Welcome
I’m Steven Leake—poet, rocker, rebel. My music, from Truth is Power to Love Kills, screams truth through raw chords. I make everything lo fi and DIY and my poetry cuts through lies, while my podcast, Musings of a Cigarette Smoking Man, sparks real talk.
Sponsor Steven
Monarch Literary Ltd, a dynamic subsidiary of Monarch Holdings International Inc., stands as a beacon of unyielding creative freedom in an era of corporate conformity. Founded and directed by Steven Leake Jr., the York, South Carolina-born poet, author, folk-rock singer-songwriter, and libertarian strategist, it champions indie publishing, music, film, and digital content that defies mainstream narratives. With roots in Leake’s ancestral Revolutionary War heritage and counterculture ethos, the company amplifies voices of self-reliance, truth-seeking, and decentralized rebellion—think raw acoustic anthems protesting overreach, poetry collections like Gethsemane exposing societal illusions, and libertarian apparel lines fusing punk aesthetics with liberty motifs. Embracing a DIY punk spirit, Monarch Literary rejects gatekeepers, fostering blockchain-integrated NFTs and mutual aid-inspired collaborations to empower creators against censorship and collectivism. In the “OGCryptopunk” vein, it’s not just a publisher—it’s a cultural insurgency, igniting minds with works that blend Southern grit, philosophical depth, and unapologetic activism for a sovereign future.
About Steven Leake
Life and Times
A Russian diplomat once called me, “ the quintessential American”
Steven Leake was born in 1986 in Charlotte, North Carolina to two public school teachers. He grew up on his family’s farm in York, South Carolina where he was an ace pitcher for his local high school team and was named all region and defensive MVP in 2004. He graduated high school with honors then was appointed to The United States Military Academy at West Point as a part of the first post 9/11 class but had to withdraw due to an illness. He then attended Winthrop University for creative writing In 2007, also becoming a semi finalist for the PEN Emerging Voices Fellowship. He then moved to Charleston, South Carolina with a group of hometown friends who all began working food and beverage jobs and lived together. The next four years would be the raw material for Steven’s first novel “Gethsemane”. In 2017 Steven was recognized by the Southern Poverty Law Center for advocating tolerance in his work. In 2022 Steven’s piece “Truth” appeared in print in the North Carolina Bards 2022 Anthology. The next year “ Soft Days” was also published in the anthology. Steven has been published most faithfully by Beatnik Cowboy and The Black Book Press. Steven continues to write and develop poetry and fiction , while also writing music and recording music at Sovereign Sound Studio and has released an acoustic demo album “Truth is Power” available on Spotify as well as some electric demos. Steven has started managing and designing a fashion brand for based and alt-right content called Monarch UrbanWear Ltd. He manages a libertarian political action committee Americans for Economic Independence, which supports libertarian and freedom minded candidates in South Carolina.
In My Own Words
“ I have discussed quantum physics and the nature of the universe and God with multiple DARPA scientists, Fields medal winners and CERN scientists and have held the children of billionaires in my lap while talking pitching with professional athletes over dinner , partied on yachts with rock stars on the Seine in Paris on New Years , entertained Russian diplomats and slept with the daughters of the elite all over the world, and I have done all of it while living on 1,000$ a month, purely by being gregarious in bars. And am for better or worse just a country boy at heart, that loves America, Art and Freedom, I am a blood relation to multiple US Presidents and European Royalty and am a direct descendant of Mary Chilton, the first European woman to set foot on the American continent and share this ancestry with the Bush’s in particular. My first cousin, Rogers Walker was my introduction to literature and art as a kid and is currently a professor at Harvard. I have always been about truth and will continue to teach people how to discern truth from propaganda on my podcast “Musings of a Cigarette Smoking Man “ available on Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
Logical Fallacies and Defenses to Use Against Leftists
Logical Fallacies and Defenses
Save this post and use it as a resource when dealing with liberals and leftists at work or in public etc
Logical Fallacies in Criticisms of Conservatives and Libertarians
Political discourse often involves logical fallacies, which are errors in reasoning that undermine arguments. Below, I outline common fallacies used in criticisms from left-leaning perspectives against conservatives and libertarians. For each, I provide a brief definition, an example of how it might appear in such criticisms, and a logical defense.
