See? Liberalism IS a mental disorder.... (1 Viewer)

brophy

Very Banned
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Messages
5,712
Reaction score
2,200
Location
Wild Orchid Cabaret
Offline
Liberal%20Mind%20Web%20%281%29.jpg


http://www.libertymind.com/index.php?page_id=1

On the Madness of Modern Liberalism:
The egalitarianism and welfarism of modern liberal government are incompatible with the facts of human nature and the human condition. But the rise to power of the liberal agenda has resulted from the fact that the people of western societies have irrationally demanded that governments take care of them and manage their lives instead of protecting their property rights. This misconception results in massive violations of those rights while permitting government officials to act out their own and their constituents’ psychopathology. The liberal agenda gratifies various types of pathological dependency; augments primitive feelings of envy and inferiority; reinforces paranoid perceptions of victimization; implements manic delusions of grandeur; exploits government authority for power, domination and revenge; and satisfies infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation.

Like all other human beings, the modern liberal reveals his true character, including his madness, in what he values and devalues, in what he articulates with passion. Of special interest, however, are the many values about which the modern liberal mind is not passionate: his agenda does not insist that the individual is the ultimate economic, social and political unit; it does not idealize individual liberty and the structure of law and order essential to it; it does not defend the basic rights of property and contract; it does not aspire to ideals of authentic autonomy and mutuality; it does not preach an ethic of self-reliance and self-determination; it does not praise courage, forbearance or resilience; it does not celebrate the ethics of consent or the blessings of voluntary cooperation. It does not advocate moral rectitude or understand the critical role of morality in human relating. The liberal agenda does not comprehend an identity of competence, appreciate its importance, or analyze the developmental conditions and social institutions that promote its achievement. The liberal agenda does not understand or recognize personal sovereignty or impose strict limits on coercion by the state. It does not celebrate the genuine altruism of private charity. It does not learn history’s lessons on the evils of collectivism.

What the liberal mind is passionate about is a world filled with pity, sorrow, neediness, misfortune, poverty, suspicion, mistrust, anger, exploitation, discrimination, victimization, alienation and injustice. Those who occupy this world are “workers,” “minorities,” “the little guy,” “women,” and the “unemployed.” They are poor, weak, sick, wronged, cheated, oppressed, disenfranchised, exploited and victimized. They bear no responsibility for their problems. None of their agonies are attributable to faults or failings of their own: not to poor choices, bad habits, faulty judgment, wishful thinking, lack of ambition, low frustration tolerance, mental illness or defects in character. None of the victims’ plight is caused by failure to plan for the future or learn from experience. Instead, the “root causes” of all this pain lie in faulty social conditions: poverty, disease, war, ignorance, unemployment, racial prejudice, ethnic and gender discrimination, modern technology, capitalism, globalization and imperialism. In the radical liberal mind, this suffering is inflicted on the innocent by various predators and persecutors: “Big Business,” “Big Corporations,” “greedy capitalists,” U.S. Imperialists,” “the oppressors,” “the rich,” “the wealthy,” “the powerful” and “the selfish.”

The liberal motto is “In Government We Trust.” To rescue the people from their troubled lives, the agenda recommends denial of personal responsibility, encourages self-pity and other-pity, fosters government dependency, promotes sexual indulgence, rationalizes violence, excuses financial obligation, justifies theft, ignores rudeness, prescribes complaining and blaming, denigrates marriage and the family, legalizes all abortion, defies religious and social tradition, declares inequality unjust, and rebels against the duties of citizenship. Through multiple entitlements to unearned goods, services and social status, the liberal politician promises to ensure everyone’s material welfare, provide for everyone’s healthcare, protect everyone’s self-esteem, correct everyone’s social and political disadvantage, educate every citizen, and eliminate all class distinctions.

Dr. Rossiter is board certified in both general and forensic psychiatry. For more than forty years he has diagnosed and treated mental disorders, with a special interest in personality pathology and its developmental origins.

Cough.....cough.....ahem! Discuss
 
Brophy, liberals will rejoice in this because it will allow them to get government assistance for their political beliefs by labeling it a mental disorder. :hihi:
 
I'm not a doctor, so who am I to disagree.
 
I think you'd first have to come up with actual definitions of conservative and liberal, though.

I keep hearing these titles used, but I don't think it means what you think it means....
inigo_montoya.jpg
 
Crap like that is one of the major reasons for the death of civil discourse in this country.

Thinking about this recently, Im not so sure civil discourse ever really did exist in this country. I mean unless you think settling arbitrary arguments with pistol duels is civil and noble. That campaign rhetoric such as telling potential voters that Thomas Jefferson was an infidel and if elected would subdue all wives and daughters to a lifetime of prostitution and debauchery is classy. Or how about Ben Franklins grandson writing about Washington:

"If ever a nation was debauched by a man, the American nation has been debauched by Washington."
 
hahhaha hah... lighten up, Francis.

It's true though. Some people from the left marginalize conservatives and their ideas by attempting to link them to Hitler, racists or other such nonsense. Then righties try to slam any kind of liberal idea as a mental disorder or a way to get the government to control every facet of someone's life.

It's just silly. Debate ideas and policies from a logical POV. I recently watched a great debate on YouTube between Noam Chomsky and William F. Buckley. What's striking about the debate, filmed during the 60's, is how civil, and respectful, these men were even though they're completely different ideologically. They didn't sit there and call each other names for an hour, which is what happens nowadays.
 
What he's really trying to say is he suffers from paranoid delusions that people are after him. Nut job. Jesus. Anyone can list descriptors and attribute them to a group. Nutter. Dude's lost his mind. Whacked out on anti-psychotics. Needs a rubber room. How about a jacket with sleeves that reach all the way around your back and then the front again?

I got your mental disorder, right here.
 

Attachments

  • michelle_malkin2.gif
    michelle_malkin2.gif
    38.8 KB · Views: 171
Thinking about this recently, Im not so sure civil discourse ever really did exist in this country. I mean unless you think settling arbitrary arguments with pistol duels is civil and noble. That campaign rhetoric such as telling potential voters that Thomas Jefferson was an infidel and if elected would subdue all wives and daughters to a lifetime of prostitution and debauchery is classy. Or how about Ben Franklins grandson writing about Washington:

"If ever a nation was debauched by a man, the American nation has been debauched by Washington."

I realize there's always been that element out there. The stuff written about Lincoln while he was in office for example was really sensational. However, to say everything in the past mirrored the Hamilton v Burr "debate" is a bit of much and that element shouldn't be the norm. Lincoln v Douglas is an example of how the world does turn on a good civil debate. If Lincoln had just sat there and called Douglas a big, dumb, poopie head, we may live in a different world.

Yes, the crazies will always have their stuff published, but that doesn't mean that way of communicating should become the dominant method.
 
Before this turns ugly, please keep it civil and post with thought, not with silly one liners and quips attacking one side or the other...
 
"Sshhh! I wrote the foreword in this book"
glenbeck3-758166.jpg
what?

I am most concerned about the Goebbelesque way of framing unsavory elements and affixing them to unrelated actors as a scapegoat.

Blaming everything on "the left", or "illegals", or "arabs", or any other non-hegemonic subset. This is an easy trigger that preys upon a natural instinct to fear the unknown when you are induced into a state of anxiety. The "news" and/or media is saturated with a RWA message nuturing this anxious cess pool

I especially enjoyed the last book excerpt. "In government we trust".....because it was "liberals" giving a blank-check, zero-accountability to the last administration. Yeah, right. Which ideology is telling us to NOT hold the government accountable?
 
Last edited:

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom