Leftist Conundrums

Without mind bending drugs, leftist logic is a little unclear. I guess that’s why universities these days dedicate so much course work to it and Hollywood makes so many movies showing us how leftism really is a good thing (achievable with special effects).

In realville, where practical application of any thesis is required, there isn’t much apparent logic in leftism at all. Rather, a plethora of conflicting thoughts and feelings trample one another for dominance. The two forces that keep the various leftist special interests from implosion and mutual self destruction are their ignorance of their ignorance and their hatred for those who aren’t.

Even while the left pushes for ever more encompassing redefinition of child abuse, and for ever harsher penalties against it, they double down on the crusade to kill babies. Somehow, children are innocent, but babies aren’t considered children unless they pass some kind of gruesome leftist test, and the left murders babies en masse.

So, why is it just fine to tear a 8 month old baby, limb from limb with tongs and scissors, from the womb and distribute it’s body parts to the highest bidder, but it is simultaneously unfathomable cruelty to leave a hand print on the backside of a recalcitrant 8 year old?

The death penalty is frowned upon no matter how heinous the crime but the death panel is revered. It is wrong to execute Charles Manson, but when Grandpa goes to hospital with dementia we can kill him.

Old people cost too much in state subsidized medical care. They, and children in the womb, aren’t innocent. They’re inconvenient. And you can kill them.

Strangely, children who survive the Planned Parenthood chop shop are instantly declared innocent and no amount of misbehavior is considered intolerable. They belong to the state. Also, they are now eligible for adoption by homosexuals, who for some reason desperately need them.

Leftists think homosexuality is beautiful and homosexuals are wonderful. Homosexual love is considered beautiful, but a description of the act is seldom presented. Too much beauty, apparently.

In keeping with the liberal love of homosexuality, it is appropriately intolerable to say, do or even hint at anything that shines any negative light on homosexuals. Upon great pain does one dis homosexuals, the one exception, of course, being muslims.

Muslims hate homosexuals and treat them very badly, with impunity. In fact, they treat pretty much everyone very badly, but especially homosexuals. Perhaps it is the quaint Muslim propensity towards murder that gets them off the hook. Our leftists merely consider the source and nervously chuckle it away. “Oh, those wascally Muslims”, they laugh.

Christians, on the other hand, love everybody, even homosexuals and progressives, because that is their creed. But they don’t approve of homosexual behavior or, for that matter, liberal behavior, and have often been known to say, “Tsk.”. Saying tsk is apparently far worse than throwing a bound homosexual off a roof. So I guess it makes perfect sense that the Left respects the muslim creed to kill homosexuals on sight, but they descend into unbridled rage when an Oregonian won’t to bake a cake.

And the left gets off on all kinds of inconsequential tangents that are often contradictory. At least, on the surface.

For example, cigarettes are known to the state of California to have bad juju, and liberals go pretty hard on smokers, of tobacco. But replace the tobacco with marijuana and, voila, instant good juju. Worse carcinogens, perhaps, but who cares? THC mitigates the damage.

Now, of course, there’s this nasty vomiting condition that is said to be popping up among marijuana addicts in Colorado. It is kept at bay only by spending a lot of time in very hot water. I suppose these puking potheads will be cleaner than your average tobacco user, if perhaps less fun to sit with in a pub.

And the libs like to champion the right to choose. Especially for women. They say, “Women have the right to choose!!!”. But the right to choose is peppered with mine fields and is sometimes hard to follow.

A woman has the right to choose an abortion, but not an incandescent light bulb or a 32 oz soda. A 12 year girl old can’t choose peanut butter sandwiches for lunch at school but she can choose the morning after pill, after a grueling lunch of kale and sex with her teacher using a failed school-issued condom.

Nowadays, our frustrated libs say that all sex is rape, but they want free birth control so that when they “hook up” with their next rapist they’re covered. And they can do so as often as they wish. So, is sex fun? Or is sex rape? Or, is rape fun? Or what?

The confusion is epitomized by the Clinton saga. As the libbers got more mature, and became scowling feminists, they chose Hillary as their champion. Hillary promptly got down to the business of promoting women’s rights by doing everything she could to destroy a bunch of women who claimed her husband raped them (not fun, apparently). Now she wants to be our leader, but I’m no longer clear on whether the left really likes her or is just keeping her around so that the rape-accused husband remains current? They like him.

