Sunday, February 25, 2007


Leftists have long accused conservatives of psychopathology but Leftists are heavily projective so, if you want to see what is true of them, see what they say about conservatives

For most of my adult life I have entertained the fantasy that one day I would hear liberals and Democrats, in large numbers, saying, "You know, you were right. The only way to climb the economic ladder in America is through education, hard work, and determination. I thought that, if we could just take some of the money that the rich and the middle class have and give it to the poor, everyone would be happy.

"I thought that, because of more than two centuries of horrific abuse of African Americans - by Democrats and our KKK allies - we could buy the forgiveness and the allegiance of black people by creating a new welfare plantation for them. I was wrong and conservatives were right. Black people are just as capable of prospering in a free society as everyone else.

"I thought that there were no truly evil people in the world. I thought that people of every culture and every political ideology were basically good, and that if we could just sit down with them and talk out our differences, there would never be any reason for war. But now I know.the only road to peace is through strength.invincible military strength in the hands of free nations."

It has always been my fantasy that one day I would hear liberals and Democrats say these things, and much more. It has always been one of my principal reasons for of the things that has gotten me out of bed every morning for the past fifty years. But now, after reading The Pathology of Liberalism, the breathtaking expose of the liberal psyche by New York-based journalist (and psychotherapist), Joan Swirsky, I know that my dream has always been an impossible dream.

It is an impossible dream because, while liberalism is, in fact, a mental illness, it is not a disease that can be treated with psychoanalysis and psychotherapy. It can only be treated biologically. As Swirsky tells us, "conditions such as autism, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, narcissism, and Tourette's syndrome, while long thought to be psychological in nature, are now known to be "biological" - thanks to PET scans, MRIs, and other diagnostic advances." As Swirsky notes, "The scans.have revealed the specific areas of the brain that give rise to anger, revenge, anxiety, addiction, eating disorders, stuttering, pathological lying, cheating, manipulation, obsessive-compulsive behavior, depressive disorders, even craving for chocolate!"

Soon, it is hoped, we'll be able to add liberalism to that impressive list of behavioral disorders. And since medical science has developed exciting new preparations for treating many of these disorders (e.g. Ritalin for attention deficit disorder, Haldol for psychoses, lithium for bipolar disorder, Wellbutrin for chronic depression, Xanax for anxiety), it may not be long before liberalism can be treated by ingesting a small tablet or capsule each morning before breakfast.

So what are the behavioral characteristics that lead Joan Swirsky to conclude as she has? First, it is a suspicion that the core of liberal `thinking' is the same sort of pathology that characterizes other mental disorders, i.e. a "glitch in the brain that produces `feelings' and behavior over which liberals have no control. Liberals are uniformly glum, not only in their grim demeanors and persistent anger, but also in their outlooks.And when their theories are refuted by hard facts they are unable to process the true from the untrue because their `feelings' always trump their reason."

Secondly, Swirski points out that liberals, in almost every instance, react like children, for whom the most cherished value in life is to be "liked" by their peers. As children see things, "to be not to engage in conflict, not to fight, not to judge. After all, if you fight with anyone, including Islamic terrorists, they won't like you. And if you judge them as savages, murderers, enemies of democracy, they will fight you. So don't judge them and they won't fight you." Does that sound familiar? It is pure Democrat Party orthodoxy.

Swirsky provides us with a simple litmus test. She says, "the next time you're watching or listening to a liberal, observe the symptoms. Note the anger, the pessimism, the negativity, the name-calling, the bursts of rage, the gratuitous insults, the desire to present an image of `goodness,' the transparent attempt to be liked, the willingness to change an opinion if the old one isn't polling well, and the eagerness to placate our enemies."

Now that Democrats have taken control of the Congress, it all boils down to whether or not Pfizer can come up with a pill to cure liberalism before Democrats succeed in bankrupting them and putting them out of business. As for me, I'm putting my money on Pfizer.




The heading above is the title of a recently-released book that I have just been reading -- a title that rather obviously mocks Leftist talk about revolutions but which is pretty accurate nonetheless. One of the authors is an economist so he brings to the subject the sort of cool rationality that is sadly missing from the standard Leftist boilerplate about Wal-Mart. The book gives you in detail all the facts you need to dismiss every single one of the Leftist criticisms. I liked the following paragraphs:

"We reject the idea that Wal-Mart destroys communities and adds to urban sprawl. Downtowns were declining long before Wal-Mart became an important retailmg force, and the big-box retail revolution is but one additional factor in thc demise of retailing in central business districts where parking is typicaLl relatively scarce. While it is true that some stores go out of business when Wal-Mart enters a community, the opening and closing of stores in response to changing tastes and technology has been part of the retail landscape literally for centuries. Wal-Mart does not force stores out of business. Customers do, by voting with their feet and going to Wal-Mart with its lower prices and greater choices than the local alternatives. People prefer Wal-Mart and, in exercising their preferences, they are enhancing their own welfare, and thus that of the communities the stores serve.

Wal-Mart serves customers at all income levels and walks of life, as do Target, Home Depot, Best Buy and other big-box stores. They appeal to consumers at all income levels -- but Wal-Mart disproportionately serves the poor. Wal-Mart stores are more often located in areas with below-average incomes, and surveys show that a larger proportion of lower-income people shop at Wal-Mart than people from affluent families. So the store's consumer welfare benefits particularly aid the poor -- and consequently, attempts to keep it out of communities hurt the poor far more than the rich....

Wal-Mart has not been particularly adroit in handling criticism. It has mounted a campaign to appease organized labor and environmental groups, tinkering with health care plans and entering the organic fish business, among other things. It strikes us that it may be abandoning its principles of everyday low prices to pander to its opponents, many of whom probably do not represent mainstream American thinking. We wonder whether Wal-Mart is trying to "appease the unappeasable".

I think the authors have hit on the crux of the matter in their phrase "appease the unappeasable". Leftist opposition to Wal-Mart is based on hatred of other people's success and all the PR efforts of Wal-Mart and all the detailed information in the book about it will not quench that hate. Wal-Mart's sin is the same sin that Leftists see in America as a whole and in Israel: Success.

There is more about the book here. Amazon have a discount deal on it.


There is a site called Zionism On The Web which is devoted to counteracting antisemitic sites such as JewWatch by pushing them down the rankings in Google searches for "Zionism" etc. Anybody reading this who has a web site might like to do as I have just done and link to Zionism On The Web . Every link helps.



"All the worth which the human being possesses, all spiritual reality, he possesses only through the State." -- 19th century German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hegel is the most influential philosopher of the Left -- inspiring Karl Marx, the American "Progressives" of the early 20th century and university socialists to this day.

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialistisch) and the full name of Hitler's political party (translated) was "The National Socialist German Workers' Party".

The kneejerk response of the Green/Left to people who challenge them is to say that the challenger is in the pay of "Big Oil", "Big Business", "Big Pharma", "Exxon-Mobil", "The Pioneer Fund" or some other entity that they see, in their childish way, as a boogeyman. So I think it might be useful for me to point out that I have NEVER received one cent from anybody by way of support for what I write. As a retired person, I live entirely on my own investments. I do not work for anybody and I am not beholden to anybody.

Comments? Email me here (Hotmail address). If there are no recent posts here blame and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Pages are here or here or here.


No comments: