The ‘Psychology’ of Liberals

Fawkin'Injun

Off da Reservation!
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Posts
10,402
Joan Swirsky
Thursday, Oct. 23, 2003

A bully beats up your friend’s child in the schoolyard. You feel terrible for the kid who got the black eye and call his parents to encourage them to give their kid lessons in self-defense and insist that the principal punish the offender. But to your astonishment, the parents are not mad at the bully!

They actually seem to feel more empathy with him than they do with their own child. “He shouldn’t be punished,” they say. “You have to ask yourself what made him do it? Besides, if the principal punishes him, it might make him more angry!”

This is the thinking of liberals, particularly “bleeding heart” liberals whose identification with and empathy for the doers of bad deeds is a hopeless muddle of self-congratulatory “understanding” and hatred of authority.


To Liberals, ‘Accountability’ and ‘Character’ Are Anathema

Liberals hate accountability, which is why they are so famous for defending people who are completely unaccountable. They hated welfare reform until a Republican Congress passed it into law in the mid-1990s and succeeded in getting millions of people off the dole and into productive work, effectively breaking the liberal welfare system that enslaved mostly black people from their seemingly unending fates of dependency and broken families, limited education and statistically premature deaths.

They still hate education reform because it insists on the accountability of teachers. And they hate the war against terrorism because killing bad guys contradicts the central tenet of their philosophy: No one is accountable for his or her behavior because only poverty or neglect or any other number of “bad breaks” explains bad behavior and who are they to judge?


Old Liberals vs. New Liberals

But problems remained. While the old liberals (at least those who weren’t Communists or Socialists) believed in the overarching wisdom and power of God in determining one’s destiny, their children were too stoned to contemplate anything more influential than LSD, too “evolved” to consider anyone wiser than the Maharishi, and too narcissistic to consider anything more powerful than themselves. Nevertheless, the old liberals were thrilled that their children (who they could even smoke pot with!) were with them.

But not for long! The new species, it turned out, was not content to vilify political enemies. Having found that protest and intimidation were so effective, they turned their rage against their parents, joining cults that extracted both their allegiance and money and entering `“psychotherapy,” the theories of which taught them that their memories, from age 3, and their all-powerful feelings were all that were necessary to indict their progenitors.

The new liberals had learned their parents’ theories well: Blame those in power!

Thus, they leveled their rage at the people who had given them life. I’m not happy because of you. I’m not successful because of you. I wet my bed because of you. I’m not having a good relationship because of you. Such is not only the venom but also the misguided thinking of liberals who, to this day, believe that they are not responsible for their lives – other people are!


Understanding the Liberal Mindset

What accounts for liberal thinking? My “guess” is that most liberals have two personality disorders, most expansively described in psychiatric literature.

The first is narcissism, in which people feel they are special and therefore entitled to the things they want at the exact moment they want them.

When crossed, narcissists become virulently angry and lash out with personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with their opinions. But because they crave adulation, they can become irresistibly charming in the very next minute, almost defying their audience to give them some slack. Sound familiar?

Narcissism, in fact, is at the root of liberals’ embrace of abortion. While “power to the powerless” is their anthem, no legislation has ever been more passionately embraced than the abortion-on-demand law of 1973 that allowed all “caring” liberals to kill the most powerless among us. To this day, they overrule any reservations they may have by invoking the most important aspect of their existences: their feelings! “This is a bad time for me and I would feel terrible, inconvenienced, pressured” (fill in the excuse).

Of course, this does not conflict with their horror at “civilian” deaths, especially if they result inadvertently from American military force. Nor does it conflict with their horror at the deaths of minks, the rodents out of whose pelts those nasty coats are made. After all, civilians and minks are already here, while in the minds of liberals, developing embryos (with heartbeats and nervous systems, eyes and ears) are simply “tissue.”

The second mental malady that characterizes liberals is borderline personality disorder, in which the afflicted are totally unable to tolerate the gray complexion of either life or of politics, always casting those who disagree with them in stark shades of black and white and often resorting to defamatory “scorched earth” strategies. These are people who struggle to hide the fact that they have no consciences, no remorse and no feelings. In fact, they appear disconcertingly similar, and at times identical, to sociopaths. Sound familiar?