Environmentalists, yet another species of leftists, complain that there is too much mercury in the sea. It is tainting our fish, they say, and thereby killing us when we eat them. But now they demand we use mercury laden light bulbs to save the planet from too much carbon, which is the base element for life on earth and therefore, apparently, far more dangerous than mercury. But they compassionately let us know the steps to take in order to survive the mercury vapor, should the light bulb break: hold your breath and evacuate the room for several hours. Then call in a HazMat squad.

Environmentalists want to increase global coverage of rain forests. Otherwise, they say, the planet is doomed. But they want to drastically reduce atmospheric CO2, which is what the rain forest feeds on, because hot weather will kill us even faster.

And that hot weather really gets under their skins. In the 1970’s the left managed to save the planet from global cooling. They, and their silent partner, the Sun, saved us from an ice age. The left spent much of our money and took some of our rights. The sun put out a little more heat. But in fixing global cooling, over enthusiastic, Sol-ignorant progressives seem to believe they have caused global warming. No wonder they’re so sensitive about it.

To fix it they started subsidizing big corporations like G.E. and ethanol producers, and flew all around the globe on fossil fuel talking about how bad fossil fuel is and how bad big corporations are.

But now something has gone horribly wrong because, in their conflicted minds, we are suddenly experiencing climate change, which is global warming and global cooling at exactly the same time! Only by frantically pouring billions more taxpayer dollars into G.E. and companies like Solyndra, and diverting ever more corn away from tacos and into your gas tank, can we even have a hope of staving off...bad weather.

Lack of tacos may be thinning the hispanic world, which is in line with the left’s new crusade against obesity, another confusing endeavor. Libs wage war on obesity, yet rail against any offense to fat people, now called “fat shaming”, and demand they be accommodated at great expense. On the one hand, they ban sugary drinks and force kids to toss their awful tasting free lunches into trash bins, to keep them skinny. But then the libs subsidize obesity on a massive scale via food stamps. Ever see a skinny subsidized shopper in Walmart? Even while waging bureaucratic war against it, we are told that fat is the new normal. If the first lady was really serious about fighting obesity one might think she’d have BO use his pen and phone to decree that the only things you could buy with food stamps be Kale and Tofu.

Immigration and the economy are birds of a feather, inseparable, to the left, which promotes illegal immigration and thus kills jobs for leftist minorities and union people, who are actual citizens. And good leftists citizens in sanctuary cities are being murdered.

Really, it makes sense to have roughly one out of every three-and-a-half American citizens out of the work force because, otherwise, how would we be able to employ all of those maids and gardeners from Honduras? We’re saving the world’s poor, here, and it isn’t easy! In fact, we have to throw all kinds of benefits into the package just to get them to come. “Wanted: Millions of destitute leftist laborers. Will accept murderers, rapists, thieves, gang bangers and professional drunk drivers without question. Pay is good, benefits unbelievable. Keep your own language. Voting rights automatic. Weapons fast and furiously guaranteed. Jihadis welcome, but must pay own way.”

And, while they love playing the card, race confuses the heck out of liberals. For example, one alleged white rapist is given a full pass and wild acceptance because he was the first black president, and his wife is a crusty old libber who wants to be president. But another alleged rapist, a comedic black guy who allegedly used drugs instead of raw power to seduce his victims, is pilloried because he said some unmarxist things that reveal he is not black enough. They call him an Oreo. This really confused a white lady who got a job at the NAACP and insisted she’s black. But then a genuine black lady in the “hood”, the apple of the leftist’s eye, turns around and publicly slaps her son and drags him home to keep him from getting killed in a riot. Motherly love makes women do really dumb things. The left raged at her because they really, really need those young rioters to kick start all that hope and change. Black lives matter to leftists and that poor, confused woman almost became a dreaded Oreo over that one! They didn’t let that baby survive Planned Parenthood just to grow up. No more Dr. Carsons, if you please!

The long and the short of it, I guess, is that so long as there are masses of ignorant people, with short memories, absent the will or desire to think for or take care of themselves, leftist behavior can be made to seem logical and will continue to fester. And that’s the whole basis of the creed.

The uni-bomber was correct about the leftists.
his “manifesto” is a must read.
The man is super brilliant genius level tested and was a professor, even a broken clock is right 2x daily. here is an excerpt:

Art forms that appeal to modern leftish intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.

