Zonation on PJTV
If you have not checked out AlfonZo Rachel's show, Zonation, on PJTV, do so. He is funny, understands pop culture and is a conservative. His short two minute segments may be amusing, but they are filled with a serious message for conservatives and those on the right. Culture drives politics. If we can change culture, we can change politics. It takes time and effort but Rachel is on the right track.
Take a look at his shows here--they are short, easy to watch and to the point.
Take a look at his shows here--they are short, easy to watch and to the point.
Labels: PJTV
posted by Helen at 6:19 AM
12 Comments:
I had seen this gentleman on Youtube previously, and he has lost none of his passion, intelligence, or genius for communication. I hope he has a wonderful future, Conservatives need more like him. Thanks for the post, and I think PJTV was certainly wise to recognize his talent.
Trey
"Culture drives politics."
It's amazing how many people don't recognize this.
It's a critical insight for those of us who believe in limited government-to fix social problems, we have to fix the culture, to the limited extent that's likely possible.
Correct again John! I think being too cerebral is a problem for many Conservatives just as being too emotional is for many Liberals.
Conservativism is a belief system based on logic and human behavior and basic operant conditioning. Many times we ask ourselves "Why can't everyone see . . ."
Well, everyone can't see because logic is a tough way of thinking and not everyone has been taught to recognize it much less use it.
Presenting our ideas in ways that the greater culture can understand and accept it is a big problem for us.
Trey
Trey,
I don't think it's so much a failure of logic but of faulty beginning primacies.
Many liberals suffer from the King Charles II's dead fish. They fail to check reality and assumes that many of the problems they believe in are reality, never really checking if reality as they understand it is actually reality. They jump on an explanation instinctively without checking differentials diagnoses. The wage gap being the prototypical example.
So, I don't think it's so much that they're less rational...but that they skip steps and have a more incomplete knowledge commonly. This, is at least how I see it.
oh, I like this guy, I like this guy.
yeah..I've always wondered about this any time I walk into a store like Hot Topic or Newbury Comics or something. Why is it that like every single freakin' piece of political merch in there is LIBERAL. Just because I have good taste in music, doesn't mean that I am automatically a Republican-hating liberal....
Roman, I see your point. You are suggesting that liberals do not think critically about their assumptions if I get you right.
My theory is more neurological. (Not that that makes it any better or anything.)
In development, there is a little part of our brain, the prefrontal orbital cortex, that develops from 20 weeks gestation to 9 to 12 months after delivery. The it stops developing. Stops. Nothing can be done to enhance development after that time.
The PFOC is the part of the brain that allows and even comples us to attach to other people, and it also serves as a brake on our limbic system, especially the amygdala, which handles the fight or flight response.
Without a well developed PFOC to serve as a brake on our amygdala, we litteraly cannot think while frightened or angry. When it works, the PFOC modulates the amygdala and serves as a link between it and our frontal lobes.
But the PFOC needs the right environment in which to grow and develop. In utero, the mom needs to be happy, content, and secure. This does not apply to teenage or single moms for the most part. During the 9 to 12 months after being born, the child needs an empathically attuned caregiver who has the time and emotional stability to go through repetitions of seeing the child in distress and then effectively soothing the child quickly. Again, this is not something that stressed our mom's can do very well. (I lived as a single dad of a 3 year old for almost a year, and believe me it was damn hard for me.)
The kicker, most Democrats were born in single parent homes. They were not given the chance to develop a functioning PFOC. So it certainly could be that they can be just as rational when calm, but are incapable of rationality when upset. (The same mechanism explains why children born to teen or single mom's are SO much more likely to be incarcerated. Single and teen mom's are the best predictor of a life in jail, not race. You can see the confusion in the data from 70% of Black children being born into homes without fathers or to child "moms.")
Would that work to bridge our theories?
Trey
Indeed it would. While my knowledge of neuroscience is limited, I understand what your saying and I'd without a doubt agree with you.
While my parents had their ups and downs, they stayed together and provided me a stable home life(I'm only 21, so I know plenty of people my age who have come from single parent households and lets just say that most have very weak self-control, especially when they feel like their ideas are being attacked). Furthermore, I have no doubt that we're both in agreement that many liberal policies, such as welfare and the family court system, have caused a great deal of this social erosion that has allowed these single parent households to flourish. Granted, general American culture has had a key part as well.
TMink,
That's a pretty good observation about logic vs. emotion. It's something I have been pondering over for quite some time now.
Lol! I have been doing some studying about Hitler and others in his realm, to discover their techniques and so on.
"I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few." -- Adolph Hitler
It's something that's really difficult for the conservative message because as you point out, it is based far too deeply in subjects that take some time and investigation to understand. I believe this is why the Founding Fathers formed a Republic/Rule of Law/Attached to Absolutes. Its logic is to remove emotion.
The opposite end of the spectrum is virtually run completely on emotion, even though it is based on hard logic (but sinister logic) - lol, except its logic is to manipulate emotion.
The issues which "the Right" push forth are just so complex - and I don't know what it is about human nature, but my goodness! It is frustrating to see... I have sometimes spent hours, turned into days and weeks, explaining to people who keep coming back to me to question my views about "equality," and, I finally see the light go on... and they start discussing in a way that I see they do understand... and a month later, I hear them screeching from the rooftops that they stand for EEEeeeEEEeeekwality, and then they demand the good gov't give them some of it.
Aaaaargh!
The message does have to come back to popular culture somehow. I have often thought of trying to write short stories or something, rather than trying to "explain." Explaining is so frustrating because it never seems to sink in as much as emotion.