These defenses are grounded in critical thinking principles to help you respond thoughtfully in conversations at work or in public. The goal is to promote reasoned dialogue, not division—focus on facts, evidence, and mutual respect when engaging.
1. Ad Hominem (Attack on the Person)�
Definition: Dismissing an argument by attacking the character, motives, or background of the person making it, rather than addressing the argument itself.
�Example Criticism: “White Christian conservatives are just racists clinging to outdated beliefs because they’re afraid of change.”
�Logical Defense: Point out that personal attacks don’t refute the actual position. Respond with: “Labeling someone racist doesn’t address the merits of their views on, say, limited government or religious freedom. Let’s discuss specific policies— for instance, how school choice empowers families across all backgrounds—rather than assuming motives.”
2. Straw Man (Misrepresenting the Opponent’s Argument)
�Definition: Exaggerating or distorting an opponent’s position to make it easier to attack, then refuting the distorted version.
�Example Criticism: “Libertarians want no government at all, which would lead to chaos where the rich exploit everyone without any regulations.”
�Logical Defense: Clarify the actual stance. Say: “Libertarianism advocates for minimal government interference in personal and economic freedoms, not anarchy. For example, it supports laws against fraud and violence while promoting voluntary cooperation, which has historically fostered innovation and prosperity, as seen in free-market economies.”
3. Appeal to Emotion (Manipulating Feelings)�
Definition: Using emotional language to sway opinion instead of logical evidence or reasoning.
�Example Criticism: “White Christian conservatives’ opposition to immigration is heartless and ignores the suffering of families fleeing poverty.”
�Logical Defense: Redirect to facts while acknowledging emotions. Reply: “Compassion is important, but policy should balance empathy with sustainability. Evidence shows that secure borders and merit-based immigration can protect vulnerable populations while maintaining economic stability, reducing strain on public resources for all citizens.”
4. Guilt by Association (Linking to a Negative Group)
�Definition: Discrediting an idea by associating it with an unpopular person or group, without showing direct relevance.
�Example Criticism: “Christian conservatives are like the extremists who stormed the Capitol, so their views on traditional values can’t be trusted.”
�Logical Defense: Separate the individual from the group. Respond: “Associating all conservatives with a fringe event ignores the vast majority who advocate peacefully. Core values like family and faith have roots in ethical traditions that promote community harmony, not violence—let’s evaluate ideas on their own merits.”
5. Hasty Generalization (Overgeneralizing from Limited Evidence)
�Definition: Drawing a broad conclusion based on insufficient or unrepresentative examples.
�Example Criticism: “Look at those few corrupt libertarian politicians; it proves the whole ideology is just a cover for greed.”
�Logical Defense: Demand broader evidence. Say: “Isolating a few bad actors doesn’t invalidate an ideology focused on individual rights and free markets, which have lifted billions out of poverty globally. We should judge based on principles and outcomes, like how deregulation has spurred job growth in various sectors.”
6. False Dichotomy (Black-and-White Thinking)�
Definition: Presenting only two extreme options when more possibilities exist.
�Example Criticism: “You’re either for social justice programs or you’re against helping the poor—white conservatives just want to hoard wealth.”
�Logical Defense: Highlight nuances. Reply: “There are many ways to help the poor beyond government programs, such as private charity and economic opportunity. Christian conservatives often lead in voluntary aid, which empowers individuals without creating dependency, as supported by data on effective philanthropy.”
7. Slippery Slope (Exaggerating Consequences)�
Definition: Arguing that a small step will inevitably lead to extreme, undesirable outcomes without evidence.
�Example Criticism: “If libertarians get their way on gun rights, it’ll lead to mass shootings everywhere and a lawless society.”
�Logical Defense: Require proof of the chain. Respond: “Responsible gun ownership, as defended by the Second Amendment, includes background checks and training. Statistics show that lawful carry often deters crime, and focusing on mental health and enforcement addresses root causes without assuming inevitable disaster.”
8. Appeal to Authority (Misusing Expertise)�
Definition: Citing an authority figure or consensus as proof, especially when the authority isn’t relevant or the consensus is debatable.
