An episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation had the crew of the Enterprise encounter a species known as The Borg. Unlike other aliens that Captain Picard and his crew had met, these humanoid but cybernetically altered beings had no interest in communicating with The Enterprise. For that matter, the only interest they had in studying the ship was for assimilating the human race into their species. By assimilating, they would attack each person with a painful injection of nanite probes that would transform them into one of these Borg monsters. Even worse, none of humanity’s weapons had more than a minimal effect on the Borg, while the adversary’s weapons would slice right through our own defenses. The Borg were of a single hive mindset, completely sure of the purity of their mission, incapable of reason, and merciless toward any who did not fit their notions of an appropriate existence – sort of like your average Leftist today.
When the Borg made their attack to assimilate humanity they took on the unusual tactic of first capturing, and assimilating, Captain Jean Luc Picard. The motivation seemed to be twofold: 1) Absorb the knowledge of the Captain of Starfleet’s flagship, and 2) use the Captain as a lead face to demoralize humanity in the battle. The capture would be the Borg’s downfall however, as Picard’s crew would raid the Borg ship and capture the assimilated Picard. This allowed them to hook him up to their cybernetic crew member, Mr. Data, as a back door into the Borg’s systems. Why wouldn’t the Borg simply disconnect Picard from their hive mind? As the Ship’s Doctor came to realize, the Borg could no more sever one of their drones from the collective mind than you or I could cut off our own foot. The finale of what many consider to be the best episodes of the series ended in somewhat of a screw, with Picard’s own consciousness breaking through the Borg reprogramming to tell Data to put the ship to sleep. Data proceeded to access a Borg subroutine that set off a regenerative cycle, and for reasons never adequately explained this triggered a system crash that caused the ship to explode. For all of their evolutionary superiority, apparently the Borg couldn’t find a better operating system to run their ships on than Windows Vista.
Right now some of you are probably wondering, “What on Earth does this have to do with that last post?” Thank you for indulging me the last two paragraphs – if you’re not already seeing it the parallels will be clear as day shortly. The first part of this post addressed how easy it was for a radical Islamist to impose censorship onto London by simply using a gradual step in language that appeals to your typical urban Leftist. I recently wrote a post regarding this tone deafness of Leftists, and commentor Ema Nymton raised a fair point:
If“the greatest enemies that our nation faces are also incredibly stupid”, why do _you_ keep losing to them? What does it make you, that you lose to stupid? Jes’ask’n …
And a few months ago in my “Mind of the Leftist” series, I lamented two huge advantages that the Radical Left that controls the Democratic Party holds, and I had no idea how to counter them:
And that brings me to the final point of this installment, which is another huge advantage that the left holds – because they are incapable of accepting responsibility they are equally incapable of feeling any guilt over the consequences of their actions. You can shame a conservative, but because leftist concerns are so self-centered they are impervious to the use of an argument that might make a normal person feel guilt over their positions.
The maddening part about debating Leftists is that because they are so emotionally and spiritually invested in their beliefs they are impervious to facts and reason (Which I go into in greater detail in Part V). The fact that their minds can’t be changed is a problem, but what if that’s also their greatest weakness? Look back at what Mayor Khan did in London – his end game is obviously to impose Islamic dress codes onto Londoners, but that can’t be done in one fell swoop. So he imposes some simple censorship, and most importantly, he sells it in language that no Leftist can object to. Protecting women from body image shaming? What soft hearted and soft headed Leftist could possibly object to that?
Moving to my main point, I caught a great story about a small town in Vermont that’s objecting to having 100 Syrian refugees dumped on them by the federal government: (emphasis mine)
“I think it’s wonderful that they’re letting them in. I’m glad it’s not me in that situation,” said Heather Turnbull, who runs a downtown gift shop. “But I’m concerned for them. Where will they work? This isn’t the best place, because all of the best jobs have gone.”
There will be jobs, resettlement supporters say. Tom Huebner, president and chief executive officer of the Rutland Regional Medical Center, which employs about 1,500 workers, said there are 120 jobs available at any given moment.
“We’re always hiring,” Huebner said.“The issue of job availability is not at all insurmountable.”
Still, the spectacle of a public vote on resettling Syrians would be an “albatross” around the neck of Rutland, making the town “look petty and backwater” to the rest of the nation, Notte said.
“We’re going to be getting people who in 4 or 5 years will be buying homes and being productive. They won’t be a drain – I think they’ll be a shot in the arm,” Notte said.
First, I’m guessing that the refugees won’t be ready to fill the “120 jobs available at any given moment” that Rutland Medical’s CEO is citing – a quick look at the openings on their site leaves me skeptical that there are lots of doctors and nurses ready to step into those vacancies. And maybe this article missed some key fact, but the basic Laws of Supply and Demand tell us that an influx of poor, unskilled workers to an already impoverished area isn’t a recipe for prosperity. But look at Rutte’s comment that I highlighted – what Leftist wants to be seen as petty and backwater? Which brings me to my point – we keep losing to the Radical Left because we believe in fighting fair while they immediately go for a sucker punch to the yahoo as they scream that they’re the ones being victimized.
Why not start using their own rules against them?
Look at how easily Mayor Khan got the sheep of London to happily submit to censorship. All he had to do was flatter their sense of moral superiority. And what could be a better way to take advantage of the Leftist ego than to push for all Middle Eastern refugees to be sent to wealthy, deep blue enclaves? If this sounds like my previous “Bad Idea” of putting refugee camps on college campuses, it’s taking it a step further. I initially thought of the concept as a bad idea, and I’ve changed my mind – I think it is a good idea now. In fact, let’s expand on it. After seeing what has happened with Hillary’s inexplicable pardon for her criminal acts, and almost as disturbing, rather than feel the slightest bit of shame over it, I have not seen a single Leftist who is standing up and objecting to this trampling of rule of law. When it comes down to it, this fall no Leftist will have any trouble voting for Hillary.
Ah, you may be saying, they would vote against Hillary if the Republicans weren’t running such a crazed radical like Trump. Remember, these are the same Leftists who overnight ditched their once beloved “Maverick” John McCain as a crazy old man and who convinced themselves that what may have been one of the most decent human beings and insanely capable leader in Mitt Romney (Seriously, who turns around a failing Olympics and makes it profitable?) was some kind of bloody fanged, greedy monster? Do you have any doubt the Radical Left wouldn’t have painted Cruz, Rubio, Perry, Walker, Jeb!, Christie, etc. into some demon that needed be opposed at all costs? Note I didn’t include Kasich, as he would have actually been a demon that needed be opposed at all costs.
These people can’t be reasoned with, and it’s time to put them on the defensive for a change. As the American Conservative’s Rod Dreher observed:
“They can’t see that paeans to multicultural openness can sound like self-serving cant coming from open-borders Londoners who love Afghan restaurants but would never live near an immigrant housing project, or American liberals who hail the end of whiteness while doing everything possible to keep their kids out of majority-minority schools.”
Of course Leftists feel this way. They’re not stupid, but they’ll never admit to their own discrimination. How do we get them to accept impoverished, disease ridden, rapists into their midst? Easy -we can actually tell them what they want to hear, and flatter their sense of unearned moral superiority. We need a prominent Republican leader to take charge of this situation and sell it in like so:
My progressive friends, America needs you. This nation is ready to show its compassion and generosity by bringing in refugees from around the world. Unfortunately, in too many communities, we see closed mindedness and prejudice preventing these migrants from getting the welcome they deserve. That is why we are asking the progressives who most support these migrants to be the ones to show us the way and lead by example. We have drawn plans to set up residents for groups of refugees on college campuses, in gay districts, and in some of the wealthiest communities that can most afford to open up to those in need. We know that you are the best America has to offer, and now we call on you to show us the way.
This should be immediately followed up with Congressional Republicans working to move refugees into the bluest of the blue enclaves. Here is the beauty of my plan and the above statement being endorsed by conservatives:
We will be completely full of horse hockey when we say it
The Leftists will know that we are completely full of horse hockey
We will know that they know we’re full of it
The best part? There won’t be a damned thing that the Leftists can say about it. Are they going to admit that they’re not morally superior to us? Are they going to acknowledge that not wanting potential rapists and murderers in your neighborhood doesn’t make you xenophobic or a bigot? For all that Leftists howl about income inequality, how can they complain if the wealthiest towns have their schools and hospitals burdened with this influx of foreigners?
