When Libtards Write “Letters to the Editor”

DECEMBER 1, 2022

NY Times (Letter to Editor) :Dialogue Is Not Possible With ‘Opposing Views of Reality’

One need only peruse the “Letters to the Editor” section of “the paper of record” to find enough diagnostic evidence to prove that the demented denizens of Libtardia are indeed crazed members of an “authoritarian” cult. No matter how nonsensical or misinformed a given opinion may be; they all repeat the same talking points; they all engage in the mirroring of their journalistic or academic icons; they all read (or at least buy to collect dust with) the same books; they all psychotically project their own vices and madness onto those that they hate; they all have an inverted sense of reality; they all engage in Orwellian “double think;” and they are all consumed with a grossly inflated sense of self-importance and holier-than-thouism…. OK, maybe not all — but certainly above 95% are indeed deranged.

After previous reviews of Letters-to-the-Editor, some of “you guys” have suggested that the New York Times might be faking its own letters. Though (((they))) are certainly capable of such tactics, we “The Editorial Board” of the Anti-New York Times have had enough personal interaction with “educated” libtards — most memorably with those residing in the quaint but snooty New Jersey college towns of Montclair and Princeton —  to understand that there would be no need for Sulzberger’s henchmen to have to fake such idiotic responses. This is exactly how these creatures “think.”

Let’s analyze / psychoanalyze some of the Marxist madness recently submitted to the Times in response to an article originally titled, “We Don’t Have to be Fanatics” then changed online to Is There a Way to Dial Down the Political Hatred? by Molly Worthen — in which the writer argued, sensibly, that people “on both sides” should overcome political “fanaticism” and try to reconnect.

1. Historian Molly Worthen suggested that the political factions in society should “moderate” and try to get along better. // 2. For that, her reasonable, non-political piece was criticized by a pair of insane letter writers. // 3. The stained glass window from the Headquarters of the socialist Fabian Society of Britain depicts leading members (Sydney Webb & George Bernard Shaw) molding the world. An inscription reads: “Remold it nearer to the heart’s desire.” Beneath the floor of the workshop, a cult of gullible ‘”educated” idiots (libtards) fanatically worship (and recite from) the books that the Fabians above have fed to them.

To the Editor — by M. Zimmerman:

Writer: Dr. Worthen’s prayer that we get past the hatred characterizing contemporary American politics is not merely futile — it embodies a false equivalence. The brutal reality is that Democrats and Republicans are divided by fundamental values, as well as by opposing views of reality, and that the G.O.P. is just wrong.
Analysis: Demonrats = right — G.O.P. = wrong. End of discussion as far as he’s concerned.

Writer: I don’t regard all Republican voters as malign individuals. But I am convinced that their party and its leaders are indeed a force for evil,
Analysis: He believes that many Republican voters are simply the innocent dupes of “evil” individuals (presumably led by Trump). Very well, the writer is entitled to his opinion, especially if he can back up his claims. But the cult-like stupidity / insanity lies in what he will now define as “evil.”

Writer: … as they propagate the false claim of a stolen election,
Analysis: How can he say that the claim is “false” when the ballot audit results haven’t been completed yet? A reasonable man — politically inclined or not — would at least wait until the process has ended before condemning those who ordered the audit as “evil.”

Writer: … attack voting rights,
Analysis: In no way, shape, manner or form does the tightening of Voter ID requirements and mail-in ballot controls infringe upon anyone’s “right” to vote. How does one even begin to have a dialogue with someone who holds to such a distorted “view of reality?”

Writer: … foment political violence,
Analysis: By any objective observation, the heated and hateful class-warfare and race-warfare rhetoric routinely bellowed out by so many leading Demonrats, dwarfs Trump’s “incitement” of January 6th.

Writer: … defend authoritarianism,
Analysis: “Authoritarianism,” eh? Says the fool whose beloved Demonrat Party would have had us all forcefully locked down and masked up in perpetuity, and then vaxxed with microchips while under threat of punishment.

Writer: … pander to racism,
Analysis: “Racism,” eh? Says the moron whose beloved Demonrat Party degrades and disparages White people at every turn.

