#5 Bouncing Around Inside a Liberal’s Head
A Reference Library
Capsule: #5 Bouncing Around Inside a Liberal’s Head is about how people react to phobias – and discussing phobias. A person with arachnophobia has an irrational fear of spiders. You could have an intellectual conversation with this person about how irrational arachnophobia is, and they would probably agree with you entirely. Nevertheless, if you were to then place a spider on the table in front of them, which do you think would win in their mind – their rational, intellectual agreement with you, or their irrational fear?
A Person’s Belief System Is Based On What a Person has Lived
Focus: If you were born and grew up in Paktika province of southern Afghanistan, do you think you would have grown up to become a liberal?
Details: #5 Bouncing Around Inside a Liberal’s Head reveals that one of the most prominent characteristics that differentiate mankind from all other animals is our ability to live in a constant state of contradiction. Animal belief systems are essentially one-dimensional – they react to what they believe at the time. In other words, they do not have core principled, ideological beliefs that can be contradicted by immediate beliefs. Liberals do this all of the time.
Excerpt: ~We all play the game of life mostly on terms not determined by us, but instead dealt to us by circumstances. Few get to the point where they are able to consciously choose their world view outside of their circumstantial conditioning. This unique opportunity is what I am offering you, American neighbor. As someone who has already gone through the process, I am willing to guide you through it as well.
Every person lives their life through a combination of subliminal and conscious beliefs. Conscious beliefs are based on conscious decisions we make in response to circumstances in our lives. As a youth we consciously reject our childhood faith in the existence of Santa Claus. Later we may consciously change our world view or religion. Or we decide precisely which colors of clothes suit us best. But, by far, the more complex are subliminal beliefs. They are almost instinctual in operation, but are not innate, as are instincts. Instead they are acquired, beginning with our earliest childhood experiences. We do not choose our subliminal beliefs, rather it is more like they choose us through the fate of circumstances in each person’s life. They are accrued through childhood experiences, interaction with our parents, family and friends, through our schooling, and through television, the internet, the media, entertainment, etc. Generally, we grow into our subliminal beliefs as they grow into us. They are like an alien slowly taking over our lives from the inside out.~
Preface: The Nuclear Counterarguments Essay Series is written for both contemporary American liberals and contemporary American conservatives – for the liberal (or progressive) as an exit counseling process with the purpose of removing the inherent paranoia that prevents them from seeing that in their core belief they are, in fact not a liberal, and for the conservative as a strategy for dealing with liberal acquaintances. (FYI, I am a Canadian – the implications of this are explained in the Introduction and #1 Deprogramming Liberalism with Nuclear Counterarguments.)
[All citations are active number/letter codes. Code links beginning with an * indicate that the linked page has additional information for the topic at hand. Links without an * are cited for evidence of existence and reference only, as in a quotation or number or case in point. Citations validate my points so that you can trust my claims, and will often provide you with invaluable supplemental information.]
Written in first-person narrative to liberals,
but also for conservatives.
• Mini critical thinking exercise
~ “An unexamined life is not worth living.”~ – Socrates
For the liberal an unexamined life means living a life that is not their own. It is imaginary and false with a twisted view of reality instilled by societal conditioning. This essay is particularly important for understanding your awakening, American neighbor. Read it carefully and digest it fully. It explains how the liberal mind works to subvert your view of the world. The last three liberal principles are introduced and illustrated, with all eighteen liberal principles listed near the end of the essay. Answer this first, American neighbor: Is it normal for person to think he believes one thing, but constantly act as though he believes another without ever realizing it?ab
• Conditioned beliefs versus reality
You may remember, American neighbor, that in the essay #1 I said this:
“I want you to know that it is OK for you to admit that you have been implanted with a lifetime’s worth of societal conditioning (we all have to some extent). You weren’t given a choice. Neither was I. Neither has anyone. The unfortunate result has been that, through little fault of your own, you have been unwittingly instilled with a contemporary liberal mindset.”
Please allow me to expand on this. You think you are a liberal, American neighbor, because you lack the confidence to think otherwise. You have been conditioned to accept that in order for your world to be symbiotic with what you have been programmed to believe reality should be, you must be willing to bend and manipulate your thoughts and your life around this erroneous presumption, no matter how absurd the day-to-day outcome. More than anything else the Nuclear Counterarguments Essay Series is about one thing – removing your deep-seated fear. Liberals are terrified of reality. They are afraid that their carefully manufactured world view doesn’t actually work in the real world, so they live in a fantasy world where unsettling conflicts are not allowed to exist, and are willing to go to great lengths of absurdity to avoid them. Liberals will lie to others, they will lie to themselves, they are willing to corrupt themselves and others, some will break the law, they will make themselves look the part of the fool, they will destroy themselves, those around them, and damage the country itself. Liberals are willing to go to almost any length to avoid what they fear most – a realization of reality.
300-word pages of text = 48
Reference citation links = 14
Recommended-reading links = 13
Profound insights = 24
Cover photo: Cover photo: U.S. Department of Energy photograph XX-33 ROMEO
Cover background: SQUIDFINGERS [4rol8]
Copyright 2012 Jim Autio License Note: Although free, this essay remains the copyrighted property of the author, and may not be reproduced, copied or distributed for commercial or non-commercial purposes. For fair use only.
• We are what we live
A person’s belief system is based on what a person has lived. Obviously, if you had been born of a family in rural Laos your belief system would be much different than if you had been born into the upper crust of Boston high society. In each case your belief system would have been molded by your life experience. No matter what your background, why would you think it is any different for you, American neighbor? We all play the game of life mostly on terms not determined by us, but instead dealt to us by circumstances. Few get to the point where they are able to consciously choose their world view outside of their circumstantial conditioning. This unique opportunity is what I am offering you, American neighbor. As someone who has already gone through the process, I am willing to guide you through it as well.
Every person lives their life through a combination of subliminal and conscious beliefs. Conscious beliefs are based on conscious decisions we make in response to circumstances in our lives. As a youth we consciously reject our childhood faith in the existence of Santa Claus. Later we may consciously change our world view or religion. Or we decide precisely which colors of clothes suit us best. But, by far, the more complex are subliminal beliefs. They are almost instinctual in operation, but are not innate, as are instincts. Instead they are acquired, beginning with our earliest childhood experiences. We do not choose our subliminal beliefs, rather it is more like they choose us through the fate of circumstances in each person’s life. They are accrued through childhood experiences, interaction with our parents, family and friends, through our schooling, and through television, the internet, the media, entertainment, etc. Generally, we grow into our subliminal beliefs as they grow into us. They are like an alien slowly taking over our lives from the inside out.ad
• Subliminal beliefs may run our life
Our subliminal belief system is a major factor of who we are and how we live our lives, but it is almost beyond our control. This presents an incredible life paradox: You are what you believe, but many of your beliefs are not your own. In effect most people live their lives as sheep or what are referred to as sheeple – people who are content to be herded around their whole life. They have been defined mostly by things beyond their control and even beyond their recognition. You could say some are domestic beliefs, your consciously decided beliefs, but many are foreign, subliminally acquired beliefs. These foreign beliefs were planted in you without your conscious knowledge of them. And it is even worse than that, American neighbor. Many of your subliminal beliefs may not even align with reality. A person may believe things that are totally at odds with what is sane and real. For instance, a young street gang member may passionately believe that the police are the real enemies of society and the cause of his miserable life. His subliminal belief system has been so corrupted through the fate of his life that the end result is that he is out of sync with a sane reality. 800 pound gorillas are completely invisible to him. He actually believes that society would be better off without police enforcement. Now, either he is insane or he has been conditioned to think this way, or in the vernacular of this essay, he has been programmed into what would otherwise be an insane choice of belief.
Subliminal beliefs mostly run on emotions – they are based on how one feels. Conclusions about situations are presumptive. For example, the young gang member feels that the police are his enemy and presumes that life would be better off without the existence of police. Reality, facts and reasoning do not pose barriers to a conclusion that feels right. The conscious belief system is where contextual investigation and critical analysis meet with reality. Unfortunately for those who live their lives mostly out of their subliminal belief system that meeting rarely occurs.
