Psych Profiles of a Modern Liberal
Next Post

Press {{ keys }} + D to make this page bookmarked.


Psych Profiles of a Modern Liberal


AUSTIN, TEXAS – February 12, 2019

There are topics that are unpleasant and indecent but necessary to talk about--like analyzing the feces of a dog at the vet. It seems embarrassing, but it has to be done.

Today let’s talk about liberalism and liberals: who they are, and where they come from, what their psychological portrait is. And this is not an idle question. Almost every reasonable person sooner or later asks himself these questions--not because of empty curiosity, but because of practical necessity.

The idea of ​​liberalism was born in the age of Enlightenment. This is the idea that a person should think and live freely, according to his will, to speak freely about what he thinks, unlike the will of religion, the sovereign and any other power imposed from outside, as, for example, the “dictatorship of the proletariat” or “corporate collectivism.” In Europe, liberals have traditionally been considered the golden mean, say, in England between Conservatives and Labor. The US Democratic Party, traditionally considered liberal, would be called right-conservative in any European country.

However, already in the 1920s in America, it became clear that liberalism itself had lost all meaning. Theoretically, everything remained the same: A person had the right to choose what to do in life and what to be. In practice, big business and pervasive corruption deprived all these freedoms of meaning, taking away the opportunity to live as you wish, depriving people of an equal starting point in life. The Great Depression put an end to the illusion that in America everyone can start  a new happy life. Of all the freedoms available in those years, there was only the freedom to starve. 

Liberalism in the US began to change and mimic under other concepts, trying to hide its true face. Advocates of social progress and opponents of the neo-conservative course began calling themselves liberals. They stressed that their liberalism has nothing to do with European liberalism, which they considered to be analogous to the ideology of American Republicans.

Liberals in the US were both right-wing and left-wing. Moreover, a person adhering to socialist views could also identify himself as a liberals. One could be a Christian liberal or a liberal advocating for free trade and the interests of small businesses.

However, such diversity should not be deceiving.

So is there good old-fashioned liberalism in America today? What was it and what did it turn into? How did the humanist idea of liberalism turn into inhuman free-market neoliberalism?

Today, professional liberalism in the US has long since merged with financial capital. The liberals of America serve it with no less zeal than European liberals serve the interests of European financial elites and the bureaucracy of Brussels.

But if yesterday the ideals of liberalism seemed unchangeable, today it becomes obvious that this concept has failed, because it was flawed in the very foundation. That is, liberalism is nonsense, because it assumes that a person goes to his goals without noticing the society around him. And also because this concept allowed him to break ties with everything that makes him a human – culture, society, family, the idea of ​​the common good.

Liberals are constantly talking about human freedom, but they are ready to tear you to death, in the literal sense of the word, if you do not share their beliefs.

At the same time, one should understand that “freedom,” which liberals love to talk about, is only their personal freedom, not freedom for all. From the point of view of a liberal, not everyone deserves freedom, but only one who thinks as a liberal has liberal values ​​and a liberal worldview. I.e. from the point of view of liberals, only liberals can have freedom, and other "trash" (who are not liberals) should be in the bullpen and do what the liberals order.

At the same time, the liberal thinking is of a purely tunnel type. All his thought processes are rigidly tied to a set of liberal stereotypes that are either very poorly connected with reality, or have nothing to do with it. Therefore, everything that a liberal is going to say on a particular issue is known in advance. In order to find out about what and how the liberals think it is enough to talk with several of them. The thinking of these individuals is patterned, and the worldview is wedged into the narrow framework of the doctrine. Moreover, any fact that does not fit into this doctrine is either persistently ignored by the liberal or denied.

On the whole, in their psychological essence, liberals are ignorant, primitive totalitarianists, unable to think independently, intolerant to other people's opinions and passionately worshiping their liberal idols. By this they are no different than members of any totalitarian group.

As I have said more than once, in its essence liberal is not a political orientation, but a psychiatric diagnosis.

Hence all this demonstrative shocking liberal idols, the desire to constantly go, in one form or another, beyond morality and the law. They consider themselvesfree individuals, great creators, standing over the “trash” they deeply despise, which they consider the common people to be.

The modern liberal is one for whom the rights of Adam appeared before Adam himself. He denies God, but it is unlikely that in his final seconds in a plane with failed engines he will repeat the multiplication table. He takes care of himself, believing that society is obliged to help him simply by the fact of existence.

He is convinced that a person is born free, despite the umbilical cord and the law of universal gravitation. Throughout his life, he has been striving for absolute freedom, but does not move to some abandoned farm, where he can walk naked and scold any authority all day long. Because in return he will have to chop wood and carry water from the well.

He displays courage only on global problems like in the fight against dictatorship. He never focuses on trivialities, so he will avoid discussions when meeting with boors. But he will not forget, will not forgive and will take revenge preferably on the internet. And he will take revenge as long as there is anonymity. Between the gadget and his own brain, he makes a choice in favor of the gadget, happy to accept the link if it's from Wikipedia.

Declaring materialism and realism, he is ready to pray for the "invisible hand of the market." Although he understands that in practice this “invisible hand of the market” most often turns out to be the “bony hand of hunger.” He unconsciously dislikes society, since he is not able to explain rationally why the Earth is not inhabited by proud loners.

He considers the main purpose of life to be a decent preparation for his future corpse. However, since everything is judged solely from the position of its own personalities, he also also doubts in such a finality. After all, he personally never died before, which means “everybody is lying all about” death.

Author: USA Really