Liberals are almost uniformly defined by their hypocrisy and dissociation from reality. For example, the wealthiest U.S. senators -- among them Kerry, Kennedy, Corzine, Kohl, Rockefeller, Feinstein, and Rhode Island RINO Lincoln Chaffee -- fancy themselves as defenders of the poor, but they have no idea of what it's like to live without a bloated trust fund. Liberals speak of unity, but they appeal to the worst in human nature by dividing Americans into dependent constituencies. Just who are these liberal constituencies? They support freedom of thought, unless your thoughts don't comport with theirs. They feign tolerance while practicing intolerance. They resist open discussion and debate of their views, yet seek to silence dissenters. They insist that they care more about protecting habitat than those who hunt and fish. They protest for nature conservation while advocating homosexuality. They denounce capital punishment for the most heinous of criminals, while ardently supporting the killing of the most innocent among us -- children prior to birth. They hate private-gun ownership, but they wink and nod when it comes to WMD in the hands of tyrants. They advocate for big government but want to restrain free enterprise. Liberals constantly assert their First Amendment rights, except, of course, when it comes to religion. Here, they firmly adhere to the doctrines of secular atheism. They believe that second-hand smoke is more dangerous than marijuana smoke. They believe that one nut accused of bombing an Alabama abortion clinic deserves far more law-enforcement attention than Jihadi cells planning the 9/11 attacks. They call 9/11 victims "Hitlerian" while calling their murderers "oppressed." They hate SUVs, unless imported and driven by soccer moms. They believe trial lawyers save lives and doctors kill people. They believe the solution to racism is to treat people differently on the basis of their skin color. They deride moral clarity because they can't survive its scrutiny. They promote peace but foment division and hate -- ad infinitum. Why do liberals believe what they believe -- and act the way they act? Liberal pathology is very transparent and, thus, well defined. Liberals tend to be mentally rigid and closed-minded because they are insecure, the result of low self-esteem associated, predominantly, with fatherless households or critically dysfunctional families. They exhibit fear, anger, and aggression -- the behavioral consequences of arrested emotional development associated with childhood trauma (primarily rejection by a significant family member of origin as noted above). Liberals display pessimism, disgust, and contempt for much the same reason. They focus on loss prevention because they have suffered significant loss. They fear death because they have little or no meaningful connection with their Heavenly Father -- often the result of the disconnect with their earthly fathers. They often come from socially and/or economically deprived homes. Liberals reject individual responsibility and social stability because these were not modeled for them as children. Sound familiar -- apparently the profs at Cal-Berkeley and Maryland attributed their own pathological traits to their opposition. It's called projection -- and hypocrisy. Sure, there are many conservatives who were raised by a single parent or in critically dysfunctional homes. However, somewhere along the way, they were lifted out of their misery by the grace of God -- often in the form of a significant mentor who modeled hope and responsibility for them. As a result, they have the courage to internalize their locus of responsibility, unlike liberals, who externalize responsibility for problems and solutions, holding others and society to blame for their ills, and making the state the arbiter of proper conduct -- even proper thought. On a final note, it's no coincidence that conservative political bases tend to be suburban or rural, while liberal political bases tend to be urban (see http://FederalistPatriot.US/map.asp). The social, cultural and economic blight in many urban settings are the catalysts for producing generations of liberals. Many urbanites no longer have a connection with "the land" (self-sufficiency) and, thus, tend to be largely dependent on the state for all manner of their welfare, protection and sustenance -- "It Takes a Village" after all.
You could run that post through a find and replace, swapping conservative for liberal and privileged for disadvantaged, and get a completely true piece as well.
Damn, even a leftie would have to admit that this was pretty good. If only you had left God out of it... Just a couple of points "They protest for nature conservation while advocating homosexuality". I didn't quite get this one. "They believe that second-hand smoke is more dangerous than marijuana smoke". I think the issue is that persons exposed to second hand smoke in work environments like diners are constantly inhaling it, whereas marijuana smokers are not. In any case, you would be hard pressed to show that inhalation of equivalent amounts of second hand smoke from a cigarette manufactured by Big Tobacco which contains xxxx chemicals to increase nicotine transmission across the alveolar barrier and God knows what else and marijuana smoke would cause equivalent damage. There is so much in your post that rings true. The problem that left leaning fiscal conservatives like me have is that these references to God, homosexuality, the effort to deny a woman the right to choose her own destiny and the right to kill others with cigarette smoke give these commentaries away, in a sense. This piece isn't libertarian, that's for sure.
Nice job. Work on those reading comprehension skills though.... Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz: Frankly, if you had to employ reasoning skills to make a living, you would starve.... "Asserting that tradernik has no reasoning skills and would die if he had to utilize them, is not based on statements he has made. He has not stated his profession and as such you cannot make any claim as to whether or not he employs reasoning to make a living." Perhaps you don't understand the word if....and the context it was used in... It is my guess that his employment does indeed not depend on reasoning skills or ability.....
