Irrelevance of liberal, socialist and communist ideals in the modern world.
- Thread starter Eventhorizon
- Start date
'Ordinary people' (Photo: Getty)
James Bartholomew
7 January 2017
9:00 AM
Enough! Enough! For months, the so-called liberal elite has been writing articles, having radio and TV discussions, giving sermons (literally) and making speeches in which it has struggled to understand those strange creatures: ordinary people.
The elite is bemused by what drives these people to make perverse decisions about Brexit and Trump. Are they racist, narrow-minded or just stupid? Whatever the reason, ordinary people have frankly been a disappointment.
Time, ladies and gentlemen, please! Instead, let’s do the opposite. Let’s try to explain to ordinary people what drives the liberal elite. The elite persists with some very strange and disturbing views. Are its members brainwashed, snobbish or just so remote from real life that they do not understand how things work? What is the pathology of liberal eliteness?
Why would anyone support Hillary Clinton — a ruthless, charmless Washington insider with socialist tendencies? Why do lawyers, churchmen, the BBC and, indeed, most educated people support the EU — an organisation as saturated with smug self-righteousness as it is with corruption; one which created the euro, which in turn has caused millions of people to be unemployed; an organisation which combines a yawning democratic deficit with incompetence over immigration and economic growth?
The elite are supposed to be educated. So why are they so silly?
Ah! There is a clue. That word ‘educated’. What does ‘educated’ mean today? It doesn’t mean they know a lot about the world. It means they have been injected with the views and assumptions of their teachers. They have been taught by people who themselves have little experience of the real world. They have been indoctrinated with certain ideas. Here are some key ones.
They have been taught that capitalism is inherently bad. It is something to be controlled at every turn by an altruistic government or else reduced to a minimum. Meanwhile the pursuit of equality is good. These are truly astonishing things for educated people to believe when the past 100 years have been a brutal lesson instructing us that the opposite is the case. The pursuit of equality brought the world terror and tens of millions of deaths along with terrible economic failure. In the past 30 years, by contrast, since China and India adopted more pro-capitalist policies, capitalism has caused the biggest reduction in poverty the world has ever known. You may know that, but it is not taught in schools. Schools actually teach that Stalin’s five-year plans were a qualified success! The academic world is overwhelmingly left-wing and the textbooks spin to the left. They distort the facts or omit them.
What the elite have been led to believe is that governments make things better. ‘Market failure’ is taught; ‘public-sector failure’ is not. In my own area, they are taught that everything was awful in 19th-century Britain until governments came along to save the day with an ever-bigger welfare state. The importance of friendly societies, voluntary hospitals and so on is omitted. It is rubbish — left-wing propaganda. But misleading education of this and other kinds rubs off even on those who are not studying history or politics. It comes through in the Times, the Guardian or, in America, the Washington Post or New York Times. In Britain, BBC Radio 4 is the continuation of university propaganda by other means.
Sign up to the Weekly Highlights email
The best of the current issue – delivered straight to your inbox, every Thursday
Meanwhile, from early on, environment-alism and recycling are taught as doctrine, rather than as subjects for discussion. My children had to report to their school whether they had arrived by public transport (good), bicycle (excellent) or car (evil). Children don’t escape the propaganda even when they study languages. My daughter studies French and has had to write essays on how marvellous recycling is. There is no analysis of counter-arguments. In fact, no data is offered on which a counter–argument could be based. This is not education. It is not teaching children to challenge ideas and think for themselves. This is anti-education: teaching them what they must think. It is as prescriptive as education in the Soviet Union. At least in the Soviet Union, many understood that they should not trust what they were being told. Here, because the propaganda is less obvious, students do not have their guard up.
One of the most important things schools and universities teach is that the students must never, under any circumstances, be suspected of racism. It is not enough to treat people of all races with respect. You must be even more above suspicion than Caesar’s wife. That is part of why the elite was against Brexit. They could not bear that someone might think they supported it for racist reasons. That, in the minds of the liberal elite, would be too awful. By extension, they also would hate to be thought of as insular or inward-looking. Yes, I know that many on the Brexit side were particularly global and outward-looking, but Remainers assumed that Brexit must equal insularity. It offended their view of themselves as internationalists.
Another central tenet of the dogma is that women have been oppressed, are oppressed and, for the future, there is no limit to what we must do to ensure they get to be in the same situation as men — having as many directorships and military medals and anything else one can think of. Feminist doctrine has so permeated the elite that its members assumed that all women in the USA would vote against Trump after his vulgar, arrogant remarks about touching women were leaked. The elite thought that was ‘game over’ for Trump. Ordinary women took a different view. A majority of white women voted for Trump.
Ordinary people have been subjected to the same kind of indoctrination as the elite. They have just had less of it. They were in the hands of the propagandists for a shorter time and have been in the real world for longer. They do not read the ‘quality’ papers or listen to Radio 4. They watch Sky Sports and Strictly Come Dancing. For their understanding of the world, they rely more on what they see for themselves and experience.
The elite’s fuller education in the key beliefs explains why it was for Remain and Clinton. They voted for Remain because, in doing so, they demonstrated they were not racist but tolerant internationalists. They were not put off by the incompetence of the EU, because they have been taught an irrational respect for government — even EU government. They also perceived the EU as more likely to pursue environmentalism than an elected British government. You could say they were trained to vote for Remain. Clinton, too, ticked every box. Members of the elite could effortlessly show how feminist they were by wanting her to win. She was also the embodiment of the other key tenets: more equality, more government and anti-racism.
You may think, ‘Can’t they think for themselves?’ Unfortunately, formal education, while requiring thought, does tend to discourage too much independent thinking, especially on the key parts of the faith. If a member of the elite, for example, finds him or herself reflecting that it is usually quite difficult to interest little girls in train sets and guns, they must squash that thought. Some rebels do hold on to an ability to think, but it’s noticeable that quite a lot of the most original minds, such as George Orwell and Pascal, never went to university.
Let’s try to understand why members of the elite get so cross when others don’t take the same view of Brexit and Clinton as they do. It’s partly a sense of entitlement. People talk of a culture of entitlement among those who live on benefits. But the elite has its own entitlement culture. They think that because they studied English literature at Durham they understand the world better than a plumber in Croydon. They think they are superior and therefore their view should prevail. They also think they are morally superior because they hold to the views which they were told were virtuous. Anyone who appears not to subscribe to these views must, of necessity, be a sinner or else appallingly misled by the Daily Mail or some other evil force. It is outrageous to the elite that the work of the Devil should prevail.
They are virtuous. They know best. They are the chosen ones. They have only a token belief in democracy. They expect and intend to prevail.
James Bartholomew is the author of The Welfare of Nations, and coined the term ‘virtue signalling’ in The Spectator
Excellent point republican, white, man...
Poorly thought out article.