Many modern liberals, remnants of the hippie “all you need is love” era, are now graying at the temples and lining up for Botox shots but they’re still angry with their parents. It is only logical that President Bush is their target – a man who loves his parents and believes in God (which many of them don’t), got his act together (which many of them still have not), and demands that they, as Americans, join the fight against terrorism (which many of them find impossible to do, given their sympathies for the “victims” of any kind of power, in this case the power of the United States).

http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/10/22/141511.shtml
 
You know, I respect you most of the time as you state your opinion well and generally seem like a good guy... but why must you post slanted, biased propaganda about liberals? I myself am Libertarian but in so being, I adhere to a few liberal philosophies, all civil. I think one of the problems with government and leadership in general is the tendency to be so divisive over issues to where your political affiliation becomes almost a pissing contest. Would you not one day like for most people to be more or less in unison when it comes to how they would like to be governed? Isn't the idea to come up with ideas that suit EVERYONE so we can have relative political peace rather than such turmoil about which party is right, which party is wrong, etc?

My only point is that people who write and subscribe to the ideas in such literature as you posted make their respective parties look bad. It might make a few solid points therein, but for the most part it looks like ankle-biting on the part of conservatives. I'd think it better if EITHER party (for I know that liberal/Democrats can be just as guilty) if they could point out their strong areas and come up with positive ideas, rather than try to flaunt the weaknesses and slander the philosophies of the other party.

Just my two cents.

Good morning, FI. :)
 
Hanns_Schmidt said:
^^^fat racist cunt.


Ah, I see you're in a good mood this morning. And a fine morning to you, too, Hannsy-poo.
 
MWG - Zell Miller is a Conservative Democrat who supports the President.

Lincoln Chaffee is a Liberal Republican who does not support the President.

I used to be a Narcissist Liberal who hated my parents and all authority, so the article struck a chord. I don't see how my thread at all tars and feathers all Libertarians any worse than the Party Platform inherently does...
 
Fawkin'Injun said:
MWG - Zell Miller is a Conservative Democrat who supports the President.

Lincoln Chaffee is a Liberal Republican who does not support the President.

I used to be a Narcissist Liberal who hated my parents and all authority, so the article struck a chord. I don't see how my thread at all tars and feathers all Libertarians any worse than the Party Platform inherently does...


Why is supporting the president the measure of a "credible" or "good" Libertarian/liberal? I've met hardcore conservatives who, if they supported him at first, they most certainly don't now. No matter what you are, a bad leader is a bad leader. I'm not even sure if I will vote for Dean, though he is Democratic (I tend to put my votes towards the two-party, since its highly unlikely any Libertarian, Greens, or Independents will ever be elected, and I want my vote to count), since the jury is still out for me about his policies.

I tend to vote more towards Democratic than Republican because I hold freedom in higher regard than fiscal stability. I just can't abide by most civil policies proposed by conservatives. Not ALL of them are bad, mind you, but a great deal of them seem to radiate the idea that they'd love nothing more than for America to be a fascist theocracy in which everyone acts like "good, church-goin' folk".

However, I DO hate Democratic fiscal policies. Absolutely hate them.

How does the Party Platform tar and feather us? I fail to see where a desire for the founding principles of liberty combined with fiscal conservatism would be call for ridicule.
 
Ahm gonna vote for a Republican President for the first time since Nixon...

The Libertarians don't get my vote this time.

I'm pissed they didn't have a good go at California. The Greens got more votes thatn they did. Gary Coleman got more votes than they did. The Metro-sexual Bustamante got more votes than they did. Hell, was Mickey Mouse on the ticket, because even that little fawker would have gotten more votes than my party did!

All theory, no practice!
 
Answer to the final Jepordy question...

Who is known as the Party of Legalized Drugs and Prostitution and why doesn't that message sell in the Heartland?
 
Fawkin'Injun said:
Ahm gonna vote for a Republican President for the first time since Nixon...

The Libertarians don't get my vote this time.

I'm pissed they didn't have a good go at California. The Greens got more votes thatn they did. Gary Coleman got more votes than they did. The Metro-sexual Bustamante got more votes than they did. Hell, was Mickey Mouse on the ticket, because even that little fawker would have gotten more votes than my party did!

All theory, no practice!

curious-

then your voting for George?

*wonders if you have a hard time admitting that*

or is there another one to challenge the boyking? :)
 
Geez bro. You needed to post that article.

In virtually every instance of a conservative view being posted on the board the Lib's have attacked the messenger, not the message. You've seen it as often as I and have been subjected to it as often too.

No surprises in the article. A little provocative in style but that's OK.

Ishmael
 
Yes. Finally someone understands how you deal with bullies.

You collect the people around you whom are tired of being bullied and you go confront them.

The Kennedy-esque tax-cuts were exactly what the world economy needed. Once the world leader is unfettered, then all boats will float in the rising tide, except for dictatorSHIPS. When the Democrats scream about manufacturing jobs leaving the US, what they always inSINuate is that they're going to third-world countries, when in reality, they are going to Europe because we have finally, after 40 years of trying, managed to come up with a more punative business climate than the tax-and-regulation happy Europeans! When I was a kid, we made fun of them. Now we are them.

