Alzheimer's is Funny >>

Saying that the other side is crazy has long been a weapon of choice in political debate, and we normally use it to marginalize people as extremists or cudgel them with the disgrace of deep psychological underpinnings. In some cases it is justified, like with insecure and hyper-medicated stooges like Keith Olbermann, or calling Nancy Pelosi insane…which she clearly is loco. But while our insult to them is that they need a padded room, theirs is to us that we can’t find our way out of a room. Today’s pop psychology suggests that we are stupid, and for this they seek to find neurological reasons for our wide galaxy of pretty ideals… all symptoms of a broken brain.

The reasoning of party-as-pathology began with Ronald Reagan, who was perhaps the most transformative politician in the latter half of the 20th century…an American giant that stood unflinching in the shadows of the Soviet Empire and unleashed the creative genius of America, dredging us out of the Carter years. Yet how he is depicted is the exact opposite, like a happy dunderhead. Many have even lampooned his Alzheimer’s disease, a deadly neurological disorder that destroys the brain, thereby suggesting that a bulk of his policies were rudderless dementia. All this from a party that reveres FDR’s struggle against polio.

In more recent times, President Bush was dismissed by flippant talk show hosts as a sub-moron for his slow and plain Texas parlance, and while he is not winning a Pulitzer Prize anytime soon, people don’t get to such soaring heights for being stupid. But that aside, libs seem to breeze past the obvious gaffes and endless stammering of the anointed one when his teleprompter malfunctions, and ignore the fact that he is the most scripted and choreographed president in the history of our civilization. He’s a real smart guy.

Hollywood and the creative sphere tend to dump on us with Denny Crane and Stephen Colbert, liberal caricatures of conservatives. Boston Legal’s gun nut Denny Crane with Alzhemier’s disease (Charlton Heston reborn?), fights with his onscreen counterpart Allan Shore on political and social issues, giving simplistic and blockheaded answers that conservatives don’t really say in their most frilly thought chambers. These reasonings are base, and liberal Shore can easily parry them because they are not often our actual stances or beliefs. To an unwitting independent, the myth of republicans being dummies metastasizes. Even when stupidity and delusion are not in question, we are just the type of people that weigh books before we read them.

Boston Legal Mccain Vs Obama - video powered by Metacafe

In the 20th century, John Dewey, American thinker and pragmatist, saw schools as not merely an education depot to prepare students for life, but as engines of inculcation for progressive agendas and collectivist effort. Our entire education system, hijacked by liberal historical perspective, the teacher’s union, and lawmakers, have all knowingly worked to banish and ridicule conservative belief structures as outmoded, unscientific, and incompatible with the future. You can see this in California’s attempt to ban homeschooling, as liberals hate to consider that there are private schoolers and home schoolers earning higher marks outside their matrix grid. It can’t be about test scores on this point, only about control. You can observe this in any college or high school textbook that blames American injustice on conservatism, but lays liberal atrocities at the feet of America in general (like in the case of Wilson and FDR). The end result is that all liberalism has an exclusive trademark on academics in the minds of America, justified or not. Hence all others outside the echo feed must therefore be—un-scholastic or un-academic.

Decades ago, a 1950s UC Berkeley study was conducted to ascertain why people would resist liberal policies, and the best answer that they could come up with was “Authoritarian Personality Disorder.” Yes.  You read correctly. Despite the plethora of criticisms from others in the ivory tower (which I will not go into), you can see the outrageous arrogance and disconnect, suggesting that half of us are little Mussolinis walking around main street. The F-scale in the test enumerated several criteria to identify a conservative fascist, including:

1.    Conventionalism: Things are just that way ‘round these here parts.
2.    Authoritarian submission: Listen to the President!
3.    Authoritarian aggression: Beat that queer!
4.    Anti-intraception: Arts and crafts are for fairies!
5.    Superstition and stereotypy: Dear Lord…
6.    Power and "toughness": Check out my new .45!
7.    Destructiveness and cynicism: I don’t trust the Federal Reserve or other institutions.
8.    Projectivity: A Mexican stole my job!
9.    Exaggerated concerns about sex: You’re not wearing that!

These criteria can be turned onto the Left’s own worldviews. This should come as much of a shock to Democrats as it did to Flannery O’Connor’s Hulga when her wooden leg was stolen by a bible salesman.

1.    Conventionalism: Unions, Medicare, and Social Security.
2.    Authoritarian submission: Micromanage me.
3.    Authoritarian aggression: Lock up that jap and establish the American Protective League!
4.    Anti-intraception: the “Piss Christ,” called art. Nuff said. But is policy the place for intraception?
5.    Superstition and stereotypy: Obamamania.
6.    Power and "toughness": ACORN, Union bosses, and acting “black enough.”
7.    Destructiveness and cynicism: Down with capitalism! Down with the church!
8.    Projectivity: Bush stole my car, banged my girlfriend, burned my house down, and got me fired!
9.    Exaggerated concerns about sex: Sleep with me for emotional validation!