Liberalism is no different in principle than an inner city gang member believing that actual enforcement of the law is society’s most vexing problem. Liberalism is irrational just as is the thinking that the police are the cause of one’s life problems because they won’t let one rob people at will, openly do drugs, and shoot members of other gangs. As has been documented in the earlier essays, liberals live by a myriad of irrational governing principles. No person making an informed decision on how to live their life would ever consciously choose to live by liberalism’s irrational principles, and yet society is filled with people who live by them every day.ae
• Saul Alinsky teaches us about liberalism – Principle – liberalism depends upon rationalization
It is not as though this is some dark, secret underbelly of American society that is hidden from public knowledge. Now that you know what to look for you will see liberalism’s irrational principles being played out every day in the news, with colleagues at work, amongst your family and friends, in movies, television, music, etc. Indeed, Saul Alinsky, the quintessential, but probably unwitting Dewey progeny encouraged the embracing of irrational thought to achieve Deweyism’s goals (which has since of course been wholly embraced by liberalism). From his infamous book, Rules for Radicals:
~ “The organizer should know and accept that the right reason is only introduced as a moral rationalization after the right end has been achieved, although it may have been achieved for the wrong reason—therefore he should search for and use the wrong reasons to achieve the right goals. He should be able, with skill and calculation, to use irrationality in his attempts to progress toward a rational world…”~
In other words, using rational thought to produce rational methods to achieve rational goals is unnecessary for radicals striving for utopia (“a rational world”). Alinsky does not even encourage that the attempt be made to keep within the bounds of rational thought. His whole premise is manipulation – “with skill and calculation”. This, for the alpha liberal is bliss. Alinsky candidly admits that “moral rationalization” is an afterthought to irrational radical thought and behavior (thanks for making my point Saul). This is our next liberal principle: For contemporary liberals superficial rationalization is always the first and final element in their ideological line of thought. People simply do not embrace this line of thought based on a rational decision, so people must end up as liberals other than by an informed rational choice. Because liberal principles are an irrational choice, practically no one ever consciously makes a decision to become a liberal. Liberalism is almost always a result of the subliminal belief system being corrupted during one’s upbringing. People grow up immersed in liberalism and naturally turn out to be liberals (as was true with me).af
• How conservatives become liberals
In my experience conservatives only ever consciously choose to change their belief system to liberalism for one of four reasons, and it is virtually always related to a rejection of a cognitive dissonance (this will be dealt with in greater detail later in this essay). They may personally witness hypocrisy by professed conservatives in a situation that deeply hurts them personally. Usually it is someone close such as their parents, close family or friends that traumatizes their conservative belief system with a result of personal pain. Of course this speaks to a person’s specific life experience, not the validity of conservatism. Nevertheless, it could lead to someone openly and rebelliously choosing to live as a liberal. The other reasons are more pragmatic. A conservative might reject their religion and their conservatism along with it, or a conservative may decide to lead a life which they previously judged to be immoral or amoral behavior and find that conservatism is too restricting for their ‘new lifestyle’ – they are not sleeping too well. Liberalism then becomes a defensive posture that allows them to sleep at night without a troubling, nagging conscience (cognitive dissonance). The final reason is that someone may wish to impress or appease a liberal or liberals important in their lives. All of these various types of conservative converts to liberalism are invariably ideologues. They had been programmed with conservatism in their subliminal belief system (beta conservatives) just as most liberals have been programmed with liberalism. So their conservative beliefs were never their own. They were a result of their upbringing, not their conscious belief system making decisions based on contextual investigation and critical analysis (alpha conservatives). Of course, many people brought up as beta conservatives go to college and are for the first time saturated with liberalism and surrounded by liberals. After a few years of this immersion they may be conditioned into liberalism, but this is not likely to be a conscious choice either.ag
• Only one of us is rational
Basically the N.C. Essay Series is a rational analysis of an irrational belief system – liberalism. However, the two of us are coming at this from opposite sides of the spectrum, American neighbor. One of us is now rational, and one of us through little fault of your own, is often not. The N.C. Essay Series is designed so that both of us end up rational. Here is my point – if a person is given an informed, conscious choice based on reasoned reality, as I repeatedly illustrate throughout the N.C. Essay Series, their conscious, rational preference will not be liberalism. Again – no one would knowingly, rationally and willingly choose to live by liberalism’s irrational principles. So how do otherwise rational people live their life based on irrational principles without any realization of their situation? I will explain.ah
• Contradictory beliefs
It is entirely possible to hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time. For instance, a person may have an irrational fear of spiders. Who knows exactly why people develop irrational fears (phobias) of things like spiders? It is certainly not something they decide to do. It is something that just happens to them. There might have been extenuating circumstances like a frightening experience as a young child that triggers a lasting fear, or there may not be any obvious instance that caused it. Indeed, experiments with crickets suggest a phobia in some may be present at birth. The point is that the subliminal belief system of a person with a spider phobia sees spiders as scary and dangerous. Of course, if you sat down across a table from this person and had a rational discussion about spiders, it would be highly likely that they would agree that on a rational and intellectual level there really is nothing to fear from a spider crawling across the table in front of them. This would be their conscious belief system at work. In their conscious and rational thoughts they know that their subliminal belief that spiders are very scary things is contrary to a rational view of reality, so, in effect, they hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time, one conscious and rational, and the other subliminal and irrational. Nevertheless, if you were to then place a spider on the table in front of them they would still immediately react in fear. This means that their irrational, subliminal belief in the scariness of spiders contains much more force and influence in their mind than does their conscious, intellectual, rational belief that they need not fear spiders. This is also why most liberals answer our essay #1 question of whether one would prefer others to direct one’s life or whether one would prefer to have the freedom to direct one’s own life, as a conservative instead of as a liberal. When asked to think through a choice like this that is outside of the subliminal realm of their liberalism the conscious mind is momentarily freed from its liberal prejudged conclusions and leaves room for a rational decision. So, a contemporary liberal gives a contemporary conservative answer to the most basic question dividing liberalism from conservatism: “No, spiders are not scary” is no different than a desire to direct one’s own life.ai
There is fundamentally no difference between subliminally believing spiders are scary and living with this phobia, and subliminally believing liberalism and subsequently living as a liberal. Throw a rational counterargument to liberalism on the table in front of a liberal and they too react like they have a phobia – what might be coined as factophobia (or 800 pound gorilla phobia). To a liberal the counterargument, being equivalent to a spider, represents the fear of a loss of control of their subliminal beliefs to conscious and rational argument. It is in our nature to protect our subliminal beliefs. So when liberals are provoked their natural defenses instinctually kick in. Their reaction to this factophobia is the liberal scoff reflex I described to you earlier. I also said previously that our subliminal belief system is almost out of our control. It is not entirely, however. This is where our conscious belief system comes in. It is certainly possible to consciously learn to overcome the fear of spiders, and done properly liberals can also consciously overcome their liberal conditioning so that they can reach a point where they can make informed and rational choices between conservatism and liberalism and live those choices every day. Of course, that is what the N.C. Essay Series is all about. Most people keep their subliminal and conscious belief systems separate. In other words, they don’t consciously examine their subliminal beliefs. They just live them as sheeple – herded around by their liberal conditioning, living through their liberal principles. People that fear spiders often live their whole lives with a fear of spiders. Well, American neighbor, here in this essay you are examining and deprogramming the factophobic liberalism that has dominated your subliminal belief system so that you will no longer be trapped living your life based on the irrational liberal principles of a sheeple.
We took a person with an ingrained phobic fear of spiders imbedded in their subliminal belief system, and when we sat them down we were able, through a rational discussion of the matter, to get them to wholeheartedly agree, using their conscious belief system that their subliminal fear was a completely irrational belief. Nevertheless, when we then placed a spider on the table in front of them, their subliminal belief system was so powerful that it immediately took over complete control of their thought process and their rational thoughts were overwhelmed by their subliminal belief system. We then likened liberalism to the fear of spiders. This comparison works to a certain point where as we mentioned, if we were to throw a rational counterargument to liberalism on the table in front of a liberal under the same circumstances, they too would respond in the same instinctive way as the person with the fear of spiders, substituting a scoffing rejection for fright, but there is a different relationship between fearing spiders and a factophobic reaction to rational counterarguments. The first is a purely emotional and instinctual type of response of raw fear. The second is a mixture of fear and a calculated defense response. It is this calculated defense mechanism that I next wish to discuss with you, American neighbor.
