The liberal mind
BUMPED: Because in the comments you can see someone actually say, "The dog ate my browser cache." It has to be an internet First.
Dr. Lyle Rossiter, a greatly experienced psychiatrist who trained at Chicago, has written that liberalism is a mental disorder. Wondering why so many of the patients that he has diagnosed presented with views that were utterly resistant to argument, he was led from the traditional view that they were informed by ideology and instead has come to the opinion that liberalism, as understood today in its coercive rather than libertarian sense, is a mental disorder, and, informed by his reasoned thoughts over decades of practice and thousands of cases, has written The Liberal Mind.
WorldNetDaily has done an article on it, and this is a bit of it:
... the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:
creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.
"The roots of liberalism - and its associated madness - can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."
Strong stuff. But illuminating.
Anyone is welcome to an opinion, but for that opinion to be respected he, or she, must be willing to test it against others' opinions. This involves the exchange of ideas: advance an idea and defend it. It by definition requires interaction with others, and requires listening to others.
The modern liberal presents a talking point, and when challenged on the facts, runs shrieking from a defense, only to deliver herself of another platitude. When pressed to defend her statement, she does not even try and perhaps cannot; the cognitive dissonance might be destructive if resolved. Instead she makes every effort to avoid engagement, thinking that she is exchanging ideas if she turns herself into a handbill of sodden liberal pieties.
Handbills cannot argue, only proclaim. People argue. Healthy people argue. People in touch with reality argue. Adult people who acknowledge the existence of others argue. Children demand and proclaim.
If the statement of faith is based on divine revelation, one can, if one wishes, and in general I don't, argue about the nature of that God providing the divine revelation. There is that God's ineffable nature, and the unknowable eternity which may exist after death. The very nature of a supernatural faith, any of them, is that it can be right. I think them all needlessly complicated explanations, but I could be wrong.
But if the faith is a secular one, as is liberalism, then it must face knowable challenges. It must, if it is to be nothing more than an endless supply of talking handbills, actually acknowledge the existence of other people and the fact that other people might have ideas. There is no possible reliance on a supreme being in a secular religion, therefore every tenet is open to secular challenge and there is no possible defense in divine revelation. Assumed moral superiority just won't do.
The modern liberal can, most of the time, be shown to be wrong. But she will simply not engage in the debate. Her idea of engaging in the debate is to offer up yet another liberal talking point and then when challenged, run to the refuge of the sucker punch of the ad-hominem attack, "...wasting energy...," "Why are you so angry?" And note that all of this is an effort, perhaps not deliberate, to avoid engagement. It is patronizing, taken from an assumed viewpoint of moral superiority, which does not believe that argument is necessary, only the statement of faith, which being secular, can be challenged easily. Notice all the energy that she herself has expended to avoid engaging.
The substitution of platitude for discussion is a mental defense against reality. The substitution of unsupported platitude for engagement is the willful disregarding of the existence of other people, the mentality of a two-year-old having a tantrum. "Don't you have better things to do?" is code for "It's all about me."
The modern, religious, coercive, paranoid liberal flashes her sodden pieties, showing them to be the prayer beads that they are, "Hail Michael Moore..." and steadfastly refuses to defend them, instead offering only stale slogans, the mantra of modern liberalism which substitutes for thought.
For it must. A secular religion can be disproved. And therefore for a liberal to work, and work hard, to avoid the bother of defending a single idea, leads me to think that there is no point in talking with her, to be met only with slogans, for her reason is hostage to a mental problem, as neatly analyzed by Dr. Lyle Rossiter.
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The liberal mind.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.jessicaswell.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1742