Writer: … promote white supremacy, and in the end move to destroy our democracy.
Analysis: “White supremacy,” eh? Says this probable member of “The Tribe” (surname Zimmerman) which proudly lords supreme over the White Man of North America and Western Europe.

Writer: I am not ashamed that I would be appalled if my son or daughter were to marry someone who voted for these evils.
Analysis: So, your child’s marital bliss would be secondary to your twisted politics? Sounds a bit “authoritarian,” doesn’t it? Goodness gracious. As much as I have always detested their libtardation, I have never personally hated the Demonrat voters in my extended family.

Dear Libtards:

If the idea of organized voter fraud is such a “baseless” “conspiracy theory” — then why have so many people (usually of color ™) been arrested for it over the years?

To the Editor — by J. Levandusky:

Writer: Unfortunately, Molly Worthen’s article is a few years too late. We appear to be beyond a point in America where respectful listening may be a viable path to reconciliation.

Analysis: Agreed.

Writer: Indeed, the debate has gotten too extreme and too divorced from factuality on one side.

Analysis: And which side is that?

Writer: As the Republican Party ….

Analysis: Of course. Just like the other writer — Demonrats = good — G.O.P. = bad. This is the type of personal hatred which leads to genocide.

Writer: …. slides ever closer to full-on fascism,

Analysis: Putting aside the misunderstood and misapplied term “fascism”  — (for the sake of argument) — and thus misdefining it as a repressive “authoritarian” system of total thought control — 100% of the recent Amazon book banning, You Tube censoring, Facebook / Twitter removals, Google algorithm-rigging, PayPal account terminations and career-killing events involves the silencing of “the right” by folks on “the left.” Can anyone cite a single occurrence of a Marxist or Libtard author or blogger ever having been subjected to such cyber “fascism?”

Writer: … there appear to be few remaining with whom to engage.

Analysis: He misses the phony Paul RyansJohn McStains & Liz Cheneys of the pre-Trump Republican’t Party.

Writer:  Can you have a respectful dialogue with someone who believes that the election was stolen from Donald Trump Analysis: Ya know, “you guys” really do seem a bit too concerned about election fraud coming out.

Writer:  … or that Hillary Clinton ran a child sex ring out of a pizza parlor?

Analysis: No. Killary ran the Haiti child kidnapping operation. That was James Alefantis who owned that pedo-pizzeria with the revolting Instagram and Twitter posts. You could at least get your facts straight before you distort them. And y’all seem a bit too concerned about the pedo-sex stuff as well.

Writer: …..Can you have a civilized conversation with people who violently storm the Capitol and beat up police officers?

Analysis: Uh, those were actually CIA / Antifa agents. I know, I know… “conspiracy theory.”

Writer:  We are facing a profound threat to our democracy.

Analysis: The single most “profound threat to our democracy” is Demonrat voter fraud, with online censorship and cancel culture a close second and third. Historical precedents of Republican’t voter fraud are actually very few; and almost always involve one Republican’t stealing an election from another.

Writer: There is a need for stronger, more strategic measures, lest our country go down a path not unlike Europe in the 1930’s.

Analysis: Oh how I wish that would happen! But you needn’t worry too much about a 1930’s scenario, Boobus. Though some good things may be coming, Americans haven’t got the moral or mental stuff to go full-blown Hitler. Too bad.

These loony letter writers may be actual Communists who KNOW that they are spouting lies — or they may just be Libtard cultists blindly repeating what their media masters tell them to. It’s a difference without a distinction. The late philosopher, conservative author and recovered communist James Burnham once put it this way:

“The only difference between a Communist and a liberal is that the Communist knows what he is doing.”

Tell it, Mr. Burnham. Tell it!

 1. Kari Lake’s now nearly 1-month-old refusal to concede defeat in the yet-to-be-certified Arizona steal has got the Left very worried. // 2. Image from the Instagram page of Comet Pizza shows two naked homosexuals licking a cheese pizza. “Cheese Pizza” is code language used by child-rapists. // 3. Tony Podesta — a disgraced Demonrat big shot and collector of disgusting child abuse / torture “art” — is pals with “James Alefantis” (openly homosexual owner of Comet Pizza) whose fake name loosely translates into “I Love Children” in French (J’aime les enfants).

