brain, better logical modeling capability, and a resultant better problem solving capability.

Liberals (and narcissists) have developed to try and shield themselves from panic by somehow hacking their perception of reality upstream of the amygdala, so the stressful reality doesn’t make it into the amygdala to trigger the ACC, instead being replaced by the non-triggering “false reality.”

Given less amygdala triggering, their amygdala looks for solutions less, and they become a problem avoider/denier rather than a problem solver, and panic if a problem makes it into the amygdala. Eventually, they can’t face any problem because they know they can’t solve any amygdala triggering problem, and you get a liberal yelling at you for being mean by “triggering” them with a theme of a manly man who kicks ass in a world that is dangerous, or a world that isn’t equal and safe for everyone.

The inability to cope with aversive stimulus may have a root in an overdevelopment of the ACC, due to genes or environment, and making the punishment it inflicts so strong as to be unbearable.

I agree on Psychopaths, and would only add some research shows an ACC deficit along with an amygdala deficit. Not only is the triggering facility diminished, but so is the panic being triggered.

Since you are interested in Narcissists, I’ll note both the Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics, and How to Deal With Narcissists should be free starting Monday at Castaliahouse.com.

Take care.

[antidisestablishment]

I have no specific neurocognitive training beyond extensive observation of treatment and occasional cursory study. While I was once a strong nurture advocate, I now believe that genetics plays a greater role in aberrant behavior, though it can often be exacerbated by environment. I find many practitioners speaking of the amygdala as a vestigial appendage that constantly misfires due to the complexity of modern cognition. I totally disagree with this view, and I find your hypothesis quite plausible. It also accounts for the intractable lying that accompanies both sides of the spectrum (N-P).

Despite the mythical web-of-lies, I have found most narcissists and psychopaths don’t bother—they simply maintain a willful state of cognitive dissonance wherein their lies become reality for them. It is also interesting that most “mental health” workers fall far into the r spectrum, and avoid any inference that that their safe little liberal world is as much a construct as their patients’. The few neuroscientists that I have encountered are almost outcasts in the mental health “profession” because their science is a bit too harsh for most of the community of leftists.

Good work, and good luck with your books.

[AnonymousConservative]

We’ve seen the same things, and are on the same page.

Thanks for the well-wishes, and good luck out there.

[timestax]

ping

[timestax]

[Auntie Mame]

I was trying to figure out how I had a copy of “How to Deal With Narcissists” on my Kindle as I’m almost finished and wondered if it was from FR. Did a site search and yes. It was authored by you! What a great book.

I’ve always wondered about boring people I’ve sometimes gotten stuck with at parties and elsewhere. I would often stand there and think, “What makes this person so boring?” and stick around them, listening, trying to figure it out. Your book provided the answer.

[Lurker]

Thanks.

L