We are now getting down to the crux of programmed liberalism and how it functions in controlling a person’s thought process and through that, their entire life. This partially uncontrolled and partially calculated defense mechanism that the liberal thought process utilizes to protect itself from rational counterarguments that undermine its credibility is what was earlier described as the liberal scoff response. It too is rooted in the irrational beliefs centered in the subliminal belief system like the fear of spiders, but there is an element of permission involved in the thought process that is not included in the fear of spiders. This element of permission can be understood through what is known as cognitive dissonance.aj
• Cognitive dissonance
Cognition in humans refers to the thought process. Dissonance is conflict. Relating to our topic, cognitive dissonance results when on an intellectual level our conscience becomes agitated with anxiety over conflicts between our conscious belief system and our subliminal belief system. When your conscious belief system rationally concludes one thing, but your subliminal belief system reacts out of phobic fear against that conclusion, that produces cognitive dissonance. Your conscience is now conflicted, producing an uneasy or even panicky feeling, so, in some sense, your conscience is a bridge between your subliminal belief system and your conscious belief system.
There are three main aspects that make up the foundation of a sound mind capable of ethically reasoned thought. The first is the determination to accumulate and account for the context of any argument (all relevant information). The second is the ability to critically analyze this contextual information. (Contextual investigation and critical analysis were examined in essay #3 in regard to the scoff reflex.) The third aspect is the capacity to be honest with oneself in regard to the evidence at hand. This third aspect is where cognitive dissonance applies. Without this mechanism to keep oneself honest, the other two aspects become tainted with playing stupid (a deliberate and embraced lying to oneself) as a result of the scoff reflex.
You probably experienced some cognitive dissonance in essay #3 when first realizing that President Clinton never did produce any budget surpluses. Your subliminal belief system was fully convinced of a belief that when rationally examined turned out not to be so – and your conscious belief system could plainly see this. Probably, at least for a moment, and maybe longer, you experienced the panicky cognitive dissonance of conflict between your two belief systems. Your conscious intellect was engaged in a battle with your scoff reflex, producing cognitive dissonance.ak
• Scoff reflex = denial of legitimacy
The liberal scoff reflex is an instinct-like denial of legitimacy. It operates similar to when you accidentally place your hand on something hot – you automatically respond by pulling your hand away. There is no rational thought involved, only an instinctual reaction designed to preserve and protect. The liberal scoff response also demands that no consideration be put into its reaction – it directs that any cognitive dissonance be immediately ignored. It is a self-denial originating in the subliminal belief system that any counterargument that contradicts the resident liberal conditioning can in any way be legitimate – the 800 pound gorilla simply does not exist. It is an instilled reaction. It needs no contemplation. In fact, conscious thought is its enemy. It is no different than when you touch something hot. Stop to first consider your reaction and the burn would be much more severe. It is likewise with the scoff response. To prevent the development of cognitive dissonance and thus limit the liberal subliminal belief system from sustaining any credibility damage, the conscious belief system must not be allowed to rationally contemplate any counterargument. This is how a subliminal belief system infected with liberal conditioning defends itself from a rational counterargument and critical analysis, which are often 800 pound gorillas.al
• Being societally programmed does not make one an idiot
The typical rural Pakistani grows up unaware that he has been conditioned throughout his life. He too is a sheeple. His conscious and subliminal belief systems more or less live in peace with each other, but introduce counterarguments to his Muslim beliefs and his subliminal belief system will lash out in defense of itself. This does not make him an idiot or motivated by evil. He is simply responding instinctually as his fate has conditioned his subliminal belief system to respond.
Being a programmed liberal does not mean you are an idiot or motivated by evil either, American neighbor. It means that you, along with most North Americans, including me, grew up in an environment where liberalism was gradually conditioned into us. We are not to blame for how we ended up as liberals. However, we are responsible for how we respond to this knowledge I am imparting to you right now. This very moment your conscious belief system (your third person analysis) is at war with your liberal subliminal belief system – you are experiencing cognitive dissonance. Your subliminal belief system is screaming that the spider on the table is the scariest thing in the universe – it is imperative that you run away and don’t come back! However, your conscious belief system, utilizing Mr. Spock’s detached third person analysis, is reading this essay and responding that this all makes reasonable sense and that your irrational instinct to scoff it all away is … well, irrational. You are beginning to transform from a sheeple into a black sheep, American neighbor. Black sheep don’t like to be herded. Black sheep prefer to have the freedom to direct their own life.am
• Scoff reflex = anti-rational
It is, however, more than just a battle between what is rational and what is irrational. The scoff reflex is actually anti-rational. Groupthink demands that the contemplation of counterarguments be avoided at all costs, even at the cost of self-interest. Liberal ‘truths’ must not be examined, because of the threat of a possible self-evident realization that they are nothing more than liberalisms, so the job of the scoff reflex is to prevent contextual investigation and critical analysis of rational counterarguments to eliminate the development of any cognitive dissonance that might question the legitimacy of the subliminal liberal conditioning. Here Saul Alinsky’s book Rules for Radicals comes in handy again:
~ “…a man of action does not have the sedentary frame of mind that is part of the personality of the research scholar. He finds it very difficult to sit quietly and think and write. … He will do anything to avoid it.”~an
The “man of action” Alinsky alludes to, is specifically what we now know as a collaborator or alpha liberal who agrees to manipulate others by insisting that two unequal lines are equal – the aggressive groupthinker. This is also a base command for all of liberal groupthink – you must not “sit quietly and think” about counterarguments to liberalism. Do not attempt to understand why groupthink demands that you accept that those two obviously unequal lines as equal. Simply accept the irrationality of their obvious inequality and rationalize it later as a means to an end, even if both the means and the end are irrational. Or, as in our parallel illustration, the spider is very dangerous and scary – run away! When you refuse to resist your scoff response your conscious belief system is, in effect, granting permission for your subliminal belief system to control your life. So, despite the fact that you have been conditioned into liberalism, you have consciously granted permission all along the way. You have dismissed any cognitive dissonance in favor of your subliminal belief system. This is because you are guiltless and shameless, American neighbor (this is not an insult, but a diagnosis).ao
• Guilt & shame
For a liberal, guilt and shame are weapons to be used against opponents, never tools to correct and improve oneself, but now you will learn to use guilt and shame as tools in your own life, American neighbor. The deprogramming of liberalism is about teaching you to accept your cognitive dissonance and resultant guilt and shame as positive mental tools that are alerting you to the operation of your subliminal liberal belief system. Guilt and shame guide you into accepting personal responsibility for your thoughts and actions (directing your own life). You must embrace guilt and shame as your guides to rational thinking and rational beliefs. (This is not meant to be a broad treatment on guilt and shame, but targeted to how they apply to liberalism.)
There are basically three kinds of egos directly related to cognitive dissonance. The first predominantly operates based on how a person views himself. This is a guilt based ego. Guilt is a response to cognitive dissonance about a person’s personal thinking and conduct. The guilt based ego is very conscious of its own weaknesses and failures. People are conflicted towards themselves by their own errors, failures, inabilities, etc. Traditional Christians are good examples of primarily guilt based egos. They are very aware of their own moral conduct. Personal failure according to Christian moral standards produces guilt. This does not mean that they have no shame, only that guilt is the predominant consideration of their belief system concerning moral weaknesses and failures resulting in cognitive dissonance.
The second kind of ego is the predominantly shame based ego where other peoples’ views are a person’s prominent consideration of issues resulting in cognitive dissonance. They are very conscious of how they look to their peers and easily conflicted toward others for their own moral weaknesses and failures. Muslims are good examples of primarily shame based egos. Pride and honor of conduct in the eyes of their peers are very important to them. In their minds they must be seen to be moral according to Muslim moralities. But again, this does not preclude them having guilt, only that shame is their prominent belief system consideration in this regard.
It is also true that the balance between guilt and shame can be based on a particular situation. A failure at home might predominantly produce guilt in front of immediate family members, whereas that same failure in public in front of strangers or peers might predominantly produce shame for the same person (or vise versa). People with some kind of personal moral code will produce a mixture of at least some guilt and shame.