'Ordinary people' (Photo: Getty)
James Bartholomew
7 January 2017
9:00 AM
Enough! Enough! For months, the so-called liberal elite has been writing articles, having radio and TV discussions, giving sermons (literally) and making speeches in which it has struggled to understand those strange creatures: ordinary people.
The elite is bemused by what drives these people to make perverse decisions about Brexit and Trump. Are they racist, narrow-minded or just stupid? Whatever the reason, ordinary people have frankly been a disappointment.
Time, ladies and gentlemen, please! Instead, let’s do the opposite. Let’s try to explain to ordinary people what drives the liberal elite. The elite persists with some very strange and disturbing views. Are its members brainwashed, snobbish or just so remote from real life that they do not understand how things work? What is the pathology of liberal eliteness?
Why would anyone support Hillary Clinton — a ruthless, charmless Washington insider with socialist tendencies? Why do lawyers, churchmen, the BBC and, indeed, most educated people support the EU — an organisation as saturated with smug self-righteousness as it is with corruption; one which created the euro, which in turn has caused millions of people to be unemployed; an organisation which combines a yawning democratic deficit with incompetence over immigration and economic growth?
The elite are supposed to be educated. So why are they so silly?
Ah! There is a clue. That word ‘educated’. What does ‘educated’ mean today? It doesn’t mean they know a lot about the world. It means they have been injected with the views and assumptions of their teachers. They have been taught by people who themselves have little experience of the real world. They have been indoctrinated with certain ideas. Here are some key ones.
They have been taught that capitalism is inherently bad. It is something to be controlled at every turn by an altruistic government or else reduced to a minimum. Meanwhile the pursuit of equality is good. These are truly astonishing things for educated people to believe when the past 100 years have been a brutal lesson instructing us that the opposite is the case. The pursuit of equality brought the world terror and tens of millions of deaths along with terrible economic failure. In the past 30 years, by contrast, since China and India adopted more pro-capitalist policies, capitalism has caused the biggest reduction in poverty the world has ever known. You may know that, but it is not taught in schools. Schools actually teach that Stalin’s five-year plans were a qualified success! The academic world is overwhelmingly left-wing and the textbooks spin to the left. They distort the facts or omit them.
What the elite have been led to believe is that governments make things better. ‘Market failure’ is taught; ‘public-sector failure’ is not. In my own area, they are taught that everything was awful in 19th-century Britain until governments came along to save the day with an ever-bigger welfare state. The importance of friendly societies, voluntary hospitals and so on is omitted. It is rubbish — left-wing propaganda. But misleading education of this and other kinds rubs off even on those who are not studying history or politics. It comes through in the Times, the Guardian or, in America, the Washington Post or New York Times. In Britain, BBC Radio 4 is the continuation of university propaganda by other means.
Sign up to the Weekly Highlights email
The best of the current issue – delivered straight to your inbox, every Thursday
Meanwhile, from early on, environment-alism and recycling are taught as doctrine, rather than as subjects for discussion. My children had to report to their school whether they had arrived by public transport (good), bicycle (excellent) or car (evil). Children don’t escape the propaganda even when they study languages. My daughter studies French and has had to write essays on how marvellous recycling is. There is no analysis of counter-arguments. In fact, no data is offered on which a counter–argument could be based. This is not education. It is not teaching children to challenge ideas and think for themselves. This is anti-education: teaching them what they must think. It is as prescriptive as education in the Soviet Union. At least in the Soviet Union, many understood that they should not trust what they were being told. Here, because the propaganda is less obvious, students do not have their guard up.
One of the most important things schools and universities teach is that the students must never, under any circumstances, be suspected of racism. It is not enough to treat people of all races with respect. You must be even more above suspicion than Caesar’s wife. That is part of why the elite was against Brexit. They could not bear that someone might think they supported it for racist reasons. That, in the minds of the liberal elite, would be too awful. By extension, they also would hate to be thought of as insular or inward-looking. Yes, I know that many on the Brexit side were particularly global and outward-looking, but Remainers assumed that Brexit must equal insularity. It offended their view of themselves as internationalists.
Another central tenet of the dogma is that women have been oppressed, are oppressed and, for the future, there is no limit to what we must do to ensure they get to be in the same situation as men — having as many directorships and military medals and anything else one can think of. Feminist doctrine has so permeated the elite that its members assumed that all women in the USA would vote against Trump after his vulgar, arrogant remarks about touching women were leaked. The elite thought that was ‘game over’ for Trump. Ordinary women took a different view. A majority of white women voted for Trump.
Ordinary people have been subjected to the same kind of indoctrination as the elite. They have just had less of it. They were in the hands of the propagandists for a shorter time and have been in the real world for longer. They do not read the ‘quality’ papers or listen to Radio 4. They watch Sky Sports and Strictly Come Dancing. For their understanding of the world, they rely more on what they see for themselves and experience.
The elite’s fuller education in the key beliefs explains why it was for Remain and Clinton. They voted for Remain because, in doing so, they demonstrated they were not racist but tolerant internationalists. They were not put off by the incompetence of the EU, because they have been taught an irrational respect for government — even EU government. They also perceived the EU as more likely to pursue environmentalism than an elected British government. You could say they were trained to vote for Remain. Clinton, too, ticked every box. Members of the elite could effortlessly show how feminist they were by wanting her to win. She was also the embodiment of the other key tenets: more equality, more government and anti-racism.
You may think, ‘Can’t they think for themselves?’ Unfortunately, formal education, while requiring thought, does tend to discourage too much independent thinking, especially on the key parts of the faith. If a member of the elite, for example, finds him or herself reflecting that it is usually quite difficult to interest little girls in train sets and guns, they must squash that thought. Some rebels do hold on to an ability to think, but it’s noticeable that quite a lot of the most original minds, such as George Orwell and Pascal, never went to university.
Let’s try to understand why members of the elite get so cross when others don’t take the same view of Brexit and Clinton as they do. It’s partly a sense of entitlement. People talk of a culture of entitlement among those who live on benefits. But the elite has its own entitlement culture. They think that because they studied English literature at Durham they understand the world better than a plumber in Croydon. They think they are superior and therefore their view should prevail. They also think they are morally superior because they hold to the views which they were told were virtuous. Anyone who appears not to subscribe to these views must, of necessity, be a sinner or else appallingly misled by the Daily Mail or some other evil force. It is outrageous to the elite that the work of the Devil should prevail.
They are virtuous. They know best. They are the chosen ones. They have only a token belief in democracy. They expect and intend to prevail.
James Bartholomew is the author of The Welfare of Nations, and coined the term ‘virtue signalling’ in The Spectator
A long history of violence among U.S. liberals
Mark Bauerlein
Updated: Tuesday, July 25, 2017, 2:32 PM
Bill Maher, host of “Real Time” on HBO, said of the recent shooting targeting Republicans: “We would never really think this would happen think the left. We think of the right as the people who pick up guns and do crazy things like this.”
