Dr. “No” explains the meaning of the word.

The only proper response to utopians is “No!”.  But that’s not to imply your message is for them.  They already hear “no” in everything but your humble, “as you command, master”.

You’re fighting for people who haven’t contracted Militant Narcissism.  “No!” is “everything they say is a lie!”  Of course, you have to prove it.  But that’s the easy part.    

What’s hard (for you social animals) is to seek the hatred of all those pretty, pretty people.  If you could do it en masse this war would be over.  Well, never over, of course.  (The idea that things can be settled permanently is utopian madness.)  But we might surpass all previous peace and freedom before the lesson is lost and utopians grow strong again…

Let’s say you’re “debating” Obama or any other Militant Narcissist.  Why attack his argument?  He doesn’t care about it, neither should you.   Remember, he is insane at the axiomatic level.  The only reason to argue with a crazy man is to benefit onlookers.  So attack his beliefs, where they first diverge from reality. 

Something like, “Mr. Obama claims to care about the poor and needy, but he is lying.” 

Now before proving that statement—which is simple—just imagine utopian anger.  They go nuts when their trivial errors are pointed out.  So why not turn the dial up to “11”?  Why not show the world that Militant Narcissists are everything they claim to hate?  Their polished deceit would turn into raging incoherence that drives their potential victims away.  And what’s the worst that could happen?

Well…assassination, of course.  You wouldn’t be in danger if ten million others joined you.  That would break the utopians for generations.  But a lone prophet?  A handful of people?  Point out their moral nakedness, keep doing it, and some will finally scramble to the last refuge of the incompetent.        

But that’s what it takes.

Oh, proving that Obama doesn’t care?  Easy. 

“We all know that Obama loves his daughters.  He does everything he can for their safety and prosperity.  Notice what he doesn’t do.  He doesn’t spend forty percent more than he makes, year after year after year.  Why?  Because he would go bankrupt someday and then be unable to support his girls.”

“When campaigning, Obama declared Bush’s deficit spending and debts ‘unpatriotic’.  He promised to cut spending, cut the deficit, rein in the debt .  He was elected on those promises and he broke every one.  He saves money for some.  But you, you he puts you deeper in debt with no plan to repay.  Because he doesn’t care.  He only pretends so that you’ll do what he wants.”

Advertisements

About wormme

I've accepted that all of you are socially superior to me. But no pretending that any of you are rational.
This entry was posted in Militant Narcissim. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Dr. “No” explains the meaning of the word.

  1. DefendUSA says:

    And that, my dear friends, is what I define as the wife beater syndrome…The wife equals dem voters. The beater being the POTUS. The POTUS promised that everything would be sunshine and gumdrops after the last Presidential election…that he would fix things. He told his wives everything they wanted to hear and then some. Surprise!! They have all been beaten again…but, if you just give him four more years, it will all turn out O_KAY!!
    Lather, rinse, repeat if you like being beat.

    • wormme says:

      And your analogy explains why they keep expanding entitlements and government dependency. A wife who can’t support herself will let the husband get away with things a competent woman never would.

      • Blake says:

        We live in a participation trophy society these days. As such, people have been lulled into thinking all they have to do is show up and they’ll be rewarded with a life free of want, work or thought.

        • DefendUSA says:

          Sebastian Haffner’s “Defying Hitler” suggests that those whom the government provides with all things will lose the ability to hope, dream, or live. They only exist.

          • Edohiguma says:

            That’s actually very likely, I just need to look at the people milking our welfare state. They have no dreams, they just want the money from the government.

            But what does that have to do with Hitler? Hitler grew up in the old Austrian monarchy, where the emperor basically ruled by divine right. The government didn’t provide even remotely like it’s common today. There was a parliament, but that was usually too busy knocking itself out (the old Austrian monarchy was a multi-cultural nightmare, to say the least, and the different factions all wanted the best for themselves while not giving a damn about the rest; there was tactic in parliament where on speaker would go on for, literally, hours and would thus effectively block the entire parliament from being able to do anything, the Czech representatives were quite prone to do just that.)

            After the war Hitler dabbled with the Reds, but eventually switched to the Browns. And under him Nazi Germany didn’t provide any such massive amount of welfare. It was expected from people to serve the German fatherland and the Aryan race. Anyone the government deemed to be useless, well… We know what happened to such people.

  2. Xpat says:

    Jerry Pournelle had something good on this the other day.

    (Thanks to Worme for introducing me to Pournelle’s site . . . some distant age ago . . .)

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