Of course the third type is an ego that is both shameless and guiltless. Generally healthy egos are a moderate balance of the two. An overemphasis of one or the other may or may not be healthy depending on other factors, but by far, what is truly unhealthy is to have neither a guilt nor shame based ego. Guess where liberals fall on our scale? Yes, liberalism produces a guiltless and shameless ego, at least when it comes to ideology. Liberals do not have an ideological moral compass which is necessary to produce guilt or shame. Liberalism in its most basic definition is having one’s cognitive dissonance turned off or suppressed – or in plain language, having no guilt or shame. Liberals are care-less. They don’t care because they have no guilt or shame. They only care that they be seen to care – a perversion of shame. This is important, American neighbor. It is not that liberals care – it is that liberalism demands a self-projection of an image of caring (this will be vividly explored in #9 Liberals Are the Compassionate Ones – Really?). Again, it is all about double standards. Numerous other examples will be offered throughout the remainder of the N.C. Essay Series.ap
• Liberal amoralism
This care-less attitude is a result of John Dewey’s aversion to right and wrong, and good and evil. Dewey incorporated into his utopian education the idea that morals make a person defective. Liberalism has preserved this from Dewey’s utopian model, at least as applied to liberals. This is how aggressive groupthinkers can push the fallacy that two unequal lines are equal and not lose a minute’s sleep to guilt or shame (meaning they produce no lasting cognitive dissonance over it). Of course the same is true for the passive groupthinker in accepting that two unequal lines are equal. If liberals produced guilt or shame they could not operate based on liberal principles. For instance, cognitive dissonance when contemplating double standards would produce guilt and/or shame. Sophistry would produce guilt and/or shame. Demagoguery would produce guilt and/or shame. Noble lies would produce guilt and/or shame. Liberal failures and indiscretions could not be excused based purely on a person’s preconceived honorable motives. Prejudiced presumptions of a conservative’s evil motives would also produce guilt and/or shame. 800 pound gorillas left unattended would produce guilt and/or shame. In effect, liberalism cannot function in a realm of moral restrictions that produce cognitive dissonance and resultant guilt and shame. Therefore liberalism is limited by the extent that a person has morals. Seemingly liberal moral positions on issues are not based on guilt or shame but on calculation. For instance it is a strategic calculation to portray their liberalism as caring for those suffering from mass murder, but in reality we saw in the section Messy Thinking in essay #1, that liberals in fact, care little about mass murder. Liberalism functions best with a completely amoral belief system. Any cognitive dissonance that might arise is resolved through the rationalization strategy outlined by Saul Alinsky. Rationalization is a type of internal sophistry that justifies irrational thoughts, explanations and decisions. The alpha liberal can assert that two unequal lines are equal because they have no guilt or shame challenging their irrational assertion. The beta liberal can agree with the alpha liberal by ignoring their guilt and shame. This is how liberals can peacefully sleep at night with no nagging guilt or shame about their irrational thought, attitude or conduct based on liberal principles. Only by listening to one’s guilt and/or shame can a liberal overcome his sheeple life of unequal lines and become a black sheep that demands that only the two equal lines are acceptable.aq
• Moral double standards
It is even worse than just an amoral attitude, American neighbor. Even here, the liberal holds to a double standard. Remember, I said that liberalism preserved Dewey’s model of no good and evil, and no right and wrong. This is only partially true. Liberalism preserved this model for itself, but not for its adversaries. In the mind of a liberal they irrationally moralize that they are always morally correct because morals do not apply to them. Remember Alinsky stated that rationalization is an afterthought to liberal conduct. To a liberal liberalism is first and foremost honorable and always correct. It is not that the facts of any particular matter make the liberal side of the matter correct. It is that the liberal side is first correct based on what is perceived as correct motives and then the facts are massaged and manipulated to support the liberal view – what Alinsky called “moral rationalization”. There are two ways of thinking that lead to always coming out on the right side of every issue. The first is the Alinsky way. Determine your position first based on your ideology and then rationalize your thinking and arguments after the fact, and of course, suppress any cognitive dissonance. This is the liberal way of always being on the correct side of any issue. This is how an ideologue thinks. The second way is to ascertain the facts and utilize contextual investigation and critical analysis to determine a position on an issue, safeguarded by cognitive dissonance. This is the conservative way to ending up on the correct side of any issue. This is how a critical thinker reasons out issues.
Think about it, American neighbor. In order for liberalism to always be correct there must be a right and wrong, but this would have to allow for moral standards that they may fail at and produce guilt or shame, so to counterbalance this intolerable position the liberal rationalizes that if liberalism is always right, because its motives are always right, then conservatism is always wrong, because its motives are always wrong, and to side with what is always right one must be honorable, and to side with what is always wrong one must be evil. For a liberal the double standard is that conservatives never live up to any moral standard and therefore are always wrong and always evil. This is the extent of liberal morality. It is always for the other guy, but never for them. Naturally, liberals view guilt and shame only as demagogic weapons to be used on conservatives, but exempt guilt and shame as applied to themselves, so liberals end up with these conclusions about moral wrongs: Being a liberal is to have honorable motives, and means never having to admit to being wrong, possessing regret or saying sorry. Being a conservative is to have evil motives, and means that one is always wrong, and therefore regret and an apology is never enough. [*ykdkyqd]
When I said above that liberals do not have ideological guilt or shame I did not mean that this is because they do not produce any. It is because they shift it away from themselves onto others. So when something happens in their life that produces guilt or shame related to their ideology they have a default setting that is a part of their defensive scoff reflex that moves it away from themselves to place the blame on someone or something else, commonly called ‘passing the buck’. Liberal self-righteousness is the part of the liberal ego that allows a liberal to see himself as always of pure ideological motive and free of all guilt and shame, thus excusing all indiscretions and failures. Deflecting blame is another part of the liberal ego that allows for shifting their own guilt and shame over to a ubiquitous “them” whom they conveniently view as always motivated by evil. Again, this goes hand in hand with the liberal double standard of applying no morals to oneself, but always judging conservatives and society as moral failures. This is again, the attitude of the rebellious fourteen-year-old.ar
• The buck stops here?
When Barack Obama said, “The buck stops with me” in regard to the Christmas bomber what exactly did he mean, American neighbor? Well, liberals immediately hailed this as taking responsibility for the actions of his administration – something Bush never did, they add as a dig. In effect, liberals gave him credit for saying “The buck stops with me.” This is irrational – only a liberal would think this way. This leaves an 800 pound gorilla in the corner of the room unaddressed. Why should the President get credit for admitting to responsibility for a major security failure? Should we now give bank robbers credit for saying in court, “the buck stops with me”, and send them on their way with a pat on the back? No. It may lead to a lighter sentence, but they are still penalized. There is no doubt that Obama’s policy intentions of closing the Guantanimo Bay detention center, and providing captured terrorists with American citizen rights has been a complete failure – remember the “new beginning” which was supposed to bring about “mutual interest and mutual respect” between America and the Muslim world? That was supposed to prevent more attacks from even being initiated. [*yz8sda9] But, here is an interesting statement in regard to the Christmas bomber from a “command, control, communications and information (C3I) specialist”:
~The computer system will key in on “Abdulmutallab”, “Niger”, “Yemen” and many other pieces of meta data associated with each intel ‘dot’. The only way to not connect the dots is to override ‘the system’ and declare the system has produced results out of bounds. … The human analyst works after the dot connecting stage has been done automatically.~ [yaxuve4]
So, in effect, someone deliberately ignored the warning lights going off in the system. The dots had already been connected “automatically”. That means somewhere between the computer analyst at the bottom of the security chain and President Obama at the top of the chain, someone made a decision that almost got hundreds of Americans killed. This was confirmed when National Counterterrorism Center Director Michael Leiter in testimony before the Senate Homeland Security Committee said:
~ “Whether he would have been placed on either the No Fly or Selectee list—again based on the existing standards—would have been determined by the strength of the analytic judgment. […] On the later analytic judgments, it’s more likely that he gets into the No-Fly criteria. It’s easy, after the fact, to look back and say, clearly, he should have been in the No Fly, but it really would have depended on what the analyst said, putting all those pieces together, about what kind of operative he was and what his intention was.”~ [7me7pad]
Where did that analyst get his direction? From his superior? From his superior’s superior? Or from the Obama policy not to focus on Muslims or some other Obama policy aimed at appeasing Muslim sensitivities? Looked at in this light it is quite apparent that indeed President Obama is directly at fault for this horrendous security failure. The dots were connected – Obama’s policy of what to do with the information utterly failed.