Later studies compared Reagan, Hitler, and Mussolini, all staunch conservatives looking back to the glory of former times and resisting change, as you can see in the following article:

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml

Historically speaking, this is inaccurate since Mussolini and Hitler were both socialist revolutionaries. In fact, Hitler was a futurist obsessed with technocratic rule, bent on shifting Germany to vegetarianism, banning cigarettes and alcohol, nationalizing retail, banishing private investment and lending (see the Jews), experimenting with abortion, eugenics, and euthanasia while hoping to syndicalize labor, expell the Vatican and replace it all with Nietzsche. His early promotion of the Nazi Party was even aimed at attracting Bolshevik sympathizers! Yep, that right winger. Mussolini was not an anti-Semite or squeaky perfectionist like his gothic counterpart, but roughly the same. All three men admittedly held an organic and direct connection with their people, but Reagan’s only came after his departure, as an ideal. As a man, he was vilified as a fascist by authors like Alan Moore of Watchmen, and took it humbly as most conservatives do with the culture…not quite the authoritarian personality’s typical response to dissent. For this, the Gipper used humor like a happy warrior, while the other two fellas in the study used bayonets…sorta like Woodrow Wilson…Hugo Chavez…or FDR. Hmmm…

Now since that glowering vinegar jug Janeane Garafalo is doing it, and UC Berkeley is doing it, I’m gonna do it. I shall psychoanalyze the leftist movement. Assuming we reach into the cranium of an ideology and its followers, it must be a sign of such social ennui and malaise that we need to stretch entire demographics on couches and shrink heads across time and distance, and it smacks of the sporting habits of an ailing empire in its twilight…sort of like GLAAD reaching into centuries past to “out” famous dramaturges. If this is the last joy and pastime in an era of repeats, then so be it. Why does anyone do anything?

Aside from more obvious messianic complex with Obama and his masses wanting free mortgages and gas (and then the group think that ensues) and aside from paranoia towards Capitalism and the Global Warming mythos, the upper crust of the Left employs latency and the unconscious, especially during debates and campaigns. This is often employed in desperation, when democrats have no proof of a claim. Before November 5th and the late-game debunk of McCain rallies being hate fests, Democrat Governor David Patterson accused the GOP of racism, and alleged that “community organizer” was a coded word for “black.” Republicans are racist when they make racial slurs, and they are when there is no proof. Win-win. I wonder if there is a large, compound German word to characterize this odd obsession with the latent, the unconscious, and ulterior meaning when observation fails to support allegations against opposition. Or better yet, they call Bush a moron with father issues, then an evil genius, then separate the facet of genius to Cheney to resolve the logical paradox, and paint the Bush Administration like the House of Usher. Paging Dr. Freud!

Most liberals are essentially childish, immature, and underdeveloped. Note that I did not say stupid. Plenty of them have high IQs and plush digs, but the flaw is not lack of comprehension…it’s a lack of acknowledgement. Realities exist in this world that crush pretty dreams and tell children to put away childish things, and pick up the swords and plowshares. Some people don’t have it beaten out of them…probably from being shielded for years in either white feminist privilege or through believing half the world is a ramshackle housing project, and the only way out is to get rich or die tryin’… as 50 Cent put it. For white college students, it’s self-deprecation on an obsequious quest for approval, in order to identify with groups other than their parents. And for those who do not have, it’s probably the deep, visceral pangs of envy with inferiority complex.

Contrary to most stereotypes about a world without possessions, liberals are actually the most materialistic people in the world. Not only do they have higher median household income in national averages, but it goes beyond this. This criticism does not scandalize owning plasma screens or SUVs, but rather seeing material provision and dispersal as the deepest inoculation against existential angst, want, and the human condition. It is envy coupled with a constant state of provision by necessity. Liberal have nots want stuff (preferably other people’s stuff, which is the best kind) and liberal haves hate themselves for having, or at least make people think they do as in the case of Jeffrey Immelt and Warren Buffett. For those that do have, life is an endless menagerie of ribbon cutting and being seen at charity auctions, thus fulfilling self-validation, and feeling less guilty for what they think they don’t totally deserve. If they lack it, they need it. If they have it, they hate themselves. They fail to see that there is no shame in prosperity, and that both corruption of the soul and material possessions do not always hold a direct correlation, and that personal issues exist before winning the lottery. This is why they are keen to overload themselves on fish and loaves and dismiss the Sermon as one among many, while they read Herman Hess and the DaVinci Code. Material humanism is all they know. Yet the ultimate goal of material for a liberal is not its utility, but rather how it plays in their overarching sense of fairness. To a Democrat, everyone doing poorly is better than one man faring highly and the next faring average. Exceptionalism, determinism, excellence, and genius—all diverse ranges in a state of being—uncomfortably remind the leftist mind of its uncharted possibilities. Hence, economic systems devised by such people tend to be ones that apportion periodic rations of fairness into their domicile, which only incidentally is food, healthcare, transfer payments, and union protection. Whatever the largesse, they must be delivered to the individual, confer a sense that nobody else is doing better though the power of volition, and the machines of delivery must rotate around their psychologies, disturbing them as least as possible.

