[sbw123]

This is long but well worth the read.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[Noumenon]

The appeal of Leftism to the average person is simple: The Leftist offers something for nothing.

There ya go...

[second_semi_annual_toast_throw]

thanks. i'm new to FR as of today, though have been lurking for some time. great article. i'm going to read this in sections, to digest it all!

[darkwing104]

read later

[w_over_w]

[45Auto]

Leftists simply reject what does not suit them — regardless of the enormous evidence that shows how wrong and dangerously stupid they are.

[StriperSniper]

Bump for later.

[Clint N. Suhks]

The Psychology Underlying "Liberalism"

Interesting timing in contrast to this article.

UC BERKELEY STUDY - Researchers help define what makes a political conservative

[45Auto]

Modern liberals in the US are mostly just "the useful idiots"; what lies behind the mask, however, is a central cadre of dedicated Neo-Marxists. Here is the opening from an interesting book that puts the lie to the "peaceful" nature of these so-called "peace-loving liberals":

"The problems connected with the creation of the armed forces of the revolution are of immense importance for the Communist Parties of all countries. Disregard of these problems, or, even worse, a negative attitude towards them, hidden behind humanitarian pacifist phraseology, is really criminal.

Arguments to the effect that all violence, including revolutionary violence, is evil and that Communists therefore ought not to engage in ‘glorification’ of armed struggle and the revolutionary army, amount to a philosophy worthy of Quakers, Dukhobors [A Russian Christian sect who refused to perform military service. To escape persecution many emigrated to Canada at the end of the nineteenth century] and the old maids of the Salvation Army.

Permitting such propaganda in a Communist Party is like permitting Tolstoyan propaganda in the garrison of a besieged fortress. He who desires the end must desire the means. The means for emancipating the working people is revolutionary violence. From the moment of the conquest of power, revolutionary violence takes the form of an organized army. The heroism of the young worker who dies on the first barricade of the revolution when this is beginning differs in no way from the heroism of the Red soldier who dies on one of the fronts of the revolution after state power has been taken.

Only sentimental fools can suppose that the proletariat of the capitalist countries is in danger of exaggerating the role of revolutionary violence and showing excessive admiration for the methods of revolutionary terrorism. On the contrary, what the proletariat lacks is, precisely, under-standing of the liberatory role of revolutionary violence. That is the very reason why the proletariat still remains in slavery. Pacifist propaganda among the workers leads only to weakening the will of the proletariat, and helps counter-revolutionary violence, armed to the teeth, to continue."

-Leon Trotsky, 1918.

[MEG33]

i do not like his agnosticism but realize he is right about the dangers in religious tyranny.I found it an interesting read.

[.577 Tyrannosaur]

Good article, thanks for posting it.
In any event, liberalism truly is a chronic mental/emotional illness.

[RightWhale]

Read soon bump

[EdReform]

Bump & Ping - read later...

[kAcknor]

Soon to finish reading later BBBT

[Sam Cree]

bump

[alnitak]

self ping to read later....

[KarlInOhio]

Mark for future reading

[x]

Yesterday, we had an article about left-wing left coast psychologists presuming to "explain" or explain away conservatism, and today this. Surely we can all imagine circumstances in which we would all be liberal or conservative or radical. An unchanging society frozen in caste might well benefit from a certain degree of liberalism or radicalism to prevent its cultural arteries from hardening. A society that has a dynamic base and undergoes frequent or massive change, such as our own would benefit from a policy weighted towards conservatism.

Of course it sometimes does look like all of today's leftist are crazy, but etiquette and common sense demand that argument be focused on objective realities and the alternative courses of action available, rather than on the personalities or the psychological make-up of those one disagrees with. If you always have that psychological explanation ready at hand to dismiss arguments from the other side, you'll miss the rare occasions when they may just be right. The more one relies on psychological characterizations of one's opponents to "win" arguments, the more one loses touch with the facts and realities of the present situation.

If you can convince someone that you have the facts and a better grasp of realities and possibilities you can win them -- if not opponents then unprejudiced third parties -- over to your side. If you just talk about why they think as they do, there's little point in arguing. Too many arguments degenerate into a "Conservatives are from Mars, liberal are from Venus," "Just like a liberal," "Spoken like a true conservative" stalemate that achieves nothing.

[RightWhale]

The first paragraph seemed like a good start. Read a couple paragraphs beyond and might read it all later, but it seems to be off the mark so far. Way off.

[spodefly]

BTTT