Here’s another example. In 2009 seven CIA operatives were killed by a double agent suicide bomber in Afghanistan despite that the agency had known that he had written extremist Islamic rants on jihadist websites, had been warned beforehand that the Jordanian suspect was in league with al Qaeda by a Jordanian official, and one of the agents killed had been warning of a double cross. After an investigation CIA Director Leon Panetta declared:
~ “There was a systemic breakdown with regard to the kind of judgment and scrutiny that should have been applied here. … All of us bear responsibility, and all of us have to fix this.”~ [89leb58, 6p37enu]
• Passing the buck
The phrase “the buck stops here” comes from another that was mentioned above; “passing the buck”. It means to shift blame onto someone else. The original phrase, “the buck stops here” essentially means that the blame stops here. Now imagine if Barack Obama had said that the blame stopped with CIA Director Leon Panetta – supposing that he was the one who directed the analyst to ignore the ‘system’ warnings. The societal morals of guilt and shame would have demanded Panetta’s resignation. What if Barack Obama had fingered Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano as the one who directed that those warnings be ignored? She would have had to resign. Or what if it was Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair who was in charge of the no-fly list? He would have had to resign. In fact Blair said there was “pressure to reduce the passenger no-fly list”. [*yldxzjm, *yk2wd4m] Pressure from where? Blair answers directly to the President. Presumably, the only place that pressure could come from was from above – the Oval Office.
Also, it goes beyond security policy decisions. By demonizing and threatening to prosecute America’s own security personnel President Obama has paralyzed them from boldly doing their jobs, fearing that down the road their decisions may come under the scrutiny of a politically vengeful military court or Department of Justice, [*48crl5r, *ylj6xco, *3r9fbpn] or even Interpol, who have been given virtual carte blanche access by the Obama administration, [*8yevlda] and who also have expressed sympathies in exposing American security personnel to being prosecuted by the International Criminal Court. [*dhdz43] Even throwing out the trash can be an indictable offence in the Obama military. [*7wemvbd] This is an example of fascism-creep – where self-righteous intentions turn into fascistic results. There is your “systemic breakdown”, American neighbor. Who of these security personnel wants to become the target of al Qaeda when they are dragged into a public court setting and exposed to the hostility of an al Qaeda sympathetic defense attorney that could end up putting their families in danger of attack? Of course, when security warning lights flash in the system, the tough decisions will be passed on by those who see those warnings, so when the Department of Justice or Interpol later come calling they won’t be the ones in the crosshairs. This is why the Christmas bomber almost blew up an aircraft when system warning bells and sirens were certainly going off all over the place before he ever boarded the plane.
What was the correct course of action for President Obama when he stated that, “the buck stops with me”, thus accurately admitting that it was he who should legitimately shoulder the blame for a terrorist incident where hundreds of Americans almost lost their lives? An admittance of fault at this magnitude should have led to guilt and shame, and the only rational response is that he should have resigned from the Presidency forthwith. Liberals had constantly attempted to get President Bush to admit to some wrongdoing. Do you think they would have given him a pat on the back if he had? No, I don’t think so either, American neighbor. Their double standards would have demanded impeachment. If Bush had admitted to what Obama has admitted to, I would have demanded for his resignation as well. In fact, Obama should still resign. American security is the foremost responsibility of the President. The failure in this matter has not just been a result of a single incidental decision. It is the gross incompetence of an entire set of policies that is a failure throughout the security system. The Fort Hood shooting is another prime example. Warning lights were flashing throughout the system, but the policies prevented any action on those warnings and so thirteen Americans needlessly died and thirty more were wounded. [*ngwg69z] What about the personnel operating those assassin drones in Pakistan? Will they someday have the Justice Department or Interpol knocking at their door with eager media cameras in tow, making their families targets of vengeful terrorists? [*7xlr56w, *23gy7rw]
What Obama, in effect, really meant when he said “the buck stops with me” was that he, as an alpha liberal, was not going to hold anyone responsible, including himself, for this egregious security failure. What he meant was, “We do not accept responsibility.” Only a liberal would think that Obama’s shouldering of the blame means that nothing should come of it. And only a juvenile mindset would think that he should get a pat on the back for it. President Obama well illustrates that liberals see his supposed motives as exonerating and therefore have no need for guilt or shame. As long as Obama is in charge, America will remain insecure, because he has instituted incompetent and arrogant politically correct policies that have made America’s security personnel fearful of prosecution and fearful that their families may be publicly exposed to retaliation from al Qaeda or even a lone radicalized American Muslim. These fears were never a problem under President Bush, so America was secure after 9/11 and throughout the Bush administration. There are two steps necessary to regain that level of security. The first step is for Barack Obama to resign and for all who were involved in his erroneous security and prosecution policy decisions to be replaced. The second step is to create legislation that protects security personnel responsible for important security decisions and operations from a vengeful Department of Justice, hateful international busybodies and public exposure. Until then, expect more bungled security events and subsequent dead Americans.
One last thing illustrates liberalism’s selective application of guilt and shame. As former President Nixon was hounded out of office by a shaming liberal press, so should Barack Obama be shamed out of the Presidency. When Obama admitted that, “The buck stops with me” he actually went further in incriminating himself than Nixon ever did when he said “I am not a crook”, or even when the incriminating tapes were exposed. Nixon was felled by playing extreme politics, but Obama’s sins are much graver than anything Nixon ever did. Obama’s security and prosecution policies have directly led to thirteen unnecessary deaths at Fort Hood, seven top-level CIA operatives in Afghanistan, and it was only because of the alertness and bravery of Dutch film director, Jasper Schuringa that over two hundred more Americans (plus additional Canadians on the ground where the plane would have crashed) weren’t added to that death list by the Christmas bomber. But Nixon was an enemy of the liberal orthodox press, so of course guilt and shame applied to him. Obama, however, is a fellow traveling alpha liberal, so guilt and shame do not apply. Double standards anyone?
(Incidentally, is it any surprise that Jasper Schuringa received multiple awards in his homeland for his selfless act, yet received no official honor from the Obama administration? In fact, it is not unusual when the guilty party resents the hero who prevented the disaster that would have occurred because of the guilty party’s actions – and resentful, guilty Presidents do not give out awards.)at
• Domestic Islamic terrorism rampant under Obama
Update 2013: It seems we can also add the deaths of the Boston Marathon terrorist attack to Barack Obama’s long list of victims that his policies of appeasement and threats of prosecution against American security personnel are responsible for. [c2rqxzq, c6yfacn] The following is a list of all publicly known Islamic terrorist attacks and near misses against Americans around the world and on America soil since Barack Obama was elected President: • the Daniel Patrick Boyd terror cell arrested in 2009 • Najibullah Zazi’s 2009 plot to bomb the NYC subway • Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad in 2009 shot a military recruiter in Little Rock, Arkansas • Hosam Maher Husein Smadi’s 2009 attempt to bomb a Dallas skyscraper • a Bronx terror cell was arrested in 2009 for attempting to bomb a NY synagogue and shoot down military planes with stinger missiles • the 2009 underwear bomber • Talib Islam’s 2009 plan to detonate a car bomb in Springfield, Illinois • Nidal Malik Hasan in 2009 killed 13 soldiers in Fort Hood, Texas • Farooque Ahmed’s 2010 attempt to bomb the Washington Metro • Mohamed Osman Mohamud’s 2010 attempted car bombing in Portland Oregon • the 2010 Times Square bomber • John Patrick Bedell shot two police officers in the Washington Metro • the Antonio Martinez 2010 plot to bomb a military recruiting center in Catonsville, Maryland • in 2010 Chicago synagogues received bombs in packages from Yemen • in 2010 Paul Rockwood Jr. targeted military and media members in Alaska with a motive of revenge against desecration of Islam • Sami Samir Hassoun’s 2010 attempt to bomb Wrigley Field • in 2011 Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari built bombs for attacks • Jose Pimentel’s 2011 plan to bomb police cars and military personnel • Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif and Walli Mujahidh in 2011 purchased machine guns and grenades to attack a federal building in Seattle, Washington • Naser Jason Abdo’s 2011 plan to bomb Fort Hood, Texas • in 2011 Rezwan Ferdaus planned to attack the Petagon • in 2011 Operation Red Coalition planned to assassinate the Saudi ambassador and bomb the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Washington • Sami Osmakac’s 2012 plotted to car bomb and take hostages in Tampa, Florida • in 2012 Ahmed Ferhani and Mohamed Mamdouh bought a grenade and weapons to attack a NY synagogue • Amine El Khalifi’s 2012 suicide bombing plot in Washington, DC • Raees Alam Qazi and Sheheryar Alam Qazi in 2012 plotted to attack NYC • Ahsan Nafis’ attempt to bomb the New York Federal Reserve Bank in 2012 • African al Qaeda in 2012 attacked the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya • Mohamed El-Khalifi’s 2012 attempt to bomb the U.S. Capitol • the Algerian gas plant attack in 2013 • the 2013 Boston Marathon attack • in 2013 Chiheb Esseghaier and Raed Jaser plotted to blow up the Niagra River train bridge
Islamic terrorist attacks and near misses against Americans around the world and on America soil are happening at an epidemic pace of about one every seven weeks since Barack Obama became President – the worst four-year period in American history!