"We have met the enemy and they is us" Pogo
 
I beg to differ!

I've seen it more!

Back when it was pile on A_J by Laurel and the unholy trinity and anyone else who wanted to be in the clique, the only friendly voice was WriterDom...

It took a while for the Texans and the Ishmaels of the board to show up.

My reputation was manufactured out of wholecloth.
 
Fawkin'Injun said:
Answer to the final Jepordy question...

Who is known as the Party of Legalized Drugs and Prostitution and why doesn't that message sell in the Heartland?


Why exactly would that be bad? How does someone lighting up a joint in their own home (or any other drug for that matter) affect someone else? What repercussions would be present for legalised drugs that aren't present with legal prescription narcotics and alcohol?

And I say if people are going to be paid for sex, legalise and tax the shit out of it. Same for drugs.

I don't see the downsides.
 
I don't either.

But most people were educated in the Governmental School System and indoctrinated in the need for the War on Drugs.

Then, you got the Bible-Thumpers and don't forget, the extreme Liberals who believe doing that stuff to your body is dis-harmonious with true Nature and offends the elitist Human Spirit.

;) ;) :D
 
So who is left whose actually gonna vote for you?

Most druggies just don't vote!

Nor prostitutes...
 
Ishmael said:
Geez bro. You needed to post that article.

In virtually every instance of a conservative view being posted on the board the Lib's have attacked the messenger, not the message. You've seen it as often as I and have been subjected to it as often too.

*chuckle

I think very few attack you personally, unless "the messenger" is now a conservative synonym for "Ishmael's dubious facts".

I think the board as a whole has come to the realization that you fundamentally cannot differentiate between "fact" and "opinion".

Sure, you'll always have your little coiterie of conservative camp followers who hang on each and every pronouncement you make, but face it, you're the Bill Bennett of Lit nowadays, and I don't mean that as a compliment.
 
Fawkin'Injun said:
Yes. Finally someone understands how you deal with bullies.

You collect the people around you whom are tired of being bullied and you go confront them.

Yup. Republican pack mentality.

Originally posted by Fawkin'Injun
...manufacturing jobs leaving the US, what they always inSINuate is that they're going to third-world countries, when in reality, they are going to Europe ...

There you go again...making up "facts".

And you wonder why people don't take you seriously.
 
That AV sooooooooo says Seig Heil!

I mean, just look at it!

:D :D :D

Was this attack, or mis-direction?
 
Fawkin'Injun said:
That AV sooooooooo says Seig Heil!

I mean, just look at it!

:D :D :D

Was this attack, or mis-direction?

oh no! I am being personally attacked! *whine
 
MysteryWhiteGirl said:
How does someone lighting up a joint in their own home (or any other drug for that matter) affect someone else? What repercussions would be present for legalised drugs that aren't present with legal prescription narcotics and alcohol?

And I say if people are going to be paid for sex, legalise and tax the shit out of it. Same for drugs.
I agree w/ the drug part but prostitution would cause widespread disease unless we adopt the policy they have in Amsterdam- if a prosty has a disease, the public is warned.
 
Ishmael said:
Geez bro. You needed to post that article.

In virtually every instance of a conservative view being posted on the board the Lib's have attacked the messenger, not the message. You've seen it as often as I and have been subjected to it as often too.

No surprises in the article. A little provocative in style but that's OK.

Ishmael



Hmmmmmmmmmmm....


Yo Ish,I lost the number.


I haven't been around here in a while...when did you get back?



CH
 
Scott X said:
I agree w/ the drug part but prostitution would cause widespread disease unless we adopt the policy they have in Amsterdam- if a prosty has a disease, the public is warned.


That was my thought. Prostitutes have to be lisenced - kind of like how a restaurant or hotel has to pass inspection, they have to pass disease tests to get a lisence. If a prosty has a lisence, good. If not, then she is soliciting illegally, AND the buyer should take that as a warning and wonder WHY she doesn't have a lisence.
 
FI, the article completely ignores the fact that what passes for "liberal" today is not liberal, but socialist. If you go back to the classical definition of liberal you will see that a liberal was not someone who didn't advocate responsibility or accountability, just the opposite. After the 1930s or so, socialists started calling themselves progressives and liberals to hide behind the name because back then being a socialist was something that could get you thrown in jail - but they were (and are) no more liberal than I am a rocket scientist.

If you go and read some Hayek or von Mises, you will see them repeatedly referring to "liberal thought" and liberal economics. They weren't talking about todays neo-liberals, they were talking about the true liberals; Libertarians.
 
Back
Top