Aaron Brachfeld is no Andrew Breitbart.
Most writers write to find and flesh out their ideas of truth. But for his political adversaries, Brachfeld writes to destroy their meaning, and cut off the potential that an inconvenient truth, for him, could be revealed. With regard to the political writing done here at elbertcounty.net, Brachfeld never offers a substantive rebuttal, response or any recognition of the various points made, which is not to say he doesn’t respond.
Writing to destroy meaning is not the same thing as writing to show error. Brachfeld never takes the bull by the horns, never engages on the merits. For him, there are no merits, unless the subject concerns one of his hobbies.
Brachfeld’s opening salvos are usually on Facebook. They start with a misrepresentation, misconstruction, and/or restatement of what his political adversary wrote, usually salted with various negatives about their character. This is Brachfeld the reporter, staking out his initial deconstruction to take down the enemy.
He uses smarmy patronizing tones designed to disarm readers and adversaries alike, and convince everyone that he’s really a good guy. He aims to set the hook in his target and get them to engage on his misrepresentation. If he lands the fish, he can collect the discussion about his misrepresentation for his next newspaper edition.
Now, as for the character negatives, that’s par for the course when one takes on the Left. In fact, most of their political writing, when not glorifying various Marxist derivatives, is about character assassination. It’s what they live to do. Occasionally they’ll let drop an idea fragment worth rebutting, and some times one can begin a debate with them before they scurry back under the cover of some dogma.
Not Brachfeld though. Introducing an idea might mean he’d have to defend it, and that’s not the style of Brachfeld the chameleon.
When I’ve objected to one of Brachfeld’s misrepresentations, he disingenuously, and repeatedly, has asked me to tell him about his misconstructions so that he can, ostensibly, correct himself. (Oh look! What a good boy! All about truth and such.) In this way Brachfeld shifts focus away from what he’s in the process of destroying, which he never substantively rebuts or acknowledges, and keeps focus on his misrepresentation. This is Brachfeld the narcissist.
And the boobie prize at the end of his weird exchanges, often carried on in large part with himself, is to promise a correction, but never deliver it. Instead one gets another morph into a new misconstruction in an endless chain of new misconstructions. The promise of a correction is just more bait. This is Brachfeld’s deceit.
Brachfeld debates by destroying meaning. He doesn’t use facts and reason to show alternate conclusions. He doesn’t deal in logical proof, and he doesn’t rebut. This is Brachfeld the dissembler.
It’s a clever trick from a parasitic writer who expresses no inclination to engage opposing ideas in the spirit they are offered. This is Brachfeld the fearful.
If the ability to write is a gift, Brachfeld wastes his by destroying the very sort of thing he’s been given. There’s no point to engaging with Brachfeld the litigious, as I’m sure many of his legal adversaries in his 15 lawsuits over the past 3 years (in Colorado alone – probably more in other states) have also discovered.
Brachfeld’s tricks have gone stale with me. Without some substance to sustain them, they’re only gimmicks. No one wants to argue with an empty suit over an endless stream of random dissembling. This is Brachfeld the pedantic.
If Brachfeld’s fantasies fascinate himself and a few aging hippies, good for them I suppose. But I have to wonder what they get out of the deal, because he doesn’t create content. He just destroys it. This is Brachfeld the cheat.
B_Imperial
P.S. More on the type.
Pajama Boy: Obama’s Smirking Commissar
Posted 12/27/2013 06:48 PM ET
Politics: The effete visage of the ObamaCare pitchman known as Pajama Boy already is a figure of fun. But now it comes to light that Ethan Krupp is more than just a smirking, turnoff face for an ad. He’s a leftist extremist.
Krupp is more than just a hipster metrosexual cradling cocoa in his red onesie pajamas whose arch, supercilious expression is supposed to make young people want to run out and buy overpriced ObamaCare on government insurance exchanges.
In reality, he’s a long-time Obama operative, one of the president’s leftover campaign shock troops active in The One’s permanent campaign organization known as Organizing for America.
“I’m a liberal f***,” he wrote in the typical leftist vernacular on his now-deleted blog, according to research by the Daily Caller. “A liberal f*** is not a Democrat, but rather someone who combines political data and theory, extreme leftist views and sarcasm to win any argument while make (sic) the opponents feel terrible about themselves. I won every argument but one.”
In other words, he knows more than you as he arches his eyebrows with smug certainty to “persuade” you to buy ObamaCare.
Apparently, he’s been at it awhile and doesn’t take kindly to thoughtful discussion or argument.
The Caller reported that he dismissed his critics in an interview with the Badger Herald of Wisconsin by saying he gave them “a huge middle finger.” He summed up: “We have no morals, and we will attack you.”
If this doesn’t sum up the Obama administration’s smoldering contempt for the vast majority of voters who are now suffering under the incompetence and cost of the ObamaCare he’s now selling, what does?
Krupp’s views are those of a left-wing extremist, one who is certain he knows what’s better for voters than they do. We’ve seen his attitude in other pitches for ObamaCare, such as by Obama ally Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., who browbeat a group of students at Cal State Los Angeles earlier this month, and Internet ads that urge the young to buy ObamaCare by depicting a bunch of beer-swilling boobs.
Krupp wears soft, cuddly pajamas to appear presumably friendly, but based on his views stated elsewhere, he’d put you in a penal camp if he could.
The ends justify the means for someone who openly says he shuns morals. That’s the sort of coercion the ObamaCare campaign is coming to.