Update 2013: The blood on President Obama’s hands drips even more. Can you believe, American neighbor, that Obama has restricted the FBI from surveilling mosques in America? And it has resulted in even more casualties. [shakes head in disbelief] [*n74lvbv]au
• Blame & loathing
There is a price to be paid for continual rejection of guilt and shame. Except for the narcissist and the truly psychotic, each person knows when they are producing guilt or shame. There are healthy ways to deal with it and there are unhealthy ways. The default liberal procedure is to always shift guilt and shame to blame. This self-protection however leads to self-loathing. Their conscience is aware of the shifting of their guilt and shame, and the natural response is to despise oneself for doing so, but this too is intolerable for the liberal mind, because again, this is a moral judgment, and as we have already seen, for a liberal, moral judgments are only to be applied to other people. So now, the self-loathing must also be shifted elsewhere. Naturally, as a simple coping mechanism in generic terms society becomes the easy place to shift both liberal blame and loathing. If a person cannot accept guilt, shame and personal blame when circumstances legitimately produce them, and instead, shifts them elsewhere, the mind will produce self-loathing. This is why utopia is so important for the liberal. Liberals thinks that if they can just fix society then there will be no guilt, shame, blame and loathing. Until utopia is attained society becomes the natural solution for a liberal’s guilt, shame, self-blame and self-loathing. It is the belief in utopia that allows the liberal conscience to condemn anything and everything. This is the explanation for the liberal principle: The essence of contemporary liberalism is that the individual is blameless and society is always guilty.
This leads the contemporary American liberal to have a disdain for America and American traditions as society becomes the destination of all shifted liberal self-blame and self-loathing. This thinking goes hand in hand with the paranoia principle: Compulsive paranoia is the foundation of contemporary liberalism. In the liberal’s mind he rationalizes (fears) that as long as American society has not reached utopia there must be serious things wrong with it. Therefore today, liberals blame and loath so-called American imperialism. They see free market capitalism as destroying the planet. Christianity is stifling societal growth. They disdain big oil, the health insurance industry and the banking industry. They see their own military and security agencies as the cause of strife around the world. Overt patriotism is viewed as distasteful (like wearing a flag pin or placing one’s hand over the heart). They hate the Pledge of Allegiance, Christmas, home schooling, transfats, cigarettes, and on and on. Before the 2008 financial crisis and economic downturn Walmart and SUVs were what was wrong with America (Walmart seems to be making a comeback as a target lately). Microsoft and HMOs in the nineties were the big villains. (For a more extensive list go back to the section List of Evils in essay #2.) And, of course, conservatives who value American traditions are always at the root of all that is wrong with America. Liberals hate themselves because they cannot accept their own guilt, shame, or blame, and so they cope with their resultant self-loathing by hating elsewhere. There simply must be an ulterior reason for the failure of not reaching utopia. There must be villains on which to pass off their self-blame and self-loathing. Sound familiar, American neighbor? (Later in #14 Liberal Demagoguery, Hate and Violence – A Compendium, you will see how much self-loathing-induced-hatred liberalism produces, American neighbor – without a doubt it will shock your socks off!)av
• The Paranoid Style & self projection – Principle – Liberals project what they loathe about themselves
~ “He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster.”~ – Friedrich Nietzsche
Or more to our point: He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself is not the monster he fights. This is our next liberal principle: Contemporary liberals project what they subconsciously loathe about themselves as demagoguery toward their opponents and society as a whole.
Remember in essay #2 we explored The Paranoid Style in American Politics. Hofstadter also observed about the “paranoid”, which today are contemporary liberals: “It is hard to resist the conclusion that this enemy [the conservative] is on many counts the projection of the self [the liberal].” [6d4qrn]  Here is how Wikipedia describes projection:
~Psychological projection or projection bias (including Freudian Projection) is the unconscious act of denial of a person’s own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, such as to the weather, the government, a tool, or to other people. […] Projection is considered one of the most profound and subtle of human psychological processes, and extremely difficult to work with, because by its nature it is hidden. It is the fundamental mechanism by which we keep ourselves uninformed about ourselves.~ [a7a2r]
This is a textbook description of conditioned liberalism. Projection is related to the scoff response defense mechanism and the use of demagoguery and sophistry as offensive and defensive weapons. It is also a sure sign of compulsive paranoid delusion. The subliminal liberal belief system utilizes these lines of thinking to protect itself from rational counterarguments that might allow the conscious belief system to become suspicious of its alternate’s irrational liberal conditioning. When shame and/or guilt develops, projection whisks the subsequent self-blame and self-loathing safely away so that liberals can still sleep soundly at night without nagging doubts tugging at their conscience – a defense against cognitive dissonance.
~Paleo-anthropologically speaking, this faculty [projection] probably had survival value as a self-defense mechanism when homo sapiens’ intellectual capacity to detect deception in others improved to the point that the only sure hope to deceive was for deceivers to be self-deceived and therefore behave as if they were being truthful.~
This really gets down to the crux of the matter, American neighbor. Please allow me to rewrite this a bit so as to be more pertinent for us: “The only sure hope for liberalism to deceive is for liberals to be self-deceived and therefore genuinely behave as if liberalism is about being truthful.” This is liberalism! And this directly relates to compulsive paranoid delusion. This leads right back to our very first principle of liberalism: Contemporary liberalism requires a strict adherence to playing stupid. Let’s read this again: “The only sure hope for liberalism to deceive is for liberals to be self-deceived and therefore genuinely behave as if liberalism is about being truthful.” Liberals really do genuinely believe all of their irrational liberalisms and noble lies that make up their liberal ideology. They really do believe those two unequal lines are equal. For a liberal they are truth.
~Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.~
Projection for a liberal is a coping mechanism for dealing with irrationalities and contradictions (800 pound gorillas) that might awake their conscious belief system to shame and/or guilt that their subliminal belief system would rather be left ignored. The following are some examples.aw
• Examples of liberal projection
Despite the fact that liberals view themselves as colorblind they constantly inject racial motives into issues. Here is one heard in the media almost every day: Opposition to President Obama’s policies can only be from a motive of racism (this belief is a result of paranoid delusion). This fulfills both a demagogic strategy and satisfies the need for projection. And if empirical evidence is demanded, then just make some up: alpha liberal and Civil rights leader John Lewis claims to have been called the n-word “at least 15 times” (he agreed with this characterization) by Tea Partiers, despite the fact that multiple videos with sound, of the incident described illustrate that the story was pure fiction (more in N.C. essay #18 Neoracism – Liberalism’s New Bigotry). According to liberals, conservatives don’t just disagree with President Obama – they oppose him because he is black. These are all projections of liberal self-loathing over race. They cannot accept that it is they who see life based on race, so they project their self-loathing onto conservatives as an ideological bludgeon (racism will be dealt with in #17 Slavery In America – Past and Present and #18 Neoracism – Liberalism’s New Bigotry).