10 Ways to Change a Liberal’s Mind…

Have you ever talked with a liberal and made a comment that shuts him down completely?  “Trump sure is getting a raw deal with that FBI raid, isn’t he?”  His eyes go glassy, and he starts to look for the exit.  Or he repeats something automatically, like “Trump deserves anything he gets.” 

This “orange man bad” mantra is often called “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”  It effectively shuts down all communication between disagreeing sides and prevents any kind of meaningful dialogue, even between good friends or family members.  Even intelligent people who are suffering greatly from Biden/liberal policies, through loss of jobs, high gas and oil prices, rapid inflation, high taxes, or curbs on religious freedoms, won’t be able to change their minds and consider voting for a conservative or moderate candidate once he is somehow linked to Donald Trump. 

They say, “If Trump is for it, then I am against it” even if that means they pay $5 a gallon for gas, can’t get formula for their babies, or can’t afford to heat their homes this winter. 

Why does this happen?  How do people make up their minds, and why do they stubbornly refuse to change them? 

You would think that people would evaluate important issues logically, like a math equation where 2+2=4, but this is not true with beliefs, especially when politics is involved.

Keith M. Bellizzi, professor of human development and family sciences, from the University of Connecticut, is among many who study cognitive psychology and neuroscience, and his article on the subject is a good start.  He explains that there are survival systems that are hard-wired into our brains that actually cause stubborn adherence to wrong beliefs.

“Belief perseverance” is one such system.  “Being presented with facts — whether via the news, social media or one-on-one conversations — that suggest their current beliefs are wrong causes people to feel threatened.”  They will reject the evidence, and often their original beliefs will become stronger.

“Confirmation bias” is “the natural tendency to seek out information or interpret things in a way that supports your existing beliefs.  Interacting with like-minded people and media reinforces confirmation bias.”  This is why liberals watch MSNBC and conservatives watch Fox. 

The brain itself is hardwired to reinforce existing opinions and beliefs, even if this might cause harm.  When you win an argument, your body releases a rush of pleasurable hormones like dopamine and adrenaline.  In a high-stress or threatening situation, cortisol is released, which depresses your logical mind and triggers the more basic part of your brain, which controls fight or flight.  You “see red,” voices are raised, fists get clenched, and it’s much more difficult to understand what the other side is saying. 

Other sociologists have identified other biases that effect logical vs. emotional thinking.

“Believing people from your tribe” 

Humans developed in tribal cultures, which continue to this day.  You are much less likely to believe an outsider.  Nowadays, a tribe is not just a reference to ethnicity or religion, but also belief systems in global warming or abortion, where members are easily identified by how they look or what they say. 

“The big lie” 

People, by nature, are well intentioned, and they assume that others are as well.  So when they hear a lie, they tend to believe it.  Interestingly, the bigger the lie, the more likely it is to be believed because they assume that no one would lie about something of such importance.  

All of these factors are related to survival going back to the earliest days of mankind.  If you constantly have to be re-evaluating your beliefs, such as “growling tigers are a reason to run,” then you might consider having a chat with such a tiger — and end up being his lunch. 

So how can you reach people with closed minds? 

1. Be from within their tribe.  Start by reinforcing what the two of you have in common — you may have lived in the same city, had similar jobs or similar backgrounds.  

2. Get permission to discuss — “Would you like to tell me about your views on global warming?”  This makes the idea of a discussion non-threatening. 

3. Resolve never to argue or raise your voice.  Don’t threaten or invoke fear.  If things start to become even a little heated, then withdraw — “we can always discuss this later” or “now may not be the time to discuss this.”  Getting into a heated argument is going to activate the liberal’s lizard brain and end logical reasoning.  

4. Start small.  Don’t try to convince the liberal that Donald Trump is the next George Washington.  Go for a smaller issue that doesn’t challenge one of his core beliefs.  “Should Iran have a nuclear weapon?” or “Would it be good for China to control our farmland?” 