Recently on HBO’s Real Time, Bill Maher had this to say about the attack on Republican legislators: “We would never really think this would happen on the left. We think of the right as the people who pick up guns and do crazy things like this.”
And that’s just what they think. Liberals are peaceful and conservatives are violent. Even those who take pride in their political incorrectness repeat it. But you don’t have to be an American historian to know how little it holds up to the facts.
Every year on the anniversary of JFK’s assassination, media people talk about right-wingers in Dallas. But the real shooter, Lee Harvey Oswald, was a Soviet sympathizer. And Robert Kennedy’s killer was a Palestinian radical.
Last year at the Super Bowl, America watched Beyonce’s half-time tribute to the Black Panthers, who loved their guns as much as any NRA fanatic, and used them enthusiastically.
The media did everything they could to make us forget about Barack Obama’s friendship with fellow Chicagoans Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, both members of the bomb-wielding Weather Underground. This month’s Puerto Rican Day Parade controversy resurrected the ‘70s leftist terrorist group the FALN. Today we have the Antifa, whose black mask image has become an emblem of America 2017.
And just last month, Obama appeared on video at the Songwriters Hall of Fame to help induct Jay-Z, who once wrote these lines in his song “Money, Cash, Hoes”:
Money cash hoes money cash chicks what
Sex murder and mayhem romance for the street
Only wife of mines is a life of crime …
“Jay, you have been inspiring,” Obama said, but he didn’t mention how the millions of young men who’ve listened to Jay-Z and other rappers have been affected by lyrics such as “Now if I kill you I probably do ten in the box / Come down on appeal then I’m killin’ your pops” (“Reservoir Dogs”).
It takes a strange act of the mind to overlook leftist violence in the American present and recent past. It’s as if attributing deep hate to right-leaning people was a drug. An obvious addict is Bill Moyers, the former LBJ operative who’s made a career out of sanctimonious exposes of conservative wrath. A few years ago, he spoke of how “Conservative Talk Radio Incites Domestic Terrorism & Hate” and last year during the campaign he warned,
“Trump and his ilk would sweep the promise of America into the dustbin of history unless they are exposed now to the disinfectant of sunlight, the cleansing torch of truth. Nothing else can save us from the dark age of unreason that would arrive with the triumph of Donald Trump.”
Whether it’s real (the softball shooter) or make-believe (Kathy Griffin), liberal violence in contemporary America is a fact. It would seem to be a natural focus for Moyers’ campaign against political hatred. But at his web site one can only find brief notices of the shooting in Alexandria that emphasize the bipartisan nature of wrath in the United States, citing another story on “potential incitement of political violence by Democrats and Republicans, the right and the left,” as well as a population research finding that “Republicans and Democrats were indistinguishable in their support for political violence.”
This all sounds like a cross-political appeal to reason, but in truth, it’s an effective way to push the liberal-peace and conservative-violence meme. When a lunatic with right-wing opinions goes on a rampage, it says something about the essence of conservatism. When a lunatic with left-wing opinions acts, it summons forth bipartisan expressions of civility. Conservative hate is conservative, but liberal hate isn’t liberal at all.
Republicans and conservatives should recognize the across-the-divide call for unity as a hustle. The next time a right-wing crazy picks up his gun, the one-sided denunciations of conservative hate will come once more. Liberals pay themselves a compliment when they attribute vice to their adversaries, and they double down on back-patting when they (putatively) rise above politics after one of their own commits violence. Conservatives shouldn’t help them do it.
They should instead proclaim that liberalism circa 2017 is not “give peace a chance.” It has a malicious streak, and all too many liberals don’t just despise President Trump and everyone who voted for him, but also take pleasure in their spite.
Mark Bauerlein is an English professor at Emory University
Mark Bauerlein
Updated: Tuesday, July 25, 2017, 2:32 PM
Bill Maher, host of “Real Time” on HBO, said of the recent shooting targeting Republicans: “We would never really think this would happen think the left. We think of the right as the people who pick up guns and do crazy things like this.”
Recently on HBO’s Real Time, Bill Maher had this to say about the attack on Republican legislators: “We would never really think this would happen on the left. We think of the right as the people who pick up guns and do crazy things like this.”
And that’s just what they think. Liberals are peaceful and conservatives are violent. Even those who take pride in their political incorrectness repeat it. But you don’t have to be an American historian to know how little it holds up to the facts.
Every year on the anniversary of JFK’s assassination, media people talk about right-wingers in Dallas. But the real shooter, Lee Harvey Oswald, was a Soviet sympathizer. And Robert Kennedy’s killer was a Palestinian radical.
Last year at the Super Bowl, America watched Beyonce’s half-time tribute to the Black Panthers, who loved their guns as much as any NRA fanatic, and used them enthusiastically.
The media did everything they could to make us forget about Barack Obama’s friendship with fellow Chicagoans Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, both members of the bomb-wielding Weather Underground. This month’s Puerto Rican Day Parade controversy resurrected the ‘70s leftist terrorist group the FALN. Today we have the Antifa, whose black mask image has become an emblem of America 2017.
And just last month, Obama appeared on video at the Songwriters Hall of Fame to help induct Jay-Z, who once wrote these lines in his song “Money, Cash, Hoes”:
Money cash hoes money cash chicks what
Sex murder and mayhem romance for the street
Only wife of mines is a life of crime …
“Jay, you have been inspiring,” Obama said, but he didn’t mention how the millions of young men who’ve listened to Jay-Z and other rappers have been affected by lyrics such as “Now if I kill you I probably do ten in the box / Come down on appeal then I’m killin’ your pops” (“Reservoir Dogs”).
It takes a strange act of the mind to overlook leftist violence in the American present and recent past. It’s as if attributing deep hate to right-leaning people was a drug. An obvious addict is Bill Moyers, the former LBJ operative who’s made a career out of sanctimonious exposes of conservative wrath. A few years ago, he spoke of how “Conservative Talk Radio Incites Domestic Terrorism & Hate” and last year during the campaign he warned,
“Trump and his ilk would sweep the promise of America into the dustbin of history unless they are exposed now to the disinfectant of sunlight, the cleansing torch of truth. Nothing else can save us from the dark age of unreason that would arrive with the triumph of Donald Trump.”
Whether it’s real (the softball shooter) or make-believe (Kathy Griffin), liberal violence in contemporary America is a fact. It would seem to be a natural focus for Moyers’ campaign against political hatred. But at his web site one can only find brief notices of the shooting in Alexandria that emphasize the bipartisan nature of wrath in the United States, citing another story on “potential incitement of political violence by Democrats and Republicans, the right and the left,” as well as a population research finding that “Republicans and Democrats were indistinguishable in their support for political violence.”
This all sounds like a cross-political appeal to reason, but in truth, it’s an effective way to push the liberal-peace and conservative-violence meme. When a lunatic with right-wing opinions goes on a rampage, it says something about the essence of conservatism. When a lunatic with left-wing opinions acts, it summons forth bipartisan expressions of civility. Conservative hate is conservative, but liberal hate isn’t liberal at all.