Liberals, as with all of society, are dependant on fossil fuels, but, liberals see fossil fuels as evil. They project their self-loathing for using fossil fuels onto the oil companies, car manufacturers and conservatives who do not have issues with using fossil fuels. However, oil companies are not holding guns to liberals’ heads forcing them to heat their homes and drive their cars. They are simply offering a product and a service that is demanded by the marketplace – including by liberals. Blaming oil companies, car manufacturers and conservatives is just simple projection of liberals’ own self-blame and self-loathing, and another example of paranoid delusion.
Medicare and Medicaid were supposed to solve the problem for those who slip through the healthcare cracks. These programs were promised to cost a fraction of what they do in reality. Instead of accepting the failure of these two programs to meet their goals, liberals pile on with Obama’s healthcare reform which the majority of the American people do not want and which will do more of the same waste on a grander scale. Of course, they express their self-blame and self-loathing with sentiments such as these noted quotations from essay #2:
~ “George Bush has a health care plan – pray you don’t get sick.”~ – John Edwards about Bush 43 [ydr568r]
~ “If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly. That’s right. The Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick.”~ – Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) [y9dwala]
~ “[T]he Republicans lie! They want to see you dead. They’d rather make money off your dead corpse. They kind of like it when that woman has cancer and they don’t have anything for her.”~ – MSNBC talk show host Ed Schultz [yesm6qv]
Can you see the projection and paranoid delusion in these examples, American neighbor? Here are some more that we have already discussed:
Liberals demagogue conservatives for supporting the breaching of the supposed civil rights of terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay while ignoring that President Obama is executing terror suspects and their innocent neighbors in Pakistan.
Liberals demagogue conservatives for supporting the invasion of Iraq which they saw as based on lies while ignoring that President Clinton waged war on Serbia which was clearly based on administration fabrications.
Liberals demagogue conservatives for supporting the war in Iraq which stopped the mass murder of up to one hundred thousand Iraqis per year while ignoring that President Clinton allowed eight hundred thousand Rwandans to be slaughtered.
Again, can you see the projection of the self-blame and self-loathing in these examples, American neighbor? Liberals blame and loathe the very side of these issues that their own ideology has failed so miserably at, and which exposes their own liberalism as a failure, so as a defense they project their blame and loathing onto conservatives, demagoguing them about things which their own liberalism has failed to do. Here is a classic case of projection:
~ “A pro-life Democrat, unlike a pro-life Republican, cares about kids after they’re born, not just before.”~ – Howard Dean [yaen4pa]
The self-indictment of this statement is a real head-shaker (after one finishes laughing). What is the logical premise of this statement? Obviously if one wishes to care about kids before they are born one must be pro-life (apparently even pro-life Republicans care then). If one is not pro-life the obvious parallel conclusion is that one does not care about kids before they are born. Dean has just admitted that pro-choicers don’t care, which goes completely against the liberal mantra that ‘liberals care’. And how does he deal with this cognitive dissonance? He projects uncaring onto Republican pro-lifers “after they’re born”. Here is another:
~ “Unfortunately, a lot of the people in the right-wing base are not the most intellectual people in the world, not the most savvy people in the world, and they are definitely quick to anger, and quick to blame other people. […] It’s part of the human nature of a personality type that tends to identify as Republican or conservative. And it’s an unfortunate part of our society. It’s a scourge on our society.”~ – Janeane Garofalo [yc92mub]
From what I have seen in interviews of Janeane Garofalo on CNN and MSNBC no one would mistake her for an intellectual giant of any kind. I have never heard her make a profound point about anything – ever. In fact, she comes across as a smart-ass – someone who knows her own low intellectual standing and elevates herself by devaluing those around her with accusations of her own deficiencies. Classic projection and paranoid delusion.
~ “And this is exactly why the conservatives keep harping on spending, spending, spending as the problem: because they know spending, spending, spending is the solution, and they don’t want this solved! They don’t want this solved because they hate government! They hate teachers. They hate police officers. They hate first responders. They hate firemen. They hate EMT workers. They want it all to be privatized! That’s when you gonna get the haves having police protection and excellent schools and the have-nots having no police protection and no schools! And therein is the dream world for them. This is nirvana for them!”~ – Randi Rhodes [39awcyh]
So, supposedly “nirvana” for a conservative, is a divided society where some benefit and most do not. This is based on the liberal principle of conservatives having evil motives. But what is revealing is Rhodes projection about utopia. Liberals have been attempting to incrementally implement their utopia for over forty years and are no closer now than when they started. Do they deal with their failure as grownups and own up to their failure? No, they project their failure as an evil dystopia that the other side is purposefully implementing. Another classic case of projection and paranoid delusion.
We have previously discussed and illustrated the base liberal principle: Contemporary liberalism requires a strict adherence to playing stupid. But please allow me to be blunt about this: Liberals easily and casually lie to themselves, American neighbor. It is entirely normal self-talk. They accept lying to themselves as all-day, everyday behavior. Compulsive paranoid delusion leads liberals to lie to themselves to stay within the herd, and so they can feel good about themselves and still sleep at night without a nagging conscience keeping them awake. Projection deals with the consequences of lying to oneself. Projection conveniently whisks away all of the self-blame and self-loathing generated by those self-lies onto those who refuse to play stupid with them – conservatives, or society as a whole if necessary.ax
• Principle – societal conditioning
Our eighteenth and final principle of liberalism is: Contemporary liberalism is a type of societal conditioning. Although this was established in the first few sections of #1 Deprogramming Liberalism with Nuclear Counterarguments, I didn’t want to codify it as a principle until I had thoroughly presented every aspect of its case. In fact, it is the single source principle. That is now obvious to you, is it not, American neighbor? Liberalism is a type of societal conditioning that leads the afflicted to seek societal perfection through demanding and expecting an eventual liberal utopia. However, this impulse for societal perfection is unlike the individual perfectionist who mostly seeks ideal results in himself, and so mostly takes failure out on himself. The liberal societal perfectionist solely seeks ideal results from others’ actions, and this false hope dooms him to continual disappointment. They see almost everything as obstacles preventing utopia, and are willing to give up the liberty of directing their own lives to achieve it. However, by sacrificing their own and everyone else’s liberties, they are not creating utopia, but dystopia.