5. Pick topics where you are well-versed.  Most of the people you will be talking with know very little factual information — they are used to hearing talking points and then parroting them back to you. 

6. Ask questions.  There is nothing threatening about asking an honest question, especially about something that is important to the liberal.  Make it clear that you are open and willing to listen to his side and willing to change your mind.  There is a brain/hormone thrill associated with converting someone to his side that will entice him to interact.  Your openness models good behavior — if you’re willing to change your mind, then he should be open-minded as well.

7. Ask “why?”  Few can survive three “whys” in a row.  The brainwashed rarely know the logic behind what they parrot.  

8. Focus on common sense and fairness.  “Does it make sense to spend $2 trillion to lower global temperature by 0.0006 degrees?”  “Does it seem fair to make a middle-class worker who never went to college pay for the student loan of a Harvard graduate with a women’s studies degree?” 

9. If you start to see the liberal’s resistance crumbling, share how you used to feel how he did, but you changed your mind when you learned new information. 

10. If you get him to change his mind on one topic, don’t gloat or insist that he admit he was wrong.  Just say, “I’m glad we had a chance to discuss this.  I learned a lot from you.  I hope we can talk again in the future.”  Then come back another time with a different topic that is more important.  

Changing minds is not a quick process.  Patience and self-control are essential.  Unless we can learn how to speak to our fellow Americans in a kind and understanding manner, we will never heal the divide in our nation. 

We Are Witnessing What Happens When Unrestrained Youth Gets Power

From Madison reading Cato and Cicero when framing the Constitution to the outsized impact both Rome and America had on the world around them, the United States has long been associated with historical Rome. There are great similarities, and there can be much to learn—and what’s happening now does not reflect well on either historical Rome or America.

When most of us think of the worst emperors in Roman history we think of names like Commodus, Nero, Caligula, and Elagabalus. To a man they were vain, self-centered, bloodthirsty hedonists who took what they wanted and tortured and killed many thousands of Romans and provincials.

All emperors, including the great ones like Augustus, Trajan, and Aurelian had blood on their hands to one degree or another but most tried to maintain or grow the empire. Commodus et al didn’t. Their goal was to satiate their lusts, whether literal lust or gluttony or, sadly, bloodlust. While there were other bad emperors, these four are among the worst.

What makes this relevant today is the fact that all four of these “men” were spoiled, pampered, entitled sadists who were given free rein when they were still essentially children. Commodus was the oldest at 19, while Nero was 17, and both Elagabalus and Caligula were 16.

They were overindulged brats who never faced consequences for their behavior. They were given virtually anything they wanted or, just as often, allowed to take what they wanted with impunity. And at those ripe young ages, and with that upbringing, they were literally given the keys to the kingdom and unleashed on the Empire—and virtually everyone in it suffered as a result.

Every day in America we see modern-day Commoduses or Caligulas wreaking havoc on our streets and in our stores, restaurants, schools, and more. Instead of a single entitled Emperor, America in 2022 is being ravaged by a generation of young men—many of whom have grown up fatherless—who have been told that they can do and say anything they want and that, regardless of what they do, there will be no consequences for them.

Just as Elagabalus et al brought nothing but blood, despair, and dysfunction to the Empire, these 21st-century youth are bringing blood, despair, and destruction to America. A generation of Americans has grown up being given “time outs”, “participation trophies,” and grades that have nothing to do with actual academic success, while at the same time they’ve been told that all inequality is due to racism, sexism, homophobia, or anything other than individual choices or actions.

The consequence of this indoctrination is that far too many young Americans think they can do anything with impunity. If they want something they take it. If they’re mad about something they protest, disrupt the lives of everyone within shouting distance, and frequently riot. They assault, rape and, sometimes, even murder, increasingly with impunity.

Pat Moynihan predicted much of this 60 years ago in his “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action.” In it he “…described through pages of disquieting charts and graphs, the emergence of a “tangle of pathology,” including delinquency, joblessness, school failure, crime, and fatherlessness that characterized ghetto—or what would come to be called underclass—behavior.”