�Example Criticism: “All the experts and scientists say climate change requires big government intervention, so conservatives denying it are anti-science.”
�Logical Defense: Question the authority’s scope. Say: “While climate change is real, solutions like market-driven innovation (e.g., clean energy incentives) can be effective without centralized control. Many scientists advocate for adaptive strategies, and dismissing alternative views stifles debate essential to progress.”
9. Circular Reasoning (Begging the Question)�Definition: Restating the premise as the conclusion without providing new evidence.
�Example Criticism: “White Christian values are oppressive because they impose outdated morals on society, which is why they’re oppressive.”
�Logical Defense: Break the loop with evidence. Reply: “This assumes oppression without defining it. Christian values like charity and forgiveness have historically advanced human rights, such as in abolitionism. Let’s examine specific ‘impositions’ and compare them to secular alternatives for fairness.”
10. Red Herring (Irrelevant Distraction)
�Definition: Introducing an unrelated topic to divert attention from the main issue.�
Example Criticism: “Libertarians talk about freedom, but what about corporate greed destroying the environment? That’s the real problem.”
�Logical Defense: Refocus the discussion. Say: “Environmental concerns are valid, but they don’t negate libertarian principles like property rights that encourage stewardship. For instance, private ownership often leads to better conservation than government mismanagement—let’s address the original point on personal liberties.”
11. Bandwagon (Appeal to Popularity)�
Definition: Arguing that something is true or right because many people believe it.�
Example Criticism: “Most people support progressive policies now, so conservative Christians are out of touch with modern society.”�
Logical Defense: Emphasize independent thinking. Respond: “Popularity doesn’t determine truth—slavery was once widely accepted. Conservative values like self-reliance have enduring benefits, as evidenced by stable communities, and deserve evaluation based on results, not trends.”
12. No True Scotsman (Redefining to Exclude Counterexamples)�
Definition: Dismissing counterexamples by claiming they don’t represent the “true” group.�
Example Criticism: “Any libertarian who supports some regulations isn’t a real libertarian; they’re just hypocrites pretending to value freedom.”�
Logical Defense: Clarify definitions. Reply: “Libertarianism allows for pragmatic minimalism, like protecting against force or fraud. Pure ideology ignores real-world nuance, and successful societies blend principles—critiquing based on consistency strengthens, rather than weakens, the philosophy.”
13. Tu Quoque (Whataboutism or Hypocrisy Accusation)�
Definition: Deflecting criticism by pointing out hypocrisy in the critic, without addressing the original point.�
Example Criticism: “Conservatives complain about government overreach, but they supported it during the Patriot Act— so their arguments are invalid.”�
Logical Defense: Acknowledge but refocus. Say: “Past inconsistencies don’t invalidate current critiques. Many conservatives have evolved on surveillance issues, advocating for reforms. The key is evaluating the argument now: does overreach threaten liberties, regardless of who supported it before?”
14. Poisoning the Well (Preemptive Discrediting)�
Definition: Presenting negative information about a source in advance to discredit their future arguments.�
Example Criticism: “Don’t listen to white Christian libertarians; their views are tainted by privilege and historical bias.”�
Logical Defense: Insist on content over source. Respond: “Prejudging based on identity dismisses valid ideas. Libertarian principles like equal rights under law apply universally, and diverse thinkers—from Ayn Rand to Frederick Douglass—have championed them. Let’s debate the ideas themselves.”
15. Appeal to Tradition (It’s Always Been This Way)�
Definition: Arguing that something is right because it’s traditional, but flipped here as a criticism of clinging to tradition.�
Example Criticism: “Christian conservatives resist change just because ‘it’s tradition,’ ignoring progress on issues like marriage equality.”�
Logical Defense: Balance tradition with reason. Reply: “Tradition isn’t inherently bad if it provides proven benefits, like stable family structures linked to better outcomes for children in studies. Change should be justified by evidence, not dismissed as resistance—let’s weigh both sides objectively.”
When encountering these in discussions, stay calm, ask clarifying questions (e.g., “What evidence supports that?”), and steer toward shared values like fairness or evidence-based policy. This fosters productive conversations rather than escalation. If debates turn hostile, it’s okay to disengage gracefully.