This makes them paranoid that utopia may never be reached, so they see everything and everyone that they perceive to be impeding utopia as evil, and/or motivated by evil – scapegoats hindering utopia (see essay #2). This false hope for a heaven on earth develops into a judgmentalism that sees everything in black and white – for and against utopia. Those similarly afflicted and in favor of a liberal utopia are seen as possessing noble motives, and of course, those viewed as impeding or opposing a liberal utopia must have evil motives. So, there are two kinds of Americans in the liberal mind – heroes and villains. The heroes strive for utopia. The villains attempt to thwart utopia.ay
• Back to the Paranoid Style in American Politics
I would now like to return to the essay written in 1964 by historian Richard Hofstadter, called The Paranoid Style in American Politics (first examined in essay #2). [6d4qrn]
~In using the expression “paranoid style” I am not speaking in a clinical sense, but borrowing a clinical term for other purposes. I have neither the competence nor the desire to classify any figures of the past or present as certifiable lunatics. In fact, the idea of the paranoid style as a force in politics would have little contemporary relevance or historical value if it were applied only to men with profoundly disturbed minds. It is the use of paranoid modes of expression by more or less normal people that makes the phenomenon significant.~
As I explained in essay #1, liberalism is not a result of being dumb or crazy. Neither is the paranoia that drives liberalism. Liberalism is a result of societal conditioning. Hofstadter also observed an evolution of the paranoid style from his exposés of earlier societal paranoid movements:
~The spokesmen of those earlier movements felt that they stood for causes and personal types that were still in possession of their country—that they were fending off threats to a still established way of life. But the modern right wing, as Daniel Bell has put it, feels dispossessed: America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion.~
The societal paranoids of old were secure in their present way of life, but felt threatened that it could be taken from them in the near future. They also felt secure for the current rule of their society, only that it may be under threat. Their paranoia was a fear of the future. This evolved into the supposed “right wing” societal paranoids of the sixties feeling that their way of life had already been taken from them, and it was their job to get it back. They supposedly feared a top-down conspiracy had taken over. Their supposed fear was that the present opportunity to reclaim the past could be lost. Liberalism is another step in the evolution of the paranoid style where both the past and the present are already viewed as losses and failures, and only the future can hold the hope of a fair, safe and satisfactory society. As elite visionaries they claim societal rule for themselves, but see subversive entities attempting to take it from them. The paranoia for the liberal is a fear of perceived elements in present day society that are actively subverting their carefully laid plans for growth into the fulfillment of a future utopia. This paranoia for the future then allows liberals to see any convenient thing today as an evil enemy attempting to thwart utopia. So corporations and industries can be evil. Whole races can be evil. Political movements, ideologies, SUVs, coal and oil, school choice, pro-life, morals, religions, free trade, and even light bulbs for gawd’s sake, can be evil. Guns, fast food, meat, talk radio, Wall Street, free markets and patriotism can all be evil. Even holidays like Christmas can be seen as evil. The ideas of exceptionalism, self-reliance, tax cuts, less regulations, less government spending and a smaller government are all seen as evil. And worst of all, liberty itself is often viewed by liberals as evil. Anything that may be perceived as a threat to reaching utopia is evil. Incidentally, this is a direct parallel to how the fascist thinks as well. There is also another element of the evolution of the paranoid style that Hofstadter had not witnessed at the time of his writing:
~One of the impressive things about paranoid literature is the contrast between its fantasized conclusions and the almost touching concern with factuality it invariably shows.~
Perhaps devolution is the better description here. Liberalism is hardly known for its “concern with factuality”. As has been and will be illustrated throughout the Nuclear Counterarguments essay Series, facts are almost always a rival of liberal thinking which necessitates a blind faith in reaching utopia, and naturally leads to many unintended consequences:
~This demand for total triumph leads to the formulation of hopelessly unrealistic goals, and since these goals are not even remotely attainable, failure constantly heightens the paranoid’s sense of frustration. Even partial success leaves him with the same feeling of powerlessness with which he began, and this in turn only strengthens his awareness of the vast and terrifying quality of the enemy he opposes. […] It is hard to resist the conclusion that this enemy is on many counts the projection of the self; both the ideal and the unacceptable aspects of the self are attributed to him.~
As mentioned above, liberalism deals with its many failures through self-projection: “When shame and/or guilt develops, projection whisks the subsequent self-blame and self-loathing safely away so that liberals can still sleep soundly at night without nagging doubts tugging at their conscience – a defense against cognitive dissonance.” Projection is related to the scoff reflex:
~A distinguished historian has said that one of the most valuable things about history is that it teaches us how things do not happen. It is precisely this kind of awareness that the paranoid fails to develop. He has a special resistance of his own, of course, to developing such awareness, but circumstances often deprive him of exposure to events that might enlighten him—and in any case he resists enlightenment.~
Hopefully that last sentence no longer describes you, American neighbor. Having read this far into the Nuclear Counterarguments Essay Series I am confident that is no longer the case.
Here is the bottom line: Liberalism is entirely based on paranoia – a fear of evil everywhere. It is not so much an emotional fear, as it is a cognitive paranoia – an ingrained process of thinking that leads liberals to finding evil monsters hiding beneath every rock. This is the default thinking of liberal ideology. It drives liberals to seek solutions to quell their unrelenting fears and bring about a safe utopia where everyone is protected from the perceived evil that desires to destroy them. Progressive-fascism is not a reasonable way to live a life or run a country, American neighbor.az
• Deprogramming lessons
Remember our MCTE question from earlier: “Is it normal for person to think he believes one thing, but constantly act as though he believes another without ever realizing it?” As we have witnessed in this essay the answer is yes, for liberals this is entirely normal. Liberals think that they are the reasonable ones, but then constantly act on the eccentric belief of evil monsters hiding beneath every rock.
The above observations of liberal thought patterns have been compiled and examined based on the foundation that liberalism is an external conditioning of the mind: Contemporary liberalism is a type of societal conditioning. The resultant liberal projection is expressed in two principles of liberalism as: Compulsive paranoia is the foundation of contemporary liberalism. Contemporary liberalism requires a strict adherence to playing stupid. Rationalization is then necessary to build the house of cards: For contemporary liberals superficial rationalization is always the first and final element in their ideological line of thought. For the liberal mind, projection then provides a defense for the facade and any resultant guilt and/or shame is dealt with through this principle: Contemporary liberals project what they subconsciously loathe about themselves as demagoguery toward their opponents and society as a whole. Liberals loath their self-told lies and the failures of their liberalism and deal with them by projecting their reaction to their disappointment onto their adversaries and society.
Projection causes liberals to see evil monsters everywhere. In effect, the Nuclear Counterarguments Essay Series is a mirror monster – an imagined monster body with a mirror for a head. When a liberal views the essay series as an evil monster what they are really seeing is their own face staring back at them.ba
• Eighteen principles
We have now discovered all eighteen principles that govern contemporary liberalism. Here is the subliminally controlled life of a liberal, American neighbor:
1) Source: Contemporary liberalism is a type of societal conditioning.
2) Cause: Compulsive paranoia is the foundation of contemporary liberalism.
3) Symptom: Contemporary liberalism requires a strict adherence to playing stupid.
4) Symptom: Without irrational double standards contemporary liberalism cannot exist.
5) Symptom: A contemporary liberal’s honorable motives and noble fight against contemporary conservatism excuses all liberal failures and indiscretions.
6) Symptom: A contemporary conservative’s evil motives justify their destruction by any means necessary.
7) Symptom: Contemporary liberals project what they subconsciously loathe about themselves as demagoguery toward their opponents and society as a whole.
8) Symptom: For the contemporary liberal groupthinker, sophistry and demagoguery are the weapons of choice against critical thinking.
9) Symptom: For contemporary liberals superficial rationalization is always the first and final element in their ideological line of thought.
10) Symptom: The essence of contemporary liberalism is that the individual is blameless and society is always guilty.
11) Symptom: Contemporary liberalism views society as generally incompetent and in need of the guiding hand of a controlling government.
12) Symptom: For its own good a resistant society must have utopian ideals forced upon it.
13) Symptom: Contemporary liberals embrace the strategy of the noble lie.
14) Symptom: Contemporary liberals employ chaos as a political strategy to destabilize society so that liberal solutions can appear more palatable.
15) Symptom: Contemporary liberalism relies on a programmed, instinct-like scoff reflex to preserve itself from the consequences of critical thinking.
16) Result: Self-interest and critical thinking are enemies of contemporary liberal groupthink.
17) Result: Contemporary liberalism is rife with unintended consequences.
18) Result: Contemporary liberalism is absurd.
This is a big step, American neighbor, coming face to face with that which hampers your life. Now that you know that liberalism is a set of governing rules that have been conditioned into you we can begin to explore what it has done to you, and remove it one step at a time. Good work in grinding it out until now, American neighbor. Next we’ll look at the ideology of liberalism and compare it to other ideologies.bb
• Deprogramming exercise
Most liberal principles are expressed in the attitude of liberals, while one defines the source, another is a cause, and a few are realized as the results of liberalism. You can now consciously examine your own behavior and identify these principles as they exhibit themselves in your life, American neighbor. This essay has actually been all about liberal attitude. Awakening to the reality of this attitude is the most important ingredient to overcoming it. I suggest that you consciously reject each principle working in your life when it becomes apparent to you, and adjust your behavior accordingly. Your subliminal belief system need not run your life – the spider is not scary. It is your choice, just like your decision to prefer to have the freedom to direct your own life, American neighbor. In fact, each time you reject a liberal principle in your life you are taking claim on directing your own life. Ponder these things at bedtime tonight.
Here is a less wordy synopsis about the liberal thought process that may help solidify your understanding: [*c7h83fj]bc
• Humor, sort-of
RING. . .
RING. . .
Welcome to the Psychiatric Hotline.
If you are obsessive-compulsive, please press 1 repeatedly.
If you are co-dependent, please ask someone to press 2.
If you have multiple personalities, please press 3, 4, 5, and 6.
If you are a paranoid-delusional liberal, we know who you are and what you want. Just stay on the line so we can trace the call. [45nx6mo]