Skip to comments.Liberal UnReality
Posted on 02/07/2002 9:10:37 AM PST by f.Christian
In Answer to Liberal Reality
Part 4: Extremism & Primitive Mentality
by Robert L. Kocher
Many leftists want to convert America, and indeed the world, into a universal 60s hippie commune with a much too unrealistically bland, much too unrealistically permissive, atmosphere; where much-too-soft eternal children can evade real responsibility while playing at life and busying themselves by pretending to be each other's clinical social workers. The clinical therapeutic milieu is built upon the conception that none should endure temporary realistic adult discomfort for the sake of long term gain. None should undertake adult responsibilities and maturity. None should pay the consequences for their excesses or indifference. None should do anything but what is comfortable and what pleases them. None should even hear anything unless it makes them comfortable and pleases them or it's a hate crime. None should do much beyond pursuing their personal hobbies. A predominant hobby, for, lack of anything of substance, has become fabrication of personal problems which people employ to intrigue each other, which become the basis of their empty relationships, and which simultaneously confer dishonest escape from accountability through attaining the status of claiming to be mental outpatients. In truth, many American people have become so soft from being allowed to perpetuate their own dishonesty that they are for practical purposes mental outpatients who can now do naught but huddle together in a giant commune like sick sheep huddling against the harsh weather of need for responsibility and facing a serious real world.
Too many Americans are leading fraudulent synthetic lives, whether at universities, as entertainment figures, as pampered leftist intellectuals, as government workers, or whatever, wherever they can get away with it. And there are now plenty of places where they can get away with it. They have developed their own fraudulent synthetic social causes and political movements. They have developed fraudulent synthetic conceptions of economics. They have developed their own fraudulent synthetic conception of reality. They have developed their own fraudulent synthetic educational system to support and proselytize/perpetuate it. It is the system liberalism is designed to perpetuate.
What exists in liberalism is a system of obvious dishonesty which should collapse of its own weight, but which is instead protected by a pathological form of psychiatrically termed "frame of reference" rooted in circularity of denial-reasoning. The system is maintained for various reasons: intellectual fashion, conformity to social pressures, because VARIOUS PEOPLE JUST PLAIN WANT IT as it enables freeloading or childishness or irresponsibility or self-protective sublimation of dissatisfaction due to bankrupt personal lives that they would like to attribute to political problems rather than personal deficiency, or because of ideological commitment bounded upon combinations of the previously mentioned.
Whether it's rational or not, whether it enslaves or destroys other people or not, makes no difference. THEY JUST PLAIN WANT IT, they want to bind me into involuntary servitude to it, and to themselves, and like the physicians of hundreds of years ago who devised warped and unfounded theories of medicine resulting in lethal consequences, they will argue like hell for it in the same way.
Those are a few of my objections to liberals and liberalism. Looking strange has little to do with it. Tyranny, fraud, parasitism, intellectual sloven laziness, involuntary servitude, self-centeredness, servitude to the self-centeredness of others, immaturity, arrogance, irresponsibility, resentfulness and hatred, stupidity, manipulativeness, indolence, demogogery are a few more appropriate terms that come to mind. These are terms that were once accurately applied, but have unfortunately fallen out of usagealong with the necessary truths that their usage conveyed.
Regarding your subject of extremism:
There are three definitions of extremism that occur to me. One definition might be defined as large deviation from an absolutely known body of knowledge. The second definition would be defining extremism as major deviation from statistically prevalent values or behavior held by society.
I find liberals extremists in the sense of rejecting the basic evaluative structure of knowledge when it suits them. This is particularly true of the counterculturalist deconstructionalist wing of the life-style and political left who are demanding dismissal of rationality and logic as arbitrary values of European civilization devised to keep people in slavery.
I find the statistical definition employed by liberals to be erroneously self-centered. In other words, they assume themselves to be the extent and center of existence, and looking at everything exclusively relative to themselves: anyone who deviates from their view is a statistical extremist. (from a statstical reference sample where N=1, meaning N, the only view that counts, is themselves.) Any time a leftist wants to to change something he immediately asserts the entire world agrees with it and anyone who disagrees is an immediate statistical extremist. Much of it is a leftist trick to inculcate subjective synthetic social pressure and self-fulfilling prophecy.