Republicans and conservatives should recognize the across-the-divide call for unity as a hustle. The next time a right-wing crazy picks up his gun, the one-sided denunciations of conservative hate will come once more. Liberals pay themselves a compliment when they attribute vice to their adversaries, and they double down on back-patting when they (putatively) rise above politics after one of their own commits violence. Conservatives shouldn’t help them do it.
They should instead proclaim that liberalism circa 2017 is not “give peace a chance.” It has a malicious streak, and all too many liberals don’t just despise President Trump and everyone who voted for him, but also take pleasure in their spite.
Mark Bauerlein is an English professor at Emory University
- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,262
- 246,773
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
- WS
Science says liberals, not conservatives, are psychotic
By Danika Fears
June 9, 2016 | 11:18pm
Audience members at a rally held by Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders.Getty Images
Turns out liberals are the real authoritarians.
A political-science journal that published an oft-cited study claiming conservatives were more likely to show traits associated with “psychoticism” now says it got it wrong. Very wrong.
The American Journal of Political Science published a correction this year saying that the 2012 paper has “an error” — and that liberal political beliefs, not conservative ones, are actually linked to psychoticism.
“The interpretation of the coding of the political attitude items in the descriptive and preliminary analyses portion of the manuscript was exactly reversed,” the journal said in the startling correction.
“The descriptive analyses report that those higher in Eysenck’s psychoticism are more conservative, but they are actually more liberal; and where the original manuscript reports those higher in neuroticism and social desirability are more liberal, they are, in fact, more conservative.”
In the paper, psychoticism is associated with traits such as tough-mindedness, risk-taking, sensation-seeking, impulsivity and authoritarianism.
The social-desirability scale measures people’s tendency to answer questions in ways they believe would please researchers, even if it means overestimating their positive characteristics and underestimating negative ones.
The erroneous report has been cited 45 times, according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science.
Brad Verhulst, a Virginia Commonwealth University researcher and a co-author of the paper, said he was not sure who was to blame.
“I don’t know where it happened. All I know is it happened,” he told Retraction Watch, a blog that tracks corrections in academic papers. “It’s our fault for not figuring it out before.”
The journal said the error doesn’t change the main conclusions of the paper, which found that “personality traits do not cause people to develop political attitudes.”
But professor Steven Ludeke of the University of Southern Denmark, who pointed out the errors, told Retraction Watch that they “matter quite a lot.”
“The erroneous results represented some of the larger correlations between personality and politics ever reported; they were reported and interpreted, repeatedly, in the wrong direction,” he said
Lee Harvey Oswald 1961
By 1980, Panther membership had dwindled to 27
Weather Underground most members were finally arrested in 1985 and sentenced
go back to harping on antifa
- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,262
- 246,773
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
"In the paper, the authors are clear that “psychoticism” doesn’t mean “psychotic.”
psychoticism is associated with traits such as tough-mindedness, risk-taking, sensation-seeking, impulsivity and authoritarianism."
"When we asked Hatemi to elaborate on what that magnitude was — how much more likely were people who held conservative or liberal views to exhibit certain traits? — he said:
[T]he correlations are spurious, so the direction or even magnitude is not suitable to elaborate on at all- that’s the point of all our papers and the general findings."
Last edited:
- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,262
- 246,773
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
Only when it's convenient do you ignore the truth.
Liberalism: True Political ideology or mental disorder?
Before we can even start to answer that question we need to understand what Liberalism is. We also need to understand that there is something called “Classic” Liberalism and “Modern” or “Progressive” Liberalism.
Liberalism as a Political Movement has existed for the past four centuries. Starting with the Renaissance, defining itself with the French Revolution and culminating in the formation of the United States of America. A common thread throughout the last three centuries preceding our own have been that common people were tired with being oppressed and with that in mind they freed themselves either through mediation, emigration and sometimes bloody revolution as was the case with the French Revolution.
Since the USA was formed by the founding fathers to relieve themselves from the oppressing yoke of subjugation to the British Empire it stands to reason that the early arrivals of Dutch and German Protestants and French Huguenots in the Cape of Good Hope were also acts of liberalism in that they emigrated to escape religious, cultural and political persecution by not only the Roman Catholic Church but also repressive governments and monarchies. It then logically follows that the Boers left the British colony of the Cape in the same liberal defiance to British subjugation in 1838 for the Great Trek – and subsequent founding of the Boer Republics - only to be once more to be the victim of the British Colonial Empire 60 years later. A victim also of policies that had at its heart social engineering by means of racialist discrimination through law that was not present during the existence of the Boer Republics. (I use the word racialist as the word racist was only coined in 1918 and first appeared in print in 1930)
In the run-up to the World War 1 liberalism was what is now termed “Classic Liberalism” which did not mock religion, family values, morals, ethics and the belief in hard work but rather abhorred the idea of large intrusive and coercive Governments with everybody allowed a place in the sun. The credo of classic liberalism is freedom – as long as you were tolerant of other’s freedoms.
Before and during World War 1 Communist leaders expected the common workers to turn their backs upon their respective Governments and that a glorious revolution would take place in the name of Communism. As we now know this never happened and although the Russian Revolution took place – and Hungary was under the control of Communism for a very short span of time from 1918-1919 (and a short lived Communist revolt in Germany that was easily put down by soldiers returning from the front lines) – the massive Communist revolution never took place. This forced the leaders of Communism to rethink their strategy.
After World War 1 “Classic” liberalism began to morph into “Modern” liberalism with the economist John Maynard Keyns at the forefront in the West with his theory that free reigning markets are not the answer and that more Government intervention is needed in the economy. During the same time the Russian Revolution took place and Vladimir Lenin and especially Leon Trotsky saw an opportunity in “Modern” Liberalism to further the Communist cause. Leon Trotsky had such extremist views that he was assassinated in Mexico on the orders of Joseph Stalin – a man who was responsible of up to 30 million deaths during his reign of terror. Lenin famously referred to the modern liberal intelligentsia as “useful idiots” that just needed a nudge in the right direction.
It is also Leon Trotsky that coined the most over-used word in the world – racist. The context of the word has subsequently been divorced from the original meaning Trotsky had in mind. Calling someone a “racist” is the favoured ad hominem of progressive liberals painting everybody who does not agree with them as some form of jackboot wearing, SS flag waiving Nazi white supremacist.
At this point I should interject Cultural Marxism. With Economic Marxism - that placed Russia under the control of Communists - not working in the West the plan was for a far more insidious and clever tactic to be used. Economic Marxism is a blunt instrument that smashes everything in its path but Cultural Marxism is intelligent, precise and a long-term strategy that would destroy the culture of the Western World as surely as an atom bomb – but from the inside.
