You are listening to No PC Allowed, aka No Political Correctness Allowed, and I am Mack Iverson.
It is widely known that liberals can't debate their way out of a wet paper bag.
No surprise, all you have to do is look at the last Vice President Brandon Trump debate.
Most liberals aren't smart. That isn't their talent. It's not in their wheelhouse.
Their talent is mainly four things.
As a general rule, they are, number one, emotional, two, sociable, three, greedy and self-centered, and four, egomaniacal.
Those are their most obvious traits to me. All four are also pejoratives, with the possible exception of trait number two, they being sociable.
But I can turn that into a quick negative by saying they are herd followers.
Again, these are general rules only. All this translates into them not having rigorous minds, strong enough to sustain them in even a casual debate with even a semi-competent conservative opponent.
In the following moments, I will show why these deadly to success character flaws of most liberals has led to their stellar success politically and socially,
but because these are fatal flaws, why that same shooting star is now on its rapid descendancy and about to evaporate into the breathtaking atmosphere of conservative reality.
Going back to trait number one, liberals are emotional. Why that connection?
People who lead with emotions, typically women more than men, don't use their minds quite as much.
I'm not saying that's bad necessarily. People who live in their heads too much can learn a whole new way of being by living more emotionally.
But the reverse is also true, and living mentally and rationally can be far more liberating if you live in a complex world as we do.
In America today, flitting from emotion to emotion can even destroy you through alcohol and drug dependency if you don't have at least a healthy religious outlook of some kind to rely on when times get tough.
Liberalism often eschews the religious, especially Christianity.
So if you don't have that bulwark to help you in life, you won't be able to relate to Christian conservatism.
But liberals will accept you with open arms. It also helps the liberal cause that you're not too bright.
If you question things too much, that exposes their liberal agenda, which is primarily motivated not by sincere liberal beliefs, but by the acquirement of big, easy, dirty money for the bigger players.
And so if emotional simpletons at the bottom of the liberal corporate structure pyramid question motivations of the deep state too much, they will start to get wise as to what's really going on.
And the mafia-controlled liberal agenda don't like wise guys or people who get too big for their britches.
So if you start snooping around asking too many questions and you can't keep your nose clean, you could find yourself, shall we say, on the way out. If you know what I mean.
Isn't that just like the mafia? That is why liberals have been manufactured by the deep state billionaires to be more emotional than logical and rational.
No truth seekers are allowed in the dummy-crat party.
Treat number two. Liberals are sociable. Or to put it more succinctly, liberals are herding animals.
Why that connection? It's in the same vein as being emotional.
Touchy-feely people like the feel-good emotions that comes from hanging out with others.
People who feel happiest with others are the ones who will do whatever it takes to get along with others.
They will sacrifice a lot of themselves for the sake of those feel-good relationships.
And because of this, they tend to not want to rock the boat that might threaten those relationships.
So if anything controversial in a friend's life suddenly surfaces, they tend to want to blow it off, if and only if bringing attention to it may sever that friendship.
Therefore, these highly sociable types are much more inclined to gravitate toward a life philosophy that is greatly accepting of people's differences.
Do you know someone who is dangerously pathologically different?
The liberals' view is best not to rub them the wrong way because after all, they are people too, and anyone can love and accept anyone else.
So it's not their friend's welfare or health that matters so much as the maintaining of that friendship, almost no matter how dysfunctional it may become.
This is where codependency comes from.
Politically, this translates as, all are accepted, which is a clarion call codification for, it's okay to debase American culture because love is love.
Cue the harp and violins. Barf-Ola.
Trait number three, liberals are greedy and self-centered.
But wait a cotton-picking second there, boy. How does that jive with them being socially heard like animals? You can't be sociable and greedy and self-centered.
People are obviously multi-faceted, and those traits don't clash. They complement each other, like peanut butter and chocolate.
Have you ever heard of a cutthroat entrepreneur who wasn't sociable? They all are.
Now, they may not be sincere, but that doesn't alter their behavior.
Sure, they're in it for themselves, but greedy Machiavellian types need to use people for their benefit to get ahead.
What better way to use people than to butter them up in social settings, to boost their egos in front of others?
Think about the greediest, most self-centered people you know of. Who are they?
I tend to think of Klaus Schwab, or Bill Gates from the Gates of Hell, or Mark Zuckerbuck, or that infamous lunatic George Soros.
I think of gangsters like Al Capone or the LGBT WTF crowd, those flaming wacko narcissists,
or those who run child sex rings, or child molesters, or narco terrorists, or the majority of the world's billionaires.
Where do all these nuts fit on the political spectrum?
Every single one of them supports far-left liberal causes.
And their very best clients, no matter their profession, are soft-touch, dysfunctional liberal types who are also greedy for fast and easy results.
It's the greedy feeding off the greedy.
Being liberal means being greedy.
Trait number four, liberals are egomaniacal.
Certainly not all, but a huge percentage are. They lack humility.
Why that connection? People with big egos tend not to think too clearly.
Everything they see is filtered through their hyperinflated sense of self-importance, so they can't look at life objectively.
Vice President Brennan is a picture-perfect example of this, so is Cami the Commie and Timmy the Tampon.
Everyone is selfish. Capitalism wouldn't work as well as it does otherwise.
But this is selfishness squared.
It is egomania, just to use one small example.
Hollyweird is a big part of it. So are the super wealthy.
If a billionaire wants to meet a huge celebrity, all they have to do is get involved with some charity and meet them face-to-face.
He tells all his friends, and the famous actor tells all his friends, that he met one of the richest men on Earth,
and that he's a huge fan of that famous actor.
Both men know a lot of people.
You've heard of that movie, Six Degrees of Separation?
The idea is that we are only six relationships away from knowing one semi-famous person on Earth, like Kevin Bacon.
This is where the exponential numbers come into play.
The connections start to spread like wildfire.
Now the super wealthy and the super famous become perfectly interwoven.
What do both have in common?
Both groups are chock-full of massive egos.
These two industries of showbiz and big business now become the perfect intersectioning of selfish money with selfish fame.
That makes for an incredibly vast, strong, and resilient spider's web of influence over the relatively powerless.
Just regular blue and white collar folks.
So now the powerless wannabes are jealous.
And so they imitate the rich and powerful.
And Hollyweird, because it's full of sensitive artists.
And so it was liberal from day one way back in the 1920s of silent filmmaking.
And liberalism, because it's full of shallow, easy to use and abuse people, starving for fame and riches,
are the perfect easy mark suckers for whatever the rich and powerful want to use and abuse them for.
That's just one small but significant reason why liberals strongly tend toward being egomaniacs.
It's all about them.
All of liberalism is based on a false premise.
People are basically good.
I'm a good person.
And so is my fellow human person.
Christian conservatives don't believe in this ego aggrandizing bullcrap.
Or we shouldn't. Why?
Simple. It's not biblical.
Not all egomania is pejorative. That's the problem.
Because an egomaniacal sense of being good is the back road into the land of egomania.
In the course of doing research, I thought I would look up YouTube and I put in the phrase,
Why are liberals afraid to debate conservatives? Which I figure is a foregone conclusion.
I was a little surprised, not much because it's YouTube, but a little surprised that nothing exists by that title.
But there are several that post the opposite.
For example, Why are conservatives afraid to debate liberals?
And I thought, oh man, this I have got to see.
And what they posted was several out of context sound bites of various conservatives debating leftists.
None of which, by the way, showed the conservatives as looking bad at all.
Not really. The sound bites abruptly ended, and so we really don't get the full picture of what was even being debated.
I was expecting maybe some bullet points as to why liberals are so much better at debate.
But there were no debate points. Just a few very shaky sound bites.
In fact, all those videos were like that.
I finally found a few actual debates. My overall impression of watching these debates was that, on the left,
if you come across as a bully and you make your opponent look personally weak,
then somehow the left-wing bully wins the debate.
And so the whole ordeal comes across as ego-based. Who's smarter?
And you can tell that there's an obsession, especially with the leftists,
that intelligence is by far the most important indicator of who wins.
Which is amazing because my whole thing is that leftists or liberals are very unintelligent people.
But it goes back to their beliefs in evolution, that smarter people are somehow more highly evolved
and therefore better than conservatives.
And our side doesn't really believe in evolution too much because it's not biblical, nor has it been scientifically proven.
And you know what's really funny about these debates, too, is that the so-called conservatives that they're debating
are very heady. Not intellectual, but heady. Which is emotion and ego-obsessed, too.
They're very similar to those on the left that they're debating with.
Both sides like to kind of nitpick. You can tell both are kind of like in a pissing contest.
But that's not the way to debate. You're not supposed to do that.
You're supposed to not come from your head so much, but understand the principles of life that are based on truth,
which is based on the Holy Bible. And the left doesn't get that at all.
To try and do matching, urinating contests is a huge mistake. That is the mark of an amateur debater.
And all left-wing or liberal debaters are amateurs. They all are. I've never seen one, not a single one,
who is any good at debating, ever. That's because they are emotional,
herd followers, greedy for attention, and self-centered. And ego-maniacal.
They're also shallow, dishonest, and cruel, and callous to the genuine suffering of others.
Those fatal character flaws hangs them in debates every single time.
Some think that performing nonsensical mental gymnastics is going to impress someone.
But if you're trying to impress someone who has no intention of changing their mind,
then who are you really trying to impress? Just you. You're just gonna butt heads.
And then no one's gonna be convinced. That level of debating is pretty useless.
Again, it's ego and head-based, which is really more emotion-based than intellect.
If you think about it, thinking you're smart is more emotional than rational,
because almost everyone is smart enough. But not everyone displays and develops actually being smart
for any number of personal reasons, mostly due to a deficit of good character traits.
People can think of anything. People can think that they are anything.
And if you read a book, or two books, or three books, or four books, on the same subject,
and they're all disjointed and unrelated, and there's no unifying principle,
then you can get really, really confused. If you read books written by egomaniacs,
you're going to think that's the way to be. But if you read and absorb something
that's entirely devoid of ego, it's only about God.
Then that's something completely different. That's something that most others can't even understand.
Consider this. If one guy reads 50 books on a topic, and his opponent reads only 40 books on that topic,
not only that, but the 50-book guy is also smoother in speech and more persuasive in manner.
And so a debate judge calls him the winner. Does the debate loser prove that by losing that he's wrong on the topic?
Absolutely not. The idea is absurd. Debating is just a show.
You can't decide things on such a superficial, finite show of egos. That's not what life is about.
Truth is objective, not subject to our wishes. It doesn't matter how many books you read.
It matters which book do you read. If the Holy Bible isn't a part of your life,
you're probably going to come across as a major fool, no matter the debate topic.
Now, having said that, I fully understand that the Bible says that the Holy Word of God
just comes across as foolishness to those who don't know God, so we can't really persuade them.
We can try to debate them, but that's only for the benefit of an objective viewer.
You've heard the expression, someone convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
It's like casting pearls before swine. They're not going to get it because they don't want to get it.
Liberals are all about tribalism these days. It's no longer that sacred slogan on a coins and currency
that proudly states, e pluribus unum, or out of many one. Now it's completely flipped. Out of one many.
The deep state has chopped and diced and pureed this once great nation into a third world hell hole.
Liberals are obsessed with all their separated partisan tribes winning at any and all cost.
They have to win arguments by hook or crook. It doesn't matter if it's based on any kind of truth at all.
If they admit to losing a debate against conservatives, they will have to face the incredible guilt of cognitive dissonance.