A third type of extremism rests in various forms of mental aberration and instability, and those personal needs generated by that instability. Many leftists have a compulsive driven need to believe in leftism for reasons other that the validity of Marxist-socialist argumentswhich makes the invalidity and refutation of Marxist-socialist arguments subjectively irrelevant and unacceptable to them. They are obsessed with finding problems in the country to the point of contortion and invention in magnifying them, while being unconcerned about the host of benefits with which they are surrounded. They have an obsessional depressive monkey on their back that they feed into their view of the world.
Sublimations and aberration are not the exclusive monopoly of the political left. When I meet someone whose eyes glaze over as they decree the earth to be exactly 6,000 years and so many days old because it can be derived from page so-and-so of the Bible, regardless of the fact that radioisotope decay rates converge at a point more than a billion years ago and fossils take millions of years to form in the layers at which they are found, it's time for me to head for the door, or push them out the door, depending on whose door it is. There are some overextended crackpot right-wing economic theories floating about, and glassy-eyed people who are compulsively driven to recite them like robots with auto tape rewinds, who are an embarrassment.
Forty-five, 50, and 55 years ago saw the maturation and topping out of the last great generations of Americans. While there was certainly variation among people within those generations, a large proportion of them understood economics, understood need for personal discipline, understood need for morality, understood interpersonal relationships, and understood many other things beyond levels at which they are commonly understood now.
By their acts, ye shall know them. They won world wars, took America from the near stone age to a modernized era, and built an economy that assimilated and advanced tens of millions per decade. When the going got rough they gritted their teeth, put their shoulder to the wheel, and could be counted on to pull it through. What they were was not considered extremism then. What I learned from them then, and in retrospect from them since then, was not extremism then. About thirty-five years ago it was suddenly labeled extremism by leftist decree.
Generation of Parasites
In recent periods we have had a generation, or generations, a predominant proportion of whom are weaklings barely able to conduct their lives with any sanity (nor do they have any interest in doing so) and barely able to survive during prosperous peacetime. There have always been a proportion of such people, but in previous periods they were either corrected or relegated into inferior status by economic reality. In the last 35 years the condition has progressed from minority to uncorrected epidemic. They have turned America into a massive damned ever-complaining swill. In their media-guided dominance they are misusing the democratic process to force me to support them in this enterprise as well as impose it as the certified national standard of values that is to be complied with. With exception of computer programs they have built little, but instead are living off remnants of what previous generations have put together. They can be counted upon for nothing. We have a popularly elected president running around in circles in the Oval Office playing with himself, and who still obtains positive job ratings in his role as a generational representative, which is just about par for the course and is about as much as I've been led to expect in the generational level of stature and seriousness of the last 35 years. But many among them call me an extremist for statistical reasons and failure to conform to the mess they've created. Without apology, don't buy it.
Those who have ever been good horse race handicappers know that certain bloodlines of horses have genetically determined competitive attitudes toward winning races. Handicappers use this to their advantage in betting and winning money. Those of us who are highly familiar with dogs know certain breeds of dogs are characterized by certain temperaments and capabilities. It has been my observation that dogs have, beyond any characteristics of breed, further inherent distinct personality characteristics and mental abilities from birth that are genetic happenstance. Such characteristics can be modified, but not erased.
On the other hand, I have never been able to teach a dog the fundamentals of algebra. Some dogs have nearly human emotional capacity and depth, and some have qualities beyond many humans in that regard, but it is not within their genetically determined capacity to learn algebra.
In liberal education we are brainwashed with the idea that all intellectual differences in human beings arise exclusively from early environmental factors. If such genetic intellectual homogeneity of capacity exists it would be in sharp contrast to every other other known human characteristic. I now have serious doubts that genetic human intellectual homogeneity is true. Just as dogs lack that capacity of consciousness that allows them to understand numbers, human beings inherently differ among themselves in inherent mental capacity such that some among them inherently lack certain capacities of consciousness.
It is not an educational thing. I find high school graduates who have that peculiar dimension of consciousness that causes them to speculate and consider beyond levels of many, perhaps most, PhDs. It's either there, or it's not. No manner of education at any level seems able to produce it if it is not inherently present, although in those cases where the debilitating effects of the modern liberal educational system are miraculously escaped, education may augment it. No degree of lack of education or serious psychopathology will completely obscure or obliterate it if it is there. A trace of that spark will still show through.
People who have that dimension would do well to separate themselves from those who do not as social or intellectual relations between the two groups (and the demand for acceptance by those not having that quality) will be taxing and painful imposition upon those who do. A marriage between one person with that dimension and another who does not have it, will produce a lifetime of diffuse unfulfillment and isolation.