Ayn Rand's writing is a good example of how to impact people logically through emotion.
I remember when I read "The Fountainhead" a looong time ago as a sophomore in university. Lol! It turned my head upside down and the next thing you knew, I was really questioning authority and wondering why I was bothering with all of this conformity crap.
That was my last semester at university, lol.
But, anyway, it is a good observation, and one I have been struggling with: "How to make the message easier to swallow and/or how to use emotion to instill logic etc."
Roman, I had no idea you were in your first year of legal alcohol consumption. You write like a veteran. If I could, I would buy you a frosty beverage and toast your future.
I wish you well my friend, you give me hope.
Trey
One of the simplest things that conservatives can do is to take back the language.
This can be done quite simply by just making a concerted effort to use or omit words when writing online or when debating.
Cultural Marxists have long ago devised systems to affect the thoughts of the masses by use of language. You can expand or contract the mind by use of language.
If there is no word for a concept, then people tend to think that concept doesn't exist.
And, it doesn't take as long as one might think.
Example: We have always had a word for "woman hating," which is "misogyny." But, we never had a word for "man hating" and so the population thought that man-hating was non-existent. Only 3 or 4 years ago, the word "misandry" was virtually unheard of, and nobody really understood what it meant. But since some groups have been using the word "misandry" over and over again, it is starting to become common in the language, and the focus that society is filled with man-hatred is also becoming more prominent.
Another play upon language is to use it to expand. Take how the lefties replaced the word "sex" with "gender." Not too long ago, "gender" was a word that merely indicated the masculine or feminine of words in a language. (Like in French). "Sex" was the only word used to indicate male or female. The lefties, however, wanted to expand things to attack the family, so they concentrated on changing "sex" into "gender," and now "gender" means male, female, gay, lesbian and trans-gendered. They expanded the brain.
Other mind-plays are "partner" instead of "husband" or "wife."
Another one is "traditional family" or "traditional values." By being forced to call something a "traditional family," the defender has already lost half the battle, because use of the word "traditional" by default indicates that there are other types of families besides the traditional. The battle is half lost right at the beginning.
If conservatives want to battle against something like abortion, they could shoot back with the same methods.
Lefties are often caught squealing that 2/3 of the population is in favour of abortion. Most people, by default, tend to go with the majority.
What they have done is they have unified (or left unified) the definition of "abortion."
The facts are, about 1/3 of the population is for abortion on demand, 1/3 are for abortion in the case of maternal health/rape/incest etc. (but not for birthcontrol), and 1/3 of the population is for zero abortion.
The way to fight abortion then, is to split the definition of "abortion."
Create words that split abortion in the general mindset of the population, so that when the word abortion comes up, people will automatically ask the question, "What kind of abortion? Birth-control abortion? Rape-abortion? Maternal-health abortion? Or incest-abortion?" If conservates split up the word abortion, it would soon become evident to the population that, since health/rape/incest abortions make up a truly miniscule portion of the amount of abortions performed, that the vast majority of the population (2/3) are against abortion for birthcontrol.
That is far more effective than actually protesting about abortion!
Other word plays are "positive" discrimination, or "affirmative" action. They put a positive connotation on something negative, to make people accept it as something good. But, the fact remains that discrimination is still discrimination.
Lefties, like feminists, also use word play to defend/hide their actions.
"Not all feminists are Marxists!" There are eco-feminists, equity feminists, pick-your-nose feminists, hairy-legged feminists... blah, blah, blah.
Fact is, a feminist is a feminist. The premise of "feminism" is a class/sex-war. (The goal of Marxism is to split two large groups of the population, and work them against eachother so that the government can impose laws against both, to make them "equal." Yup, totalitarianism!) It's very definition indicates that women needed to be "liberated." From who, exactly, did they need liberation from? The Martians? This is why these "equity-feminists" need to change their language before they'll get an ounce of respect from me.
Anyway, using the language is one of the most effective, and cheapest/easiest ways for conservatives to fight back.
"During the 9 to 12 months after being born, the child needs an empathically attuned caregiver who has the time and emotional stability to go through repetitions of seeing the child in distress and then effectively soothing the child quickly. Again, this is not something that stressed our mom's can do very well."
I'd been happily married for five years when our daughter came along. And I WANTED a baby, I particularly wanted a little girl for some reason, and she was healthy and beautiful. And once she was born our lives were hell for about five months because SHE CRIED ALL THE FREAKIN TIME. OMG. My husband and I periodically asked each other how single parents ever manage to raise their babies to toddlerhood alive. Well, all babies aren't as difficult as she was, of course. Still, parenting a newborn is unbelievably brutal. (Thank God she got all that out of the way, and was a nice toddler and little girl and never gave us a bit of trouble in the teen years.) I don't know if I ever effectively or quickly soothed her when she cried, or if my husband did, but we definitely made the effort.
You can watch a baby or very small child formatting its brain for life on Planet Earth. I remember my daughter playing with her little scooter, that had a seat you could lift up and a compartment underneath. She had a leaf, and she would open the seat and put it in and close it; and open it and take the leaf out and close it; and open it and put it in and close it, over and over. We all know what happens when you open something and put an object in and close it, and that's because we studiously worked it out when we were too young to make a memory of the process. You can see lots of things like that if you pay attention because it's a time of rapid brain development. I can certainly understand how babies who cry and are not attended to, or who are treated harshly, could have lifelong repercussions.
Your sweet bundle of colic was attended to! And attended to well I wager.
Trey
Post a Comment
<< Home