That's that psychological defense mechanism that kicks in when one realizes that they've been believing a lie
and living a lie perhaps all of their lives. And it would make them incredibly deeply depressed
if they manned up to it but they can't handle that. So they feel they must keep up this charade of believing
in silly, infantile, and mentally ill liberal causes for the rest of their lives.
I can't find one video on YouTube that says conservatives are better debaters than liberals.
Out of tons of videos, not one. Which is just crazy, dishonest, blatant censorship by Google.
Liberals really suck at debating and we all know it. That's a real weakness on their side.
And that's why YouTube has to censor that topic so much. It's all about controlling the perceptions
of their more naive viewers for political power. Deep state politicians must ensure continued power
by threatening companies like Google and YouTube with severe regulations if they don't greatly censor conservative opinions.
It's as simple as that. I was watching this deep state stooge. I won't mention his name because he deserves no credit
except for he being able to make me laugh at him. But he was a former talk show host on Air America
that was controlled by liberals, a network that tried to compete with Rush Limbaugh and failed miserably.
Anyway, he was tearing into Dennis Prager saying how he could easily defeat him in a debate.
So he called into Prager on this guy's podcast and Prager was fair and calm balanced and Dennis just made this guy look stupid.
He was on for three segments and this liberal just looked like a fool. And at the end of the call
instead of being haughty and arrogant like he was before, he just kind of whimpered out and that was it. Amazing.
And these libtards have the temerity to brag about their fake debating skills. They aren't master debaters.
They're master haters of God's truth and they prove that every time they open their yaps.
Here's another little secret. You can take a competent high school debater, I'm tempted to say even middle school debater
to go up against a multiple PhD Ivy League debater with PhDs in persuasion and logic and with many years of experience.
And that high schooler will destroy that over-educated idiot. And all because the high schooler is on the right side of the issue.
In formal debate competitions, the opposite is true. Most debaters go on to become lawyers so the whole truth thing has nothing to do with debating.
But for the rest of us, debating within the context of objective reality is everything.
So here's the little secret as to why liberals can't win debates. Liberals are wrong on every single issue.
That's why the kid can out debate the air quotes, master debater, every single time.
If the arguments are built on a rotten foundation, that house of cards will not stand. Every debate judge should know this.
But alas, most don't. Here's the bottom line.
Watching these so-called debates, it reminds me of just why libtards salivate over open borders so much.
There are tons of unfunny late night comics and podcasters masquerading as serious pundits.
They need millions of mentally and morally subpar citizens coming into America who will watch them for political reasons mostly.
If their current audience starts to get wise as to just how badly they've had their futures ripped off from them by these deep state Nazis,
then these pundits will lose market share and even lose their jobs.
The deep state media is now firing thousands of air quotes journalists because no one's watching their bull crap anymore.
So they need low IQ losers streaming like ants across the border to fill their otherwise soon to be empty seats on their late night TV talk shows
because they're afraid too many native born Americans will finally wake up and abandon all their liberal BS.
So everything is the reverse mirror image of what they claim. Liberals don't care about the forgotten man at all.
They don't care about justice. Politicians want to use and abuse their weak and stupid voters for personal advantage.
They are cold, calculating and cruel through their actions, not their lying words.
Liberals are liars. They're liars. They all are.
Sure, you've got the useful idiot true believers, but they're just the necessary cogs in the big money machinery of global corruption.
Liberal debaters play so dirty. It's so obvious. The deep state plays dirty. So of course their defenders must also play dirty.
Their side is better off if they choose to not debate us at all.
Their greater success is in not enabling us to even have an audience.
Action step. Let this be a lesson to you. Now that you know you can't lose in a direct honest debate with a liberal,
do not be timid about engaging with them. Those opportunities present themselves constantly.
You don't even have to know them. Talk to strangers just for fun.
And don't let dirty tricks or personal attacks or them changing the subject throw you off.
One of the best things you can do is simply ask them questions or give them enough rope to hang themselves.
At the very least, it will be a learning experience.
You've been listening to No PC Allowed. I am Mac Iverson. We will meet again next week and every week.