Modern leftists tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftist philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.

The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.

Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait.

Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the over socialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.

If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.

We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.

The people who rise to positions of power in leftist movements tend to be leftists of the most power- hungry type, because power-hungry people are those who strive hardest to get into positions of power. Once the power-hungry types have captured control of the movement, there are many leftists of a gentler breed who inwardly disapprove of many of the actions of the leaders, but cannot bring themselves to oppose them. They NEED their faith in the movement, and because they cannot give up this faith they go along with the leaders. True, SOME leftists do have the guts to oppose the totalitarian tendencies that emerge, but they generally lose, because the power-hungry types are better organized, are more ruthless and Machiavellian and have taken care to build themselves a strong power base.

These phenomena appeared clearly in Russia and other countries that were taken over by leftists. Similarly, before the breakdown of communism in the USSR, leftish types in the West would seldom criticize that country. If prodded they would admit that the USSR did many wrong things, but then they would try to find excuses for the communists and begin talking about the faults of the West. They always opposed Western military resistance to communist aggression. Leftish types all over the world vigorously protested the U.S. military action in Vietnam, but when the USSR invaded Afghanistan they did nothing. Not that they approved of the Soviet actions; but because of their leftist faith, they just couldn’t bear to put themselves in opposition to communism. Today, in those of our universities where “political correctness” has become dominant, there are probably many leftish types who privately disapprove of the suppression of academic freedom, but they go along with it anyway.

Thus the fact that many individual leftists are personally mild and fairly tolerant people by no means prevents leftism as a whole form having a totalitarian tendency.

Today leftism is fragmented into a whole spectrum of activist movements. Yet not all activist movements are leftist, and some activist movements (e.g., radical environmentalism) seem to include both personalities of the leftist type and personalities of thoroughly un-leftist types who ought to know better than to collaborate with leftists. Varieties of leftists fade out gradually into varieties of non-leftists and we ourselves would often be hard-pressed to decide whether a given individual is or is not a leftist. To the extent that it is defined at all, our conception of leftism is defined by the discussion of it that we have given in this article, and we can only advise the reader to use his own judgment in deciding who is a leftist.

But it will be helpful to list some criteria for diagnosing leftism. These criteria cannot be applied in a cut and dried manner. Some individuals may meet some of the criteria without being leftists, some leftists may not meet any of the criteria. Again, you just have to use your judgment.

The leftist is oriented toward large-scale collectivism. He emphasizes the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. He has a negative attitude toward individualism. He often takes a moralistic tone. He tends to be for gun control, for sex education and other psychologically “enlightened” educational methods, for social planning, for affirmative action, for multiculturalism. He tends to identify with victims. He tends to be against competition and against violence, but he often finds excuses for those leftists who do commit violence. He is fond of using the common catch- phrases of the left, like “racism,” “sexism,” “homophobia,” “capitalism,” “imperialism,” “neocolonialism,” “genocide,” “social change,” “social justice,” “social responsibility.” Maybe the best diagnostic trait of the leftist is his tendency to sympathize with the following movements: feminism, gay rights, ethnic rights, disability rights, animal rights, political correctness. Anyone who strongly sympathizes with ALL of these movements is almost certainly a leftist. [36]

The more dangerous leftists, that is, those who are most power-hungry, are often characterized by arrogance or by a dogmatic approach to ideology. However, the most dangerous leftists of all may be certain oversocialized types who avoid irritating displays of aggressiveness and refrain from advertising their leftism, but work quietly and unobtrusively to promote collectivist values, “enlightened” psychological techniques for socializing children, dependence of the individual on the system, and so forth. These crypto- leftists (as we may call them) approximate certain bourgeois types as far as practical action is concerned, but differ from them in psychology, ideology and motivation. The ordinary bourgeois tries to bring people under control of the system in order to protect his way of life, or he does so simply because his attitudes are conventional. The crypto-leftist tries to bring people under control of the system because he is a True Believer in a collectivistic ideology. The crypto-leftist is differentiated from the average leftist of the oversocialized type by the fact that his rebellious impulse is weaker and he is more securely socialized. He is differentiated from the ordinary well-socialized bourgeois by the fact that there is some deep lack within him that makes it necessary for him to devote himself to a cause and immerse himself in a collectivity. And maybe his (well-sublimated) drive for power is stronger than that of the average bourgeois.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.