Remember the Star Trek story from earlier where Dr. Crusher pointed out that the Borg could no more cut off one of their own drones from the collective than you or I could cut off our own foot? In that same way, the Radical Left would rather get raped or killed than concede the unearned moral superiority that they believe they hold. They can never admit they are wrong, or even acknowledge the “inadvertent” harm that their policies might cause. If that sounds insane, look no further than Rotherdam, the New Years’ attacks in Cologne, the European press’ efforts to put a soft brush on recent terror activities, etc.
The beauty of dropping these migrants into their neighborhoods will give the lefties real problems to worry about instead of harassing us! What if we had started a program like this a few years ago. There could have been conversations like this:
“Has anyone seen Director Lerner today? She was supposed to give us direction on some new program to harass certain groups”
“Didn’t you hear? She was gardening at her house yesterday when one of her new neighbors came over and stabbed her because the shorts and halter top she was wearing were too immodest.”
“Curse those lone wolves whose motives we may never know!”
Or how about:
“We’re almost ready for our armed raid on that existential threat that the guitar factory up the street poses. Has anyone seen Phil?”
“Didn’t you hear? He’s with his son in the hospital – he got roughed up pretty badly trying to rescue his sister from the youths of unknown motive that were gang raping her.”
“Curse those lone wolves whose motives we may never know!”
OK, even I’ll admit that these scenarios sound a bit far fetched, but sadly not by much:
“A young left-wing German politician has admitted she lied to police about the racial background of three men who raped her in case it triggered reprisals against refugees in her country.
Selin Gören, the national spokeswoman of the left-wing youth movement Solid, was attacked by three men in January in the city of Mannheim where she works as a refugee activist.
The 24-year-old was ambushed late at night in a playground where she said she was forced to perform a sex act on her attackers.”
There really is no comment I can add to that. But that couldn’t happen here, right? Not with a girl who was sexually assaulted by “Migrant youths” in Montana:
Ultimately, the Obama administration adopted that theme as well. Wendy J. Olson, U.S. attorney for Idaho, warned Twin Falls residents (and others interested in the case):
“The spread of false information or inflammatory or threatening statements about the perpetrators or the crime itself reduces public safety and may violate federal law.”
She made clear that her primary concern was protecting the Muslim migrants:
“We have seen time and again that the spread of falsehoods about refugees divides our communities.”
Eugene Volokh, a professor of free speech law, noted in the Washington Post:
[T]here is no First Amendment exception for “inflammatory” statements; and even false statements about matters of public concern, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, are an inevitable part of free debate. … [Olson’s warning] looks like an attempt to chill constitutionally protected speech through the threat of federal prosecution.
That’s exactly what it is.
Or as Breitbart’s Thomas D. Williams gave us this gem into the leftist mindset:
In a recent essay, a Huffington Post writer makes the incredible argument that while the Second Amendment guarantees U.S. citizens the right to carry and stockpile arms, it does not give the right to shoot violent attackers in self-defense because to do so would deny assailants a fair trial.
And just imagine what impact this has on our moral and intellectual superiors when their craft beer fest gets overrun by gangs of “youths” or their favorite public swimming pool becomes unusable because some of the locals can’t seem to grasp that women aren’t property. Or let’s see how the first Gay Pride parade fares when it passes by a refugee camp, or some campus feminists’ “Slut Walk” goes when there’s a thousand or so “youths” on their campus. And as some of you know, I live in the DC area, so this also means the places where I live and work getting trashed as well. As much as I’d hate to see the city I call my home destroyed, if it will save the country it’s a small price to pay.
Before some Leftist starts howling that I’m calling for violence against them, let’s stop that stupidity right here. I don’t want violence against anyone, except maybe the damned killers and rapists. But if you’re going to follow people who tell you that for the first time in history an enemy being able to murder civilians deep behind enemy lines is a sign that they’s losing and that you think that not wanting to bring their soldiers directly into our neighborhoods makes you morally superior shouldn’t you be the ones who bear the negative effects of said immigration? Which of course it’s not a problem because you told us it’s not a problem. But when even Chris Matthews is asking intelligent questions on the subject, maybe it’s time to take the hint.
Realistically, I doubt any Republican leaders in Congress would have the stones to make a bold proposal like this (would they?), but there have to be other ways we can use the Radical Left’s own language to foist their destructive policies on them. Drop your ideas in the comments!
Cross posted from Brother Bob’s Blog