Now that I think of it, one of my objections to Jack Kennedy was that he never showed a trace of it. He was like an incredibly clever soulless windup toy without any spark of advanced consciousness. No Kennedy shows one bit of it. Neither do either of the Clintons. Richard Nixon, for all of his alleged deficiencies, showed signs of it, which made him a better man than are most of his critics. His inability to understand its absence in others caused him great frustration and bitterness while the quality in himself produced personal conflict in acting with the necessary cold ruthlessness of his opponents, resulting in his downfall. But that is another story.
Evidence is forcing me toward the belief that leftists are often the consequence of chance recombinations from those genetic remnants of less developed evolutionary forms of the human race. They seem not to be able to function at, or understand, anything beyond levels of primitive feelings and demands. Their intellectual processes are based on shallow rote acquisition without depth of understanding. Even those who obtain educations at the doctoral level remain limited and without spark of incisive curiosity and productiveness.
About a century ago a psychiatrist by the name of Otto Rank noticed in some of his patients a pattern in which they had capacity to aspire to certain levels of human activity or achievement, but lacked the fundamental capacity to attain that achievenment. They consequently led lives of anger and frustration.
Leftists seem to be people who refuse to admit their limiting incapacities to themselves or to other people. (In many cases their incapacities limit them from perceiving their incapacities.) Neither do they temper their demands upon life or upon society with admission of such limitation.
To put it into language we can all understand, they are just plain too damned dumb either to enter into any element of reasonable discourse with, or to engage in any complicated serious area of enterprise requiring personal depth. Their condition is without major degree of remedy in their lifetime.
Leftists are in desperate need of learning appropriate humility. This is not bound to happen. They are products of a liberal society where all people are considered intellectually equal. It is a society where unconditional encouragement of inanity is given in the supposition that such encouragement will impel people to attain their full potential. The consequence is to produce overconfident people who don't know inanity from substantial mentality. It is a society that in recent years has come to regard personal emotion as a form of intellect. This further produces people who not only can't differentiate inanity from intellect but who believe they are smart because they are excited as hell. The result is rather stupid people who are confident enough based on empty slogans to attempt to walk up a grizzly bear's behind.
Like Rank's patients, liberals want to be something they are not. They want to be important and competent. When it turns out they aren't, they have a temper tantrum. They lack talent and want to get things the easy way.
They become eternal child imitators, not in the sense of imitating children, but in the sense of being immature and imitating in the same way children imitate and pretend to be things. They want to be recognized but are without the talent and discipline for real achievement. They seek acquisition and stature through acting out empty form. They become angry imitators when that quest ends in failure or they are not recognized as worthy except superficially by those like themselves.
There are some things that can not be imitated, and leftists can not understand why. They huddle together in protest and resentment over having been dismissed as not having that which which was once recognized as class resulting from their lacking something they can not even perceive, let alone imitate.
Some people seem to be born with capability of conscience and a higher order of being. Some among them are additionally gifted with that breadth and curiosity of consciousness that produces depth of understanding and that quality known as stature. Other people seem to be born without capability of conscience or higher order of beingand can neither understand nor appreciate either.
As I write this, it occurs to me to ask she who wrote me this letter, "Can you understand or appreciate either? Can you understand stature? Do you have breadth and curiosity of consciousness, or are you a gadfly flitting about seeking attention by attempting to sting?"
William Jefferson Blyth Clinton, whether by argued early childhood experience, or by genetic determination, is without any capability of conscience or higher order of being. Dogs can be housebroken. Bill Clinton is a primitive form of animal that can not be housebroken. It is beyond his level of consciousness to understand why he should be housebroken. It is beyond his level of consciousness to see why anyone should need to be housebroken. Asking that he be housebroken is an alien imposition upon his level of consciousness which he can not understand and is a form of resented irritation beyond his subjectively acceptable level of inconvenience. Not being housebroken is, in his mind, a symbolic prerogitive of power and to ask that he be housebroken is considered by him to be a insulting non-recognition of his superiority.
Bill Clinton's life is one of barely-fabricated vulgar imitation and deception twisted by his coarse resentment and ambition. As a consequence, Bill Clinton cheapens everything he touches.
Neither of the Clintons have any higher order of internal reference to guide them, and, in their exclusive egotistic focus upon themselves, recognize no outside reference.