While most of the scenes of flash mobs, carjackings, Knock Out Game punches, subway shovings, and daily shootings involve black male youth, this is not a race issue. Yes, the problem is disproportionately black, but White and Hispanic America is increasingly experiencing the same challenges of unwed mothers, school failures, and the lack of responsibility that underpins much of the dysfunction.

Whether a California college student getting 6 months for rape, a Texas boy getting no jail time for killing four people in a car crash, or charges being dropped against a South Carolina boy for killing someone in a boat crash, unaccountable America spans across races, wealth, and indeed the country itself. This is nowhere better demonstrated than by the legions of rioters who participated in the “peaceful protests” of 2020 who found their charges dropped or their bails funded by the glitterati.

How To Win The Debate On Abortion In 12 Clear Counterpoints

The same points keep getting made in the debate on abortion. Here are the many reasons the usual points in favor of abortion are wrong.

by ELEANOR BARTOW,

The Supreme Court has overturned its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling and now the issue of abortion will be part of our national debate as much as ever. Here are some of the many reasons the usual arguments in favor of abortion are wrong.

Pro-Abortion Claim: The government should stay out of people’s private lives. This is a woman’s choice, not anyone else’s, and a women’s rights issue.

Why It’s Wrong: Laws often restrict an individual’s rights, including the right to hurt another person or infringe upon another’s rights. In taking the life of an unborn child, a woman is taking away the most basic of all rights.

An unborn child is not part of a woman’s body, but a separate, individual human being with his or her own rights. A child is not the mother’s property, just as parents are legal guardians of children but not the children’s owners and are not allowed to abuse their children.

Pro-Abortion Claim: When most abortions take place, in early pregnancy, a fertilized egg is just a mass of cells, not a human being. It doesn’t feel pain.

Why It’s Wrong: A new life begins at conception and should not be destroyed by human interference.

First, one-third of abortions take place after nine weeks of pregnancy. Yet from the moment of conception, the zygote has its own unique DNA structure, is alive and growing, and is equipped to become a mature human being.

Six weeks after conception, the unborn child’s heartbeat is detectable — but began beating before then. At week three, neural development begins. At week four, the eye, ear, and respiratory systems begin to form. At week six, the mouth and lips are present. At week seven, the embryo looks like a baby.

The beginning of life could be defined by many different points of development — fertilization (the fusion of the nuclei of the sperm and egg cell), implantation, the first movement, heartbeat, or brain waves, consciousness, or birth. Any point you choose could be just a day’s difference between life and death for an unborn child.

Drawing the line at the point of viability is also problematic — that point will continue to get earlier in the pregnancy as medical advances create better means of keeping the unborn alive outside the womb; indeed, viability is now weeks earlier than it was when Roe was decided.

Yet the unborn child did not become a person because he could survive due to modern science. Newborns are not technically viable either, as they cannot survive on their own. By this logic, we should consider it acceptable to kill newborns.

Nor does the absence of pain at early stages make it moral to kill the unborn child, just as it would not with an adult. Abortion can involve sucking a baby out of the uterus (or as Planned Parenthood puts it, “the suction machine is turned on and the uterus is gently emptied”), causing a stillbirth by injecting a salt solution into the uterus, and other horrors.

Pro-Abortion Claim: Abortion can’t be a crime against nature if fertilized eggs are spontaneously miscarried in nature.

Why It’s Wrong: The occurrence of an event in nature does not justify deliberately mimicking that event. The elderly die of natural causes, but that doesn’t make it right to kill them. And many miscarriages are associated with extra or missing chromosomes.

Pro-Abortion Claim: Birth control isn’t 100 percent effective. When it fails, women have been responsible and need abortion as another method to avoid having a child.

Why It’s Wrong: Seven percent of women report having sex without using some form of birth prevention in the past three months, not including 8 percent who have such sex but are seeking pregnancy or already pregnant. Many people who use birth control do not do so effectively.

The pregnancy prevention rate of birth-control pills used consistently and correctly is 99 percent. For that small portion who correctly used birth control but it did not prevent conception, they have to accept the risks of sexual activity, which include a child. Contraception is free with most health insurance plans and easily available.

