It is no secret that the liberal voter base has been brainwashed by the media. Any information they get from a Republican source is immediately discounted. As part of my efforts to arm the right I am starting a new series of articles of the best talking points to use when Red Pilling liberals.
Deregulation and Dodd Frank
Whenever I try to red pill a liberal this is the point I bring up first. Liberals have been raised to believe that there are only two motives when Republicans act. They are either racist or being bribed by the rich. Dodd Frank is the perfect issue to shake their belief in this. Once their core belief is debunked it is much easier to counter the others.
When you ask a liberal why they support Dodd Frank they will always say it is because they oppose big banks and think they are too big to fail and are a danger to the economy. Republicans have been bought by the big banks and are putting the economy in danger because of their greed.
We now hit them with the facts. Under Dodd Frank 4 banks grew from controlling 11% of the banking industry to 43% of the industry. Too big to fail got to become to ginormous to fail. Before Dodd Frank there were 13000 banks in the US and after there was 6500 banks. Their law to combat the evil big banks wiped out half the competition of the evil big banks. Under Bush hundreds of new banks opened every year leading to more competition. Under Obama a grand total of 3 new banks opened. Their law to combat the evil big banks is protecting them from competition. You can then hit them with the fact that since there are fewer banks they offer fewer benefits to the customer because of reduced competition.
At this point ask them is the economy safer now or before Dodd-Frank? Be sure to bring a jar for all the liberal tears.
One of the reasons liberals put up with affirmative action, illegal immigration, and other things like that is they have a fundamental belief that the people of Europe have exploited the rest of the world throughout history and we are obligated to pay the rest of the world back for it.
To successfully debunk this we have to rely on history. Pay attention to all the major conflicts between Europe and the Middle East. With very few exceptions they all involve the West desperately trying to defend against an invading East. We have Thermopylae and Salamis during the Persian invasion. Then we have the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire to the Turks. The conquest of Spain by the moors. The battle of Lepanto to defend against the Ottomans. The defense of the Russians against the Golden Horde. The antics of Vlad the impaler to safeguard his country against the Ottomans. In fact as recent as the early 1900’s Greece and other countries were defending themselves against the Ottoman Empire prompting the start of the Balkan Wars.
In history the West has really only been able to hold lands in the East for extended periods of time two times. The first was during the height of the Roman Empire and the second was during the initial portion of the Crusades. The reason is relatively simple. The West usually devolves into various political entities that fight each other. While the East periodically gets united by a great conqueror or country. Persia, Genghis, and Tamer the Lame are good examples. The two times I mentioned where the West was able to make gains they were united by Religion or the Romans. If the West were the historical aggressor then the roles in these battles should have been reversed.
The dominance of the West has been a relatively recent development historically speaking. Certainly not long enough to attach an everlasting guilt to a whole race of people. This is one of the cornerstones of liberal theology and they will not be able to accept this easily. Ask them one thing to make your point. Western civilization can trace its roots to the Roman Empire. The capital of the Roman Empire for the longest time was Constantinople. Who holds it now? Why would the West lose its capital if it was supposed to be exploiting the East?
More to come in coming articles!