Liberalism or How to Turn Good Men into Whiners, Weenies and Wimps

The book is a black and white treatise on the ever-expanding failure of liberalism and how it has decimated the black community and America in general. Hope Burgess Owen receives some notoriety for his truthful and heartfelt examination of the deleterious effects of "do-gooders" and the crippling ideology marching the U.S. to ruination.

I was never clear throughout whether liberalism concurrently turned good men into whiners, weenies and wimps (i.e., all three at the same time) or whether it turned some good men into wimps, other good men into weenies and yet a third group of good men into whiners or whether whiners and weenies were intended to be a subset of wimps, such that by liberalism turning good men into whiners or weenies, it also by definition turned them into wimps or some other permutation and nesting (i.e., whiners is a subset of weenies which is a subset of wimps, which is naturally what one may expect; that is, that you would generally expect all whiners to be wimps, but not necessarily assume that all wimps would also be whiners. Some men, whether good or bad, may be wimpy, but don't whine about it). I initially dismissed this interpretation, because the title would have been "Liberalism or How to Turn Good Men into Whiners, Weenies and/or Wimps" whereas the title is clearly "Liberalism or How to Turn Good Men into Whiners, Weenies AND Wimps" (emphasis mine), but when I thought about it further the plural "Men" coupled with the plural "Whiners, Weenies and Wimps" does create ambiguity on this point. It, of course, also raises the question of the definitional distinction between weenies and wimps; though I grant there may be some space between the two groupings, I was never clear whether the author was really getting at the substantive overlap of the two categories. Certainly, you would think that weenie traits would generally be shared by wimps and vice-versa, so I was kind of struck with the logical sub-division of the two and the implications of the distinction, but there it was right there on the cover: "Liberalism or How to Turn Good Men into Whiners, Weenies and Wimps". If they were definitionally equal, it would simply be: "Liberalism or How to Turn Good Men into Whiners and Weenies/Wimps" or "Liberalism or How to Turn Good Men into Whiners and Weenies (i.e., Wimps)", so it is clear that Mr. Owns certainly maintains a taxonomy in which weenie and wimps are distinct and separate categories. I was also wondering if liberalism turns all good men into whiners, weenies and wimps or if it just affects a subset of good men. Of course, the corollary that goes unanswered is whether liberalism turns only good liberal men into whiners, weenies or wimps or whether another population or sub-population is also affected. Also, does one stop being a good man once he turns into a whiner, a weenie or a wimp? Could it be that a good man may be a wimp, but not a whiner or a weenie (I'm sure that Stephen Hawking is a good man, but doubt he could take a side tackle from Burgess Owens). Another interesting question is whether Mr. Owens is ruefully including himself in one of the categories (i.e., "I used to be a good man, but alas, liberalism has made me whiner... thus this book"... Ha ha ha. Just kidding, Burgess). I also noted a lack of discussion on the vector of causation.... Could it be possible if a good man is a whiner, weenie or wimp at heart, he might also be drawn to liberalism? I kind of dismissed that premise as the title clearly and definitively states liberalism is how to turn good men into whiners, weenies and wimps (not how good men who are whiners, weenies and wimps tend to also be liberals) but again the whole causation and correlation distinction makes me wonder. Maybe a third unstated variable is pushing good men into being both liberal and whiners, weenies and wimps. We should probably also consider that some good men are already concurrently whiners, weenies and/or wimps prior to being subjected to liberalism, which is to say that they exist in the nexus of the subsets ab aeterno; Mr. Burgess never really addresses what liberalism would do to such a person (presumably nothing, but maybe it makes him no longer a good man, but it could have an inter-category effects. For example, if a good man is also a wimp, liberalism could also make him a whiner and/or a weenie as well). I also was wondering what the effect liberalism would have on not-good men; would it turn bad men into whiners, weenies and/or wimps or would it have the negative effect (of course, you would have to posit that a man could be bad without being a whiner, weenie or wimp; Mark William Calaway, i.e., the Undertaker, comes to mind)? Wouldn't we want bad men to also be whiners, weenies and/or wimps and if liberalism performs this function, is it a good thing? Ultimately, one would have to understand whether the flow of good men into whiners, weenies and wimps is offset by the flow of bad men (or even neutral not-good men) into good men or into whiners, weenies and wimps? If so, is it a zero-sum over the entire system or perhaps a net-plus of good men or, more to the point, the aggregate efficacy of good men. It also raises the question of how "good" does a man have to be for liberalism to have this negative effect (turning him into a whiner, weenie and/or wimp) on him? Last question, if someone reads this book and writes an Amazon review to satisfy their need to blame others for whatever is going wrong with their lives, is that another instance of liberalism turning a good man into a whiner, weenie and wimp?

Wow - a must read - wake up America, we're on fire.

And the truth shall set you free. Burgess Owens has hit a home run.

Very informative. If only young people read this before all the brainwash. Well written

Burgess Owens is a great American and this book is a must read!

I have only heard the interview on Glenn Beck. I have not read the book but I am going today to buy it from a local bookstore. I am reacting to the book description that links atheism with socialism. I just want to say that atheism does not mean socialism or a lack of morality. Just because I don't fear God or Hell, doesn't mean I will hurt others. I am an atheist Libertarian, and I think there are no more socialists among atheists (outside of China) than among religious people.

America needs more of this truth. Great book!!!

Thanks

An important book that is very readable. I'm learning so much.