Cultural Marxism is an offshoot of Western Marxism which itself is another variation of Marxism as theorised by Marx and Engels. At its core is the subversion of Western institutions such as schools, universities, media, entertainment industry, family values, cultural heritage and religion - specifically Western religion that by definition is Christianity. It has its foundations firmly rooted in the Frankfurt School where the theories of, amongst others, Antonio Gramsci and George Lukacs found a home and whose venomous results can be seen in “intelligent” public discourse today as well as the plethora of societal ills.
Liberalism had by the 1960’s become infected with Socialist ideology – thanks to the Frankfurt School and radicals such as Saul Alinsky with his book (12) Rules for Radicals - with ever growing governments, government interference into day-to-day life and a growing entitlement class. Cultural Marxism began to subtly manifest itself in the latter part of the 1960’s – predominantly within the hippy culture - but by the 1990’s it was firmly entrenched in the hearts and minds of radicals and those who were inclined towards Socialist doctrine. Intelligent discourse, reason, logic, a respect for proven fact and understanding cause and effect went the way of the Dodo.
With this Cultural Marxist monkey on the back the next step was a logical one and one that we should abhor in totality – Political Correctness. Political Correctness stifles any meaningful debate about social issues due to the inherent nature of “that wasn’t nice to say” and “racism”. Political Correctness (as we know it) has its origins in the 1970’s UK liberal scene when the New Left adopted it and has subsequently spread like wildfire throughout the world. Even Conservatives bow down to the might of PC or run the risk of being labelled some type of hatemonger in the form of homophobe, Islamophobe, racist, anti-Feminist et al. Being labelled a racist, bigot or right wing extremist seems to be a damning accusation. The mark of “racist” has the equivalent value of a chemical weapon. Even being Conservative or “Classic” liberal means that in the PC world you are a right wing lunatic – such is the indoctrination that Cultural Marxism and its tool, Political Correctness, has heaped upon the world. Apparently – according to an article published in the US – police dogs are now also deemed to be racist and in England the use of the terms “whitelist” and “blacklist” has racist undertones and can no longer be used by the Metropolitan Police. I personally refer to PC as Political Clownery due to the base absurdity of it.
*Note that the term Political Correct has its origins as a colloquialism and described debates about the dogmatic application of Stalinism between Communist Party members and Socialists – another link to Communism / Socialism to ponder*
Today we see the destructive influence of the Keynsian theory of economics as well as the poisonous and corrosive influence that Socialism and Cultural Marxism has had on the world. The United Kingdom can best be described as a “Nanny State” with an ever-growing entitlement culture, the USA in a state of crisis with itself and also a fully-fledged entitlement state with more people on coupons and hand-outs than are actually working in some States and a outstanding debt exzceeding $16 Trillion. Most of the Nordic countries are trying to survive a tidal wave of foreign immigrants from Muslim and North African countries. The PIGS countries – Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain – are stark reminders of the entitlement state gone wrong with too few people contributing too little for the entitlement benefits of too many leading to fiscal meltdown. Islamic and African refugees are flooding the West demanding the West conform to their culture and religion and progressive liberals stand at the front preaching multi-culturism. The problem for progressive liberals is that multi-culturism is not a one-way street as they so often spew from their self proclaimed morally superior soapboxes. When in Rome…Logic would dictate that if you leave your country of origin due to whatever reason you assimilate into your new host country’s culture – that however is not the reality as immigrants force their culture and religious beliefs upon the natives of the land whilst progressive liberals stand idly by applauding in their naivety, patting themselves on the back and saying to each other “Well done” whilst not reflecting on any long term consequences.
So it comes as no surprise that there is a backlash from the “right-wing” groupings and political parties such as the EDL, UKIP, Front Nationale, Mouvement souverainiste du Québec, the Tea Party, Australian Protectionist Party, Golden Dawn and Partij voor de Vrijheid just to name a few. Recently an immigrant scholar at WITS University likened all of these interested parties to white supremacists and Nazi’s. Maybe someone should enlighten this person as to Godwin’s Law or reductio ad Hitlerum as it is a fallacy of irrelevance.
Liberalism used to be a valid political ideology but no more. It is now a stain upon the soul of man with Totalitarian Socialist control at its centre.
So the question remains – is liberalism a mental disorder? Is it purely a neurosis or is there a deep-seated mental deficiency that makes the liberally inclined want to give up control of its own destinies to be coddled, like a child, by a protective benevolent government from cradle to the grave? They certainly seem to jump at every opportunity to commit racial, ethnic and cultural hara-kiri and encourage, no force, people around them to do the same.
Liberalism is not a simple neurosis although the projection of white-guilt may lead one to think that it is. No, it is more complicated than just a white person feeling guilty about his heritage and how he got to his or her station in life through the actions of his ancestors. Liberals ignore the first rule of nature – only the strong survive and instead opt to artificially manipulate society blaming the exceedingly long list of progressive liberal ideological failures on “white privilege”. Ignorance obviously plays a central role in this construct of “white privilege”.
Various leading psychiatrists support my point of view. Doctor Lyle A Rossiter (Jnr) MD, a veteran psychiatrist with 35 years experience and no known ties or ideologies that can even remotely be construed as Conservative or right wing. With a track record of treating 1 500 patients during his career he wrote a book in 2008 entitled “The Psychological Causes of Political Madness” in which he states: “Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded,” …“Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave.”… “A social scientist that understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do,” ... “A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation’s citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do.”
I searched the Internet in a hopeless attempt to find an intelligent response and critique to the contrary but what I found most often than not is the following response: “He’s stupid”. Ah, the age of true intellectualism and use of knowledge seems to have been eclipsed by the age of Idiocracy.
Doctor Adam Savage, a well-known radio commentator syndicated to 350 radio stations in the USA, actually wrote a book in 2005 called “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder”. He is also the author of numerous other titles dealing with psychological disorders. He identified certain instances that support his prognosis and which have in the interim been proven correct by the Occupy movement and the hysterics of the Democrats during last year’s Presidential election in the USA not to mention the antics of Femen and perpetually stupid groupings such as Pussy Riot (I wonder if they really had to debase themselves to get their message across)
• Expecting constant praise and admiration
• Being overly jealous of others’ achievements
• Expecting (no demanding) that others follow ideological plans
• Setting unrealistic goals
• A sense of entitlement
• Trouble maintaining healthy relationships
All of these symptoms seem to define an individual who is unable to express their frustration in a rational manner – like liberals do. The Mayo Clinic stated it best: “In order to make yourself feel better, you may react with rage or contempt and efforts to belittle the other person to make yourself appear better.”
In his book Doctor Savage ultimately identifies Narcissistic Personality Disorder as the cause of progressive liberalism.
Wikipedia contains the following easy to understand explanation on NPD: “Although individuals with NPD are often ambitious and capable, the inability to tolerate setbacks, disagreements or criticism, along with lack of empathy, make it difficult for such individuals to work cooperatively with others or to maintain long-term professional achievements. With narcissistic personality disorder, the individual's self-perceived fantastic grandiosity, often coupled with a hypomanic mood, is typically not commensurate with his or her real accomplishments. “.
