Image 01 Image 03



From Keith Burgess-Jackson, in April 2010 (hey, I just saw it, but it’s timeless):

Two comments on the Tea Party movement. First, progressives refer to its members as angry. This is an attempt to replace a cognitive state (belief) with an affective state (anger), and thereby to diminish the movement. The label makes it seem as though Tea Partiers aren’t thinking; they’re merely feeling. Progressives are notorious for being emoters, so this is likely a case of projection. Second, it’s very important for progressives that the Tea Partiers not represent a broad-based movement for limited government, for that would spell trouble for social engineers and wealth spreaders. They must make it seem as though it is nothing more than a group of racists or Obama-haters.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



LukeHandCool | June 24, 2012 at 10:15 pm

EnoProjection (to go with your pondering of EmoProjection):

Well said, Mr. Burgess-Jackson!

To paraphrase Maxine Waters,

Come on, Progressives, let’s get it on!

Henry Hawkins | June 24, 2012 at 10:32 pm

Explains some of it, not all. In that no one is more alert to lies than the liar, other progressives assume any widespread effective opposition movement *must* be astroturf, which is another progressive descriptor of the TP movement, employed as often as is the “they’re just emoting, not thinking” explanation. Can’t be both emotionally impulsive and artificially manufactured, so progressives are apparently split on how they choose to totally misinterpret the Tea Party phenomenon.

What astounds me is how so many progressives/liberals still don’t understand that it isn’t an actual ‘party’ in the political sense, but rather a general set of conservative ideas – small government, individual liberty protection, lower taxes, etc. – shared by a large and growing swath of the population. Nor do they understand that the Tea Party they see out protesting, holding events, going to townhalls, etc., is just the tip of the iceberg, that for every participatory TP-er, there are a thousand more who support the TP set of ideas listed above in toto, as well as an even larger number who support at least half the TP demand list.

May they continue to underestimate their opposition. It has served us well so far.

    LukeHandCool in reply to Henry Hawkins. | June 24, 2012 at 10:47 pm

    I agree, Our ‘Enry.

    But remember the left’s supposed answer to the Tea Party … the Coffee Party?

    That was artificially manufactured by some in the MSM and then the usual rubes, dupes, and the like emotionally and impulsively went with it. Actually, OWS kinda fits the bill, too.

    The Coffee Party … how’s it doing these days? How are the WaPo’s and NY Times’s then predictions for its growing influence coming along?

    As Homer Simpson told Bart when they were lost in the forest, “Wild animals can sense fear. And they don’t like it!!”

    My old liberal high school classmates on Facebook a couple years ago … the ones who proudly proclaimed they were new members of the new Coffee Party … I think they sensed mockery in my comments … and they didn’t like it!!

      punfundit in reply to LukeHandCool. | June 24, 2012 at 11:11 pm

      The left’s response to the Tea Party Movement was Occupy.

      currently in reply to LukeHandCool. | June 25, 2012 at 12:18 am

      Thanks for reminding me, as that movement was so short lived it damn near escaped my memory.

      I now recall all those massive meetings of 3 or 4 people in a booth wondering what they could do to encourage the Leftist to rise up and counteract such a racist group of teabaggers (besides drinking coffee instead of tea).

      And the media promoting them in all their glory for a couple weeks.

      Good times.

      They are the “Starbucks Party”.

    Not being students of history, they do not understand that the “Party” in Tea Party refers to the Tea Party that took place in Boston harbor when American Patriots dumped English tea into the harbor to protest the tea tax. It is not a “Party”, as you aptly point out in the sense that they mistake it for [danged dangling participle].

Will be attending my local tea party conference Tuesday evening-

Will report back if they have become racist/insignificant since the last time-

I am glad to see Keith referenced. IHe post some nteresting things on philosophy and logic. He also has a fascination with the letters to the editor published in the NYT.

Leftists always tell us who they are by what they accuse us of.

Hopefully the tipping point has been crossed & we are on the leading edge of the reestablishment of America as it was designed to be. lf that indeed comes to pass the T Party movement will be recognized as largely a series of dieing Americans gift to an America they would not let go down without a fight. ln 20 years most of us will be dead.

Cassandra Lite | June 25, 2012 at 12:24 am

Well, it *is* a group of Obama haters. But not for the reasons they keep trying to assert.

Well, yes, I am angry. Anyone who is a thinking person should be. And yes, I “hate” Obama, because the best thing that can be said about him is that he’s incompetent. And finally, I don’t give a rat’s patoot what other labels emanate like verbal diarrhea from nincompoops who have nothing of substance to say. Because guess what: there are a lot of us, and God willing, we are coming out in force election day and going to stop the runaway train that is the federal government. “Fix your bayonets!

It’s also a classic Alinsky/communist tactic–ridicule your opponent to marginalize them. What’s that saying about being known by your deeds?

It’s about more than the Tea Party. The Tea Party, coming along at the long-awaited moment of Leftist emergence into mainstream power, simply focused their rage and pathological projection. But it’s a theme or dynamic seen throughout the history of the Left: that is, the characterization of all ideological opposition as irrational, illegitimate, subhuman, unworthy of existence. It is a sweeping and necessary dehumanization–necessary to their moral superiority and insecurity. George Bush was retarded and evil (at the same time), Sarah Palin a hick monster and mother of deformed children, Ronald Reagan a moronic ogre. It becomes worse as the threat becomes greater. This is why you see the degeneration of Bill Maher’s slurs: now he asserts that conservatism is not even an ideology but a facade for subhumans to act out. They’re in panic mode now — Obama was their big chance, and they needed eight years from him to lay waste and establish dominion.

But, in general, if the Left were to admit that conservatism was legitimate, it would open the possibility that their own ideology was not perfect and insuperable. Once that happened, the house of cards would collapse.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to raven. | June 25, 2012 at 11:32 am

    In other words, a primary Alinsky tactic, and the standard progressive/liberal response to opposition, is the ad hominem fallacy of logic. Demonize the messenger.

    In close second is the straw man argument, the practice of misrepresenting your opponents’ argument, changing it into something you can actually refute.

    Third is the ad populum fallacy of logic, where you appeal to (fake) numbers of people who believe as liberals believe: “all professional economists say” or “all serious environmentalist agree”. It is never true (“all”), but even if it were, it is entirely possible for all of any group to be totally wrong. Truth is not a democracy; proof of an assertion is in the evidence for it, not in how many people believe the assertion. If truth were determined by how many believe a thing, what’s the cut-off number? If 999 people believe it, it’s not considered truth yet, but if 1,000 believe it, by God, it’s true? No, a single person with the proving facts beats out a million experts who share an opinion.

    punfundit in reply to raven. | June 25, 2012 at 4:52 pm

    “If the Left were to admit that conservatism was legitimate, it would open the possibility that their own ideology was not perfect and insuperable…”

    You nailed it. The left can permit ZERO alternative thought. They must instill and enforce in the mass mind The One True Faith of eternal social friction healed by collective salvation at the hands of an enlightened few. Thus, butcher the infidel.

Henry Hawkins | June 25, 2012 at 11:45 am

One of the things I appreciate most about this blog and WAJ is how he is careful to recognize he may be wrong, and a general theme of devil’s advocacy as a bulwark against fooling one’s self. He is an attorney and an educator, but this trait is pure scientific philosophy. This said in preamble to the most inportant logical fallacy for those who value truth:

The Fallacist’s Fallacy – Just because one has refuted an opponent’s argument by identifying the logical fallacy(ies) employed to support it, this doesn’t mean the opponent’s assertion is wrong. It only means his/her manner of argument has been negated – they could be accidentally correct. Refuting the basic assertion then requires its own set of logical argument(s).