A study funded by the U.S. government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity." The report's four authors linked Hitler, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan and the rightwing talk show host, Rush Limbaugh, arguing they all suffered from the same affliction. All of them "preached a return to an idealised past and condoned inequality." The study, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," received $1.2 million in public funds for their research from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. The authors also examined the psyche of President George Bush, who turns out to be a textbook case of this social disease. The telltale signs are his preference for moral certainty and his total lack of appreciation for nuance. "This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes," the authors argued in their report, printed in the Psychological Bulletin. Jack Glaser, one of the psychologists who conducted the study, said the aversion to shades of gray and the need for "closure" could explain why the Bush administration ignored intelligence that contradicted its beliefs about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. "The study was conducted by four researchers, who, according to a press release from the University of California at Berkeley's (UCB) media relations office, 'culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism.' (Two of the researchers are professors at UCB, which apparently remains imprisoned in '60s dysfunctionality.) The researchers conclude that conservatives suffer from a disease or malady that makes them think the way they do. . .
Welcome to the world wide web page of Tod H. Mikuriya, M.D. ________________________________________ Authoritarianism: Social Disease Tod H. Mikuriya DRAFT Authoritarianism, a contemporary term for despotism, favors authority over individual freedom and specifically relates to governance in which the individual's rights are subordinated to the interests of the group, state, or institution. Philosophically, authoritarianism is based upon the premise that the individual lacks the capability for decision with regard to activities and knowledge deemed so by the group. Authoritarianism is defined as both institutional and introjected individual values. Authoritarianism presumes a moral imperative of the institution to do whatever is necessary to achieve its agenda. The use of coercion to enforce prohibitive social sanctions to protect the individual from him/herself is seen as unpleasant but necessary and corrective. Secrecy and disinformation are justified on the grounds of mistrust of the individual's use of information and rationalized frequently as protecting the group. "National Security!" "Public Good!" "School's Reputation!" "Family Name!" Power and control may be familial, regal, dictatorial, or majoritarian but in any way the individual's rights are subordinate to the group. The need for eminent power of the group is likewise rationalized by a low opinion of the individual which justifies a parental role for institutions. Alexis de Toqueville warned of "an immense and tutelary power which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild." (referring to a populace preoccupied in their petty and paltry pleasures)(Democracy in America (1840) Ch VI What Sort of Despotism Democratic Nations Have to Fear. Applying the criterion of John Stuart Mill and his view of the relationship of the individual and the state, authoritarianism IS slavery. "Whatever crushes individuality is despotism by whatever name it might be called." (On Liberty (1859) Ch 3) H.L. Mencken characterized: "The ideal government of all reflective men, from Aristotle onward is one which lets the individual alone- one which barely escapes being no governmental all." (Matters of State, Prejudices: Third Series 1922, pp 289-92.) The U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights is a most remarkable collective expression of anti-authoritarian ideas empowering the citizen to date. It explicitly spells out individual rights: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."(Amendment IX) Pervasive efforts continue to attempt to eradicate or nullify these perceived "subversive" ideas wherever possible. The usual ploy is to deny constitutional applicability. A more blatant dissimulation by radical right wing activists is the perverted interpretation that anything not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is not allowed. The notions of free speech, due process, and privacy are collectively (but perhaps incorrectly) believed to be contained the Bill of Rights. The "conservatives" continue hard at work to press the fight against these "subversive" ideas. Columnist Jon Carol, refers to a "Post constitutional America" brought to America by the Reagan and Bush regimes. (S.F.Chronicle 3/27/91) The advance of technology empowers institutions to scrutinize the citizen in ways heretofore inconceivable. Computers make possible the sifting through our spoor of information and permit deep, comprehensive and intimate knowledge of the citizen's personal life. Systematic surveillance including garbage, telephone records, credit cards, tax returns, health records, metal detectors, urine, sweat, saliva tests for drugs, hair and now a drug residue detection spray make privacy an increasingly scarce commodity. In Gulliver's Travels, Jonathan Swift's 1726 satiric fantasy of the Grand Academy at Lagado described the genesis of behavioral psycho biochemical surveillance: "He advised great statesmen to examine into the diet of all suspected persons; their times of eating; upon which side they lay in bed; with which hand they wiped their posteriors; to take strict view of their excrements, and from the colour, The odour, the taste, the consistence, the crudeness or maturity of digestion, form a judgment of their thoughts and designs. Because men are never so serious, thoughtful, and intent, as when they are at stool, which he found by frequent experiment; for in such conjectures, when he used merely as a trial to consider which was the best way of murdering the King, his ordure would have a tincture of green, but quite different when he thought only of raising an insurrection or burning the metropolis" Full article here: http://www.mikuriya.com/sp_authority.html
No, I do understand the word. Perhaps you need to work on those reading comprehension skills yourself: Yes you do a lot of guessing. And, I would guess, second-guessing as well.
Authoritarianism, totalitarianism, despotism, etc. have been most prominent in socialist states. Read Gulag Archipelago. You should also read Free to Choose and Capitalism and Freedom. Freedom and authoritarianism are oil and water in a free market economy. You and the phony scholars that you site seem to be lumping together social conservatism and fiscal conservatism. I would argue that even the evangelical brand of social conservatism is less authoritarian than political correctness or quota based diversity initiatives that are pervasive in society. Ever hear of social engineering?