Enter the Dunning-Kruger effect. “Dunning and Kruger noted earlier studies suggesting that ignorance of standards of performance is behind a great deal of incompetence. This pattern was seen in studies of skills as diverse as reading comprehension, operating a motor vehicle, and playing chess or tennis.
Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:
• tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
• fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
• fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
• recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they are exposed to training for that skill.
The last point is extremely difficult to achieve, as described by social commentator and film producer Slavoj Zizek in his 2012 film “The Perverts’ Guide to Ideology”. His main thesis is that ideology in its most powerful form is hidden from the view of the person who submits to it. “Once it can be clearly perceived it effectively loses its power of social control... it hurts to step outside of it and examine it critically; by default we tend to resist seeing the world from any angle other than the one fed to us.” A worldview constantly fed to us by artists, musicians, journalists, entertainment, educators and political demagogues.
But that is not the end for NPD. “Psychiatrist Glen Gabbard suggested NPD could be broken down into two subtypes. He saw the "oblivious" subtype as being grandiose, arrogant, and thick-skinned and the "hyper-vigilant" subtype as being easily hurt, oversensitive, and ashamed. In his view, the oblivious subtype presents for admiration, envy, and appreciation of a powerful, grandiose self that is the antithesis of a weak internalized self, which hides in shame, while the hyper-vigilant subtype neutralizes devaluation by seeing others as unjust abusers.”
It is also my contention that progressive liberalism exhibits many of the traits of Sociopathic Personality Disorder as outlined below and identified by the FBI Behavioural Analysis Unit:
· Glibness and Superficial Charm
· Manipulative and Conning
· Grandiose Sense of Self - Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."
· Pathological Lying - Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis.
· Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt - A deep-seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
· Shallow Emotions - Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person.
· Need for Stimulation - Promiscuity and gambling are common.
· Callousness/Lack of Empathy - Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.
· Poor Behavioural Controls/Impulsive Nature -Rage and abuse, alternating a belief that they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no concern for their impact on others.
· Irresponsibility/Unreliability - Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.
· Promiscuous Sexual Behaviour – Promiscuity and sexual acting out of all sorts.
· Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility - Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily when confronted.
· Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them - (and I’m sure I’ll receive a lot of contempt for this piece)
· Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them (Dunning-Kruger)
· Authoritarian – does not tolerate any opinions or points of view that differs from theirs. Total control at all times
· Secretive – the use of false Facebook profiles, anonymous campaigns and secret groups come to mind
· Paranoid – everyone that does not conform to his or her world view must be a member of some secret right wing grouping intent on subjugating the rest of the world into some white supremacist Utopia.
· Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behaviour will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
· Conventional appearance – yes they walk among us, look like us, talk like us
· Goal of enslavement (of their victim(s))
· Exercises despotic control over every aspect of societal life
· Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim – or in this case a willing victim mentality
· Extreme narcissism and grandiose
· May state readily that their goal is to rule the world – anyone familiar with George Soros and his history?
As was seen from the recent debacle and subsequent tragedy surrounding Carina Papenfus / Flippie Engelbrecht / Johnny Burger - exposed on Carte Blanch a few weeks ago - many of the traits shown above was exhibited; you can decide for yourself which traits came to the fore. The same can be said about the vitriol filled responses by various “opinion formers” to civil action groups such as Red October and Afriforum – even though the right of these groups to peaceful protest and freedom of association are enshrined in the South African Constitution. The inclusion of the term “racist” in every other article – although photographic proof to the contrary exists – is typical of the narrow minded myopic view liberals hold of the world. Fortunately, and because of its over use, the etiquette of racist is becoming more and more consequenter
I noted with some amusement the campaign to stop companies from having advertising banners on the “racist” Praag website and after a little digging found it to be the same group that laid formal – and may I say libellous - complaints against Sunette Bridges at the SAHRC for “racism”– which was dismissed out of hand by the SAHRC due to a lack of any meaningful content. Who then targeted the Facebook pages of Sunette Bridges and BKA by complaining to Facebook about overt racism (and in the process got their own little clubhouse shut down by Facebook). The same group that hides behind dozens of fake Facebook profiles and slanders all and sundry that they deem to be “racist”, “homophobic” ad infinitum when compared to their non-existent set of self-righteous morals vomited upon the world from every conceivable soap box they can find. A vile little group of division sowers and race baiters if ever there were one.
It seems that modern or “progressive” liberalism is in fact no longer a political ideology but rather a mental disorder more associated with religious cult leaders and followers. And make no mistake – progressive liberalism is a religion although socio-political in nature. It’s sermons are is driven by quasi-intellectual discussion prompted by observations made with extreme cognitive bias and uses books such as Rules for Radicals, Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack (by Peggy McIntosh) and After Hegemony (by Robert Keohane) as their bibles with Karl Marx as their saviour.
“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.” – Albert Einstein
Before we can even start to answer that question we need to understand what Liberalism is. We also need to understand that there is something called “Classic” Liberalism and “Modern” or “Progressive” Liberalism.
Liberalism as a Political Movement has existed for the past four centuries. Starting with the Renaissance, defining itself with the French Revolution and culminating in the formation of the United States of America. A common thread throughout the last three centuries preceding our own have been that common people were tired with being oppressed and with that in mind they freed themselves either through mediation, emigration and sometimes bloody revolution as was the case with the French Revolution.
Since the USA was formed by the founding fathers to relieve themselves from the oppressing yoke of subjugation to the British Empire it stands to reason that the early arrivals of Dutch and German Protestants and French Huguenots in the Cape of Good Hope were also acts of liberalism in that they emigrated to escape religious, cultural and political persecution by not only the Roman Catholic Church but also repressive governments and monarchies. It then logically follows that the Boers left the British colony of the Cape in the same liberal defiance to British subjugation in 1838 for the Great Trek – and subsequent founding of the Boer Republics - only to be once more to be the victim of the British Colonial Empire 60 years later. A victim also of policies that had at its heart social engineering by means of racialist discrimination through law that was not present during the existence of the Boer Republics. (I use the word racialist as the word racist was only coined in 1918 and first appeared in print in 1930)
In the run-up to the World War 1 liberalism was what is now termed “Classic Liberalism” which did not mock religion, family values, morals, ethics and the belief in hard work but rather abhorred the idea of large intrusive and coercive Governments with everybody allowed a place in the sun. The credo of classic liberalism is freedom – as long as you were tolerant of other’s freedoms.
Before and during World War 1 Communist leaders expected the common workers to turn their backs upon their respective Governments and that a glorious revolution would take place in the name of Communism. As we now know this never happened and although the Russian Revolution took place – and Hungary was under the control of Communism for a very short span of time from 1918-1919 (and a short lived Communist revolt in Germany that was easily put down by soldiers returning from the front lines) – the massive Communist revolution never took place. This forced the leaders of Communism to rethink their strategy.
After World War 1 “Classic” liberalism began to morph into “Modern” liberalism with the economist John Maynard Keyns at the forefront in the West with his theory that free reigning markets are not the answer and that more Government intervention is needed in the economy. During the same time the Russian Revolution took place and Vladimir Lenin and especially Leon Trotsky saw an opportunity in “Modern” Liberalism to further the Communist cause. Leon Trotsky had such extremist views that he was assassinated in Mexico on the orders of Joseph Stalin – a man who was responsible of up to 30 million deaths during his reign of terror. Lenin famously referred to the modern liberal intelligentsia as “useful idiots” that just needed a nudge in the right direction.
It is also Leon Trotsky that coined the most over-used word in the world – racist. The context of the word has subsequently been divorced from the original meaning Trotsky had in mind. Calling someone a “racist” is the favoured ad hominem of progressive liberals painting everybody who does not agree with them as some form of jackboot wearing, SS flag waiving Nazi white supremacist.
At this point I should interject Cultural Marxism. With Economic Marxism - that placed Russia under the control of Communists - not working in the West the plan was for a far more insidious and clever tactic to be used. Economic Marxism is a blunt instrument that smashes everything in its path but Cultural Marxism is intelligent, precise and a long-term strategy that would destroy the culture of the Western World as surely as an atom bomb – but from the inside.
Cultural Marxism is an offshoot of Western Marxism which itself is another variation of Marxism as theorised by Marx and Engels. At its core is the subversion of Western institutions such as schools, universities, media, entertainment industry, family values, cultural heritage and religion - specifically Western religion that by definition is Christianity. It has its foundations firmly rooted in the Frankfurt School where the theories of, amongst others, Antonio Gramsci and George Lukacs found a home and whose venomous results can be seen in “intelligent” public discourse today as well as the plethora of societal ills.
Liberalism had by the 1960’s become infected with Socialist ideology – thanks to the Frankfurt School and radicals such as Saul Alinsky with his book (12) Rules for Radicals - with ever growing governments, government interference into day-to-day life and a growing entitlement class. Cultural Marxism began to subtly manifest itself in the latter part of the 1960’s – predominantly within the hippy culture - but by the 1990’s it was firmly entrenched in the hearts and minds of radicals and those who were inclined towards Socialist doctrine. Intelligent discourse, reason, logic, a respect for proven fact and understanding cause and effect went the way of the Dodo.
With this Cultural Marxist monkey on the back the next step was a logical one and one that we should abhor in totality – Political Correctness. Political Correctness stifles any meaningful debate about social issues due to the inherent nature of “that wasn’t nice to say” and “racism”. Political Correctness (as we know it) has its origins in the 1970’s UK liberal scene when the New Left adopted it and has subsequently spread like wildfire throughout the world. Even Conservatives bow down to the might of PC or run the risk of being labelled some type of hatemonger in the form of homophobe, Islamophobe, racist, anti-Feminist et al. Being labelled a racist, bigot or right wing extremist seems to be a damning accusation. The mark of “racist” has the equivalent value of a chemical weapon. Even being Conservative or “Classic” liberal means that in the PC world you are a right wing lunatic – such is the indoctrination that Cultural Marxism and its tool, Political Correctness, has heaped upon the world. Apparently – according to an article published in the US – police dogs are now also deemed to be racist and in England the use of the terms “whitelist” and “blacklist” has racist undertones and can no longer be used by the Metropolitan Police. I personally refer to PC as Political Clownery due to the base absurdity of it.
*Note that the term Political Correct has its origins as a colloquialism and described debates about the dogmatic application of Stalinism between Communist Party members and Socialists – another link to Communism / Socialism to ponder*
Today we see the destructive influence of the Keynsian theory of economics as well as the poisonous and corrosive influence that Socialism and Cultural Marxism has had on the world. The United Kingdom can best be described as a “Nanny State” with an ever-growing entitlement culture, the USA in a state of crisis with itself and also a fully-fledged entitlement state with more people on coupons and hand-outs than are actually working in some States and a outstanding debt exzceeding $16 Trillion. Most of the Nordic countries are trying to survive a tidal wave of foreign immigrants from Muslim and North African countries. The PIGS countries – Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain – are stark reminders of the entitlement state gone wrong with too few people contributing too little for the entitlement benefits of too many leading to fiscal meltdown. Islamic and African refugees are flooding the West demanding the West conform to their culture and religion and progressive liberals stand at the front preaching multi-culturism. The problem for progressive liberals is that multi-culturism is not a one-way street as they so often spew from their self proclaimed morally superior soapboxes. When in Rome…Logic would dictate that if you leave your country of origin due to whatever reason you assimilate into your new host country’s culture – that however is not the reality as immigrants force their culture and religious beliefs upon the natives of the land whilst progressive liberals stand idly by applauding in their naivety, patting themselves on the back and saying to each other “Well done” whilst not reflecting on any long term consequences.
So it comes as no surprise that there is a backlash from the “right-wing” groupings and political parties such as the EDL, UKIP, Front Nationale, Mouvement souverainiste du Québec, the Tea Party, Australian Protectionist Party, Golden Dawn and Partij voor de Vrijheid just to name a few. Recently an immigrant scholar at WITS University likened all of these interested parties to white supremacists and Nazi’s. Maybe someone should enlighten this person as to Godwin’s Law or reductio ad Hitlerum as it is a fallacy of irrelevance.
Liberalism used to be a valid political ideology but no more. It is now a stain upon the soul of man with Totalitarian Socialist control at its centre.
So the question remains – is liberalism a mental disorder? Is it purely a neurosis or is there a deep-seated mental deficiency that makes the liberally inclined want to give up control of its own destinies to be coddled, like a child, by a protective benevolent government from cradle to the grave? They certainly seem to jump at every opportunity to commit racial, ethnic and cultural hara-kiri and encourage, no force, people around them to do the same.
Liberalism is not a simple neurosis although the projection of white-guilt may lead one to think that it is. No, it is more complicated than just a white person feeling guilty about his heritage and how he got to his or her station in life through the actions of his ancestors. Liberals ignore the first rule of nature – only the strong survive and instead opt to artificially manipulate society blaming the exceedingly long list of progressive liberal ideological failures on “white privilege”. Ignorance obviously plays a central role in this construct of “white privilege”.
Various leading psychiatrists support my point of view. Doctor Lyle A Rossiter (Jnr) MD, a veteran psychiatrist with 35 years experience and no known ties or ideologies that can even remotely be construed as Conservative or right wing. With a track record of treating 1 500 patients during his career he wrote a book in 2008 entitled “The Psychological Causes of Political Madness” in which he states: “Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded,” …“Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave.”… “A social scientist that understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do,” ... “A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation’s citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do.”