Hillary is much like Bill. Like Bill, she is posessed of an existentially angry inner state which perverts and cheapens all that she touches. She is fundamentally a person of shallow cheap vulgarity which comes though her attempted facade. She is a member of the new breed of people who buy $120.00 pasta machines and tout their knowldge of wine in a shallow imitation of cultivation while they lead otherwise coarse trashy lives with coarse trashy mentalities. This is the basis of much of her appeal and one of her strongest constituencies.
Hillary Clinton should be an embarrassment to herself, but she lacks that level of development of consciousness to perceive or understand it.
Al Gore is a grotesque desperately-attempted imitation of a man or human being.
These people, and people such as the Cuomos and Dershowitzs are typical of the integrity and stature of contemporary liberals and contemporary liberalism. They are crummy people. Liberals and liberalism are trash. Liberals and liberalism have no conception of the value of anything.
As far as that triumphant wisecrack about, "There's just one single tiny little detail that you have overseen [overlooked] . . ." No, I didn't. Entire books go through my head in milliseconds while you are still in bed asleep. It all can't be written down at once. I can only approach one small area at a time while other areas must be deferred. My advice is for you to not ever bet your life on what details you think I have overseen.
Ok, you seem to be a quiet thoughtful, intelligent man, so let's see if you can give me a thoughtful, intelligent answer.
This article (in four parts) is at least part of my answer. More of the answer is elsewere in the hundreds of pages of this series. More answers may follow depending upon my time availability and whether I think it's worthwhile. The question is, can you accept this or any answer?
Robert L. Kocher is the author of "Attitude Channeling and Brainwashing," as well as many other articles (available at http://zolatimes.com/writers/kocher.html). His email address is firstname.lastname@example.org.
from The Laissez Faire City Times, Vol 4, No 52, December 25, 2000
If you are indeed a liberal, then, you don't know anything.
Thank you for providing the words to describe your self-proclaimed point of view. That's such a shame, too, because we do have a Fifth Amendment so one does not have to incriminate himself.
And, oh yeah, the communist comment. That's just too easy.
No. Next question.
The boom of the 90s states otherwise.
And the state shall wither away. Now where have I heard that before?
In other words, yeah, right. Sure thing. Politics won't die until there are no more human beings.
As to your next post, should the welfare state whither on the vine or will the dengration of the state lead to a freshly defined Conservativism, bent on protecting the welfare state? Or have we already enter that time period?
Now, you know you are leading with your chin, right? If you want honest debate, don't ask loaded questions with prefabricated answers. I know better than to engage in such a dialogue because it's absolutely fruitless.
As to your question(s), it was extremely vague. Care to clarify?
Peace. There it is and there it wuz.
Looks like we have a fighter--boxer here...ko-king--champ?
Knock--slap those liberal--libberatarians silly(into...reality/realatarianism)!
Most libertarians would argue that since liberty is inevitable, such invented things as nation-states, the arbitrary borders and common currency that allegedly binds us..., will either adapt or disappear. Are Conservatives the ones trying to prevent the end of the nation state and libertarians the one's who think the end is a foregone conclusion?
I ask only that Conservatives be clear as to what they are 'conserving' and ask the same of libertarians, to be honest if the ends we are looking to achieve.
Reality is relentless---inevitable...good for some--bad for others.
Life choices--BEHAVIOR pretty much determine that...example too!
As a conservative, I say that being conservative should mean "conserving" the Constitution. But conserving this document and its true intent is not the same as saying the so-called nation-state will wither away on the vine.
Now that sounds like utopianism.
"They have developed their own fraudulent synthetic educational system to support and proselytize/perpetuate it. It is the system liberalism is designed to perpetuate."
Synthetic religion--lingo--LAW too...evolution--survival of the chest-fossil thumpers!
The JW's--door to door nazis!
I just remarked, on another thread, how I saw this on a bumper sticker yesterday:
Bush is a punk ass chump
...sort of puts the exclamation point on the paragraph above, doesn't it?
"are you going to do anything if America is attacked" ? ? ?
"SURE I AM" ! ! !
"Well what are YOU going TO DO ? ? ?
(( Bush laughing his head off )) . . .
"THEY ain't gonna LIKE WHAT I'M GONNA DO" ! ! !
also an aqaintenace of mine told me his mother lived through Pearl Harbor and she said . . .
that was nothing (( no disrepect )) compared to how 911 affected her ! ! !
We went to a bloody war with Spain over a coal dust explosion on the ship Maine in the Havanna Harbor.
.. .. .. DUBYAH == (( link )) !!
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.