In the realm of morality, Liberals are a bit more complex. Evan Sayet characterizes their mentality in the most penetrating lecture of the liberal mindset I have heard to date, which is to think of the John Lennon song “Imagine.” No possessions (from the perspective of a rich, self-loathing white male), no religion (no meaning), nothing to kill or die for (nothing sacred), no heaven or hell (zero accountability and living in the moment, dismissive of past experience and future angst), all essentially returning to the womb of juvenile bliss, before Good and Evil. Millennia of war and sadness were simply people not knowing how to solve problems correctly…as they do now!  Liberals reason that there is no human condition, and rather that all war, hardship, suffering, and pain is caused by people thinking they are right…and holding belief. Aside from the obvious reply that this model scraps the likely possibility that some beliefs are indeed both absolute and right, this philosophy then makes it necessary to deconstruct Good, uplift Evil, and deflate meaning and consequence to such a degree that both poles meet in the middle. When this is achieved, moral ambiguity is attained and liberals are justified in living for the day, feeling good, and disregarding the past. Winston Churchill made a renowned quote about “something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space…which whether we like it or not…spells duty.” For Liberals, the answer is “not.” Semantic deconstructionism, moral relativism, and so many postmodern instruments of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are nothing more than a leftist attempt to bargain with conscience and shirk the grave moral burdens of being human. Let’s look at some of their platforms, the direct inverse of our worldviews:

•    Liberals deride chastity, abstinence, heterosexual marriage, and infant lives…and they side with sodomy, promiscuity, abortion, and latex. Wrong over Right.
•    Liberals scorn entrepreneurs, hard work, wealth, interest, and success…and they assume that the lazy, dependent, and unwilling are by necessity the victims of the former. Wrong over Right.
•    Liberals see America and Israel as backward, racist, homophobic, cruel, wanton, and wasteful…and view terrorists as freedom fighters, justified, and morally equivalent. Wrong over Right.
•    Liberals blame society, victims, the church, mores, and claim that the criminal is the true victim. Wrong over Right.
•    Debate any liberal online, and they will invariably, when backed into a corner, ridicule and slander Good… with jeering contempt. Their defense to this is that their standard is lower, thus it immunizes them from hypocrisy. Thinking that morality is hard to achieve, they deduce that anyone who stands for anything will always be a hypocrite in the end. So in short, they just don’t try.

It all just mashes into the soupy middle, where in every realm of thought, liberal psychology manifests itself into policy by saying that Good is Evil, and Evil is the victim of Good…a rather Luciferian outlook, if I may theologize. After all, that belief is based on self-servitude, beauty, a quest to escape give-and-take, and followers of Satan tend to not be direct worshippers, but rather self-absorbed individuals seeking to maximize pleasure and avoid hassle. There is a certain luxury in shrugging at troubles and believing in nothing concrete. Consequently, anyone who calls a bluff, notes the superiority of one idea over another, is an idea bigot and disturbs the balance and status quo, introducing dualism and the dutiful charges that oblige people to take stands, fight, die, and struggle. Good is not the liberal’s end, rather convenient tranquility is. This is why America replaced “tact and generosity” with “political correctness,” a latex glove for handling Democrat insecurity. Correctness and Right just leaves too many ripples when clashing with Evil.

Oh...and everything I just phsychoanalyzed about liberals... it's all latent, subconscious, and ulterior. You just have to squint really hard.

When comparing leftists with conservatives, how they protest, how they manage when they seize power, we ourselves are reserved in the face of the new-establishment, anti-constitution, anti-God Democrat underground. Our desire to scale back the federal establishment is to maximize efficiency, enhance liberty, public decency, and the moral good of an America in which we view the state as a component, not the totality. And our recognition of God is an admission of the brokenness of mankind and the agelessness of the human condition. All of these are Apollonian virtues of temperance and discipline. Yet despite all I have said, I am certain that seminal works from academia will continue in perpetuating the notion that conservatives are skinflint pragmatists that can’t think around corners. Clashing with this, liberals diminish the individual, and posit that all evil is the fault of society, which is in turn the fault of conditions, which is the fault of society, and so on. They aver that words have no meaning in a postmodern world, and that all preconceived notions have been far too deconstructed to be of any worth, or one thing better than another. With that in mind, we already have a government that mimics more of the fringe left than the center, and even that is not good enough to keep them from throwing molitovs and insults, even when they are so close to their dream of socialism...with their only complaint being that it isn’t happening fast enough. But it is this rock-throwing impatience towards arriving at self-immolation, which fastens the liberals into the child car seat as they skid down the road to hell, while braying “Are we there yet? Are we there yet?” at every mile marker.
 
And for all that, we are the angry father behind the wheel. The authoritarian personality.

“Alright, you nagging little brat. I’ve indulged you for long enough. I’m stopping the car and taking my belt off… and after that, we’re turning around.” >>