I searched the Internet in a hopeless attempt to find an intelligent response and critique to the contrary but what I found most often than not is the following response: “He’s stupid”. Ah, the age of true intellectualism and use of knowledge seems to have been eclipsed by the age of Idiocracy.
Doctor Adam Savage, a well-known radio commentator syndicated to 350 radio stations in the USA, actually wrote a book in 2005 called “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder”. He is also the author of numerous other titles dealing with psychological disorders. He identified certain instances that support his prognosis and which have in the interim been proven correct by the Occupy movement and the hysterics of the Democrats during last year’s Presidential election in the USA not to mention the antics of Femen and perpetually stupid groupings such as Pussy Riot (I wonder if they really had to debase themselves to get their message across)
• Expecting constant praise and admiration
• Being overly jealous of others’ achievements
• Expecting (no demanding) that others follow ideological plans
• Setting unrealistic goals
• A sense of entitlement
• Trouble maintaining healthy relationships
All of these symptoms seem to define an individual who is unable to express their frustration in a rational manner – like liberals do. The Mayo Clinic stated it best: “In order to make yourself feel better, you may react with rage or contempt and efforts to belittle the other person to make yourself appear better.”
In his book Doctor Savage ultimately identifies Narcissistic Personality Disorder as the cause of progressive liberalism.
Wikipedia contains the following easy to understand explanation on NPD: “Although individuals with NPD are often ambitious and capable, the inability to tolerate setbacks, disagreements or criticism, along with lack of empathy, make it difficult for such individuals to work cooperatively with others or to maintain long-term professional achievements. With narcissistic personality disorder, the individual's self-perceived fantastic grandiosity, often coupled with a hypomanic mood, is typically not commensurate with his or her real accomplishments. “.
Enter the Dunning-Kruger effect. “Dunning and Kruger noted earlier studies suggesting that ignorance of standards of performance is behind a great deal of incompetence. This pattern was seen in studies of skills as diverse as reading comprehension, operating a motor vehicle, and playing chess or tennis.
Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:
• tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
• fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
• fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
• recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they are exposed to training for that skill.
The last point is extremely difficult to achieve, as described by social commentator and film producer Slavoj Zizek in his 2012 film “The Perverts’ Guide to Ideology”. His main thesis is that ideology in its most powerful form is hidden from the view of the person who submits to it. “Once it can be clearly perceived it effectively loses its power of social control... it hurts to step outside of it and examine it critically; by default we tend to resist seeing the world from any angle other than the one fed to us.” A worldview constantly fed to us by artists, musicians, journalists, entertainment, educators and political demagogues.
But that is not the end for NPD. “Psychiatrist Glen Gabbard suggested NPD could be broken down into two subtypes. He saw the "oblivious" subtype as being grandiose, arrogant, and thick-skinned and the "hyper-vigilant" subtype as being easily hurt, oversensitive, and ashamed. In his view, the oblivious subtype presents for admiration, envy, and appreciation of a powerful, grandiose self that is the antithesis of a weak internalized self, which hides in shame, while the hyper-vigilant subtype neutralizes devaluation by seeing others as unjust abusers.”
It is also my contention that progressive liberalism exhibits many of the traits of Sociopathic Personality Disorder as outlined below and identified by the FBI Behavioural Analysis Unit:
· Glibness and Superficial Charm
· Manipulative and Conning
· Grandiose Sense of Self - Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."
· Pathological Lying - Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis.
· Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt - A deep-seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
· Shallow Emotions - Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person.
· Need for Stimulation - Promiscuity and gambling are common.
· Callousness/Lack of Empathy - Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.
· Poor Behavioural Controls/Impulsive Nature -Rage and abuse, alternating a belief that they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no concern for their impact on others.
· Irresponsibility/Unreliability - Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.
· Promiscuous Sexual Behaviour – Promiscuity and sexual acting out of all sorts.
· Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility - Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily when confronted.
· Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them - (and I’m sure I’ll receive a lot of contempt for this piece)
· Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them (Dunning-Kruger)
· Authoritarian – does not tolerate any opinions or points of view that differs from theirs. Total control at all times
· Secretive – the use of false Facebook profiles, anonymous campaigns and secret groups come to mind
· Paranoid – everyone that does not conform to his or her world view must be a member of some secret right wing grouping intent on subjugating the rest of the world into some white supremacist Utopia.
· Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behaviour will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
· Conventional appearance – yes they walk among us, look like us, talk like us
· Goal of enslavement (of their victim(s))
· Exercises despotic control over every aspect of societal life
· Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim – or in this case a willing victim mentality
· Extreme narcissism and grandiose
· May state readily that their goal is to rule the world – anyone familiar with George Soros and his history?
As was seen from the recent debacle and subsequent tragedy surrounding Carina Papenfus / Flippie Engelbrecht / Johnny Burger - exposed on Carte Blanch a few weeks ago - many of the traits shown above was exhibited; you can decide for yourself which traits came to the fore. The same can be said about the vitriol filled responses by various “opinion formers” to civil action groups such as Red October and Afriforum – even though the right of these groups to peaceful protest and freedom of association are enshrined in the South African Constitution. The inclusion of the term “racist” in every other article – although photographic proof to the contrary exists – is typical of the narrow minded myopic view liberals hold of the world. Fortunately, and because of its over use, the etiquette of racist is becoming more and more consequenter
I noted with some amusement the campaign to stop companies from having advertising banners on the “racist” Praag website and after a little digging found it to be the same group that laid formal – and may I say libellous - complaints against Sunette Bridges at the SAHRC for “racism”– which was dismissed out of hand by the SAHRC due to a lack of any meaningful content. Who then targeted the Facebook pages of Sunette Bridges and BKA by complaining to Facebook about overt racism (and in the process got their own little clubhouse shut down by Facebook). The same group that hides behind dozens of fake Facebook profiles and slanders all and sundry that they deem to be “racist”, “homophobic” ad infinitum when compared to their non-existent set of self-righteous morals vomited upon the world from every conceivable soap box they can find. A vile little group of division sowers and race baiters if ever there were one.
It seems that modern or “progressive” liberalism is in fact no longer a political ideology but rather a mental disorder more associated with religious cult leaders and followers. And make no mistake – progressive liberalism is a religion although socio-political in nature. It’s sermons are is driven by quasi-intellectual discussion prompted by observations made with extreme cognitive bias and uses books such as Rules for Radicals, Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack (by Peggy McIntosh) and After Hegemony (by Robert Keohane) as their bibles with Karl Marx as their saviour.
“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.” – Albert Einstein
- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,262
- 246,773
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
Huh? Liberals are all white? Weird.
This isn't liberals, this is millennials lol
LOL!
Can't be a liberal unless you are white! So weird because I could have sworn it was all those conservatives who are white
Huh? Liberals are all white? Weird.
This isn't liberals, this is millennials lol
LOL!
Can't be a liberal unless you are white! So weird because I could have sworn it was all those conservatives who are white
- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,262
- 246,773
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