Pro-Abortion Claim: In the case of rape or incest, when a woman was an innocent victim of an involuntary act, she should not be forced to carry a child. She would be forced to suffer even more.

Why It’s Wrong: One percent of women say they want an abortion because they were raped, and less than 0.5 percent say they are pregnant as a result of incest. Even in such very rare cases, an unborn child should not be killed because of another person’s evil deed. The pregnant woman needs love and support, not more trauma.

An estimated 800,000 abortions take place in the United States each year. Common reasons given for seeking an abortion are that a child would disrupt the mother’s education (38 percent), interfere with job or career (38 percent), or be unaffordable (73 percent). About half of respondents said they didn’t want to be a single mom or were having relationship problems.

About a third said they didn’t want any more kids; 25 percent said they didn’t want people to know they had sex or got pregnant; 32 percent said they weren’t ready for a child; and 22 percent didn’t feel mature enough to raise children. More than half of those seeking abortion have had at least one previous birth.

Pro-Abortion Claim: Minors are too young for the responsibilities of parenthood.

Why It’s Wrong: About 3 percent of females who get abortions are younger than 18, and 8 percent are 18 to 19 years old. Parents of minors should teach their children about the consequences of sex, the benefits of abstinence, and the limitations of contraception, among other things: Sex can lead to pregnancy and if it does the unborn child should not be killed.

Accepting truths that you don’t like is part of maturity, and sex should be reserved for mature people ready to care for a child.

Pro-Abortion Claim: If abortion were made legal only in cases of rape or incest, women would lie.

Why It’s Wrong: The court system could settle the truth of their claims and more reporting of rape and incest would help bring perpetrators to justice.

Pro-Abortion Claim: Abortion is safer than continuing a pregnancy to term.

Why It’s Wrong: Even if abortion is safer than pregnancy, that doesn’t make it right. But with modern medicine, the death risks for both abortion and pregnancy are very low.

Pro-Abortion Claim: It would be better for abnormal fetuses to be aborted than to live with poor health or a disability.

Why It’s Wrong: In the case of the small minority of fetuses with a potentially life-threatening abnormality, a natural death may result, but, if not, the child should be given the benefit of the doubt, not be killed. It’s wrong to kill disabled people for their disabilities.

Pro-Abortion Claim: If abortion were outlawed, women would just get riskier, dangerous abortions.

Why It’s Wrong: People break other laws with repercussions too, but we don’t avoid that outcome by not making those laws. Outlawing abortion would save millions of unborn babies’ lives.

It is difficult to know the number of abortions resulting in death before abortion was legalized, because many illegal abortions went unreported. Education is the best alternative, so women know the risks of trying to get an abortion illegally, how to effectively use birth control, and how they can receive assistance as mothers.

Pro-Abortion Claim: The right to an abortion has led to a more prosperous society as women have continued in their careers and low-income couples have not been burdened with an additional expense. Abortion has reduced the child abuse and crime that arise from unwanted children.

Why It’s Wrong: Abortion has been bad for our society, as it devalues human life and the fulfillment that only family and children, not a job, can provide. If women want to put careers first or can’t afford children, they should practice abstinence or correctly use birth control and make plans for accepting the consequences if that fails.

If women are poor and do have children, the government provides assistance. Adoption is also a better option than killing an unborn child. Many loving, screened, financially stable parents are waiting to adopt babies.

As for whether studies prove that abortion has reduced crime or abuse, this is a dangerous line of argument. Should we abort babies of certain groups more likely to be criminals?

Pro-Abortion Claim: A woman has a right to privacy, as recognized by the Supreme Court, and to make her own decisions about her life and happiness.

Why It’s Wrong: Roe v. Wade was so strongly resisted because it was a deeply flawed decision.

The legal arguments are lengthy, but the short answer is that the constitutional right to liberty simply does not grant the right to kill another person, and an unborn child is a person.

Abortion is a deeply divisive issue, and about half of Americans consider themselves pro-life and half call themselves pro-choice. Overturning Roe will not end abortion rights but return the issue to the states, allowing for a more democratic process — the debate will continue, but the truth remains the same.