Search Box

Monday, July 17, 2017

The Big, Disordered Tent that is the Left

The Left has been extraordinarily successful at attracting a lot of disparate elements to their side.

One of the hallmarks of sociopathy is a false emotionality. (Lance Armstrong and Frederick Baer are perfect examples.) How better to pose as a great humanitarian -- and gain power -- than to become a Democratic politician, a "savior of the oppressed?" (Never mind that, when in power, the Dems favor their campaign contributors in the 1% as much as the Republicans do.)

So if you're a sociopath who wants to masquerade as a champion of the underprivileged -- and get rich by decrying the wealthy -- become Bill Clinton. Or Jesse Jackson. Or Al Sharpton. Or Wendy Davis. Or Richard Blumenthal. Or Barack Obama. Or Hillary Clinton.

There are certainly Republican sociopaths, such as Joe Arpaio and Newt Gingrich and Carly Fiorina and Christine O'Donnell. But I've always been struck by how there seem to be more prominent Democrats than Republicans who fit the profile.

Speaking of sociopaths, I've also written in the past about how hate crimes hoaxers essentially have Munchausen's Syndrome, which is just a form of sociopathy. And how virtually every recent hoaxer has been from the Left.

People with Aspergers Syndrome are drawn to the Left because it claims to the the champion of outcasts.  

Likewise, people with bipolar syndrome, borderline personality disorder, schizophrenics, agoraphobics, alcoholics, drug addicts, histrionics, obsessive-compulsives, psychotics, and a host of others all feel more comfortable with the side which claims to hate the well-adjusted rich. 

The mentally ill, for obvious reasons, like the idea of a generous safety net. They gravitate toward the general Leftist philosophical thrust that nobody is better in any way than anybody else, everyone is merely differently abled. 

The Left attracts the low IQ-ed because it holds that intelligence is a social construct, i.e, is not real. And if anybody is doing better than you, it's only because they were born into privilege.

The Democrats even go a step further and demonize those who would attach any weight to IQ scores. So not only is nobody really any smarter than you, anybody who thinks he is is in fact your moral inferior.

A certain type of woman likes the Democrats because they tell women that the only reason they may not accomplish as much as men is because men are oppressing them. 

The Democrats attract those who like to virtue signal. Indeed, they've made the price of virtue quite cheap: all you have to do is recite political correct dogma, and, voila -- you're one of the good people. 

People of color prefer the Democrats because they have made a bogeyman out of, and have made it acceptable to hate, white males. 

But then, the Left cleverly carved off even a chunk of those for themselves: the gays. The Left has promoted gay marriage, attacked those whose religion disapproves of homosexuality, and in general celebrated and tried to normalize homosexuality at every turn. 

So now the group to be hated is even smaller: heteronormative white males. More recently, every pervert short of a child molester has been recruited to the Democratic Party. (Caitlyn somehow managed to stay Republican.)

The Left also attracts the criminal element by being anti-police. This instinctively appeals to those who've had run-ins with the law. And, the Left focuses on criminals’ rights rather than victims’ rights. (Exhibit A: Obama's "ban the box" initiative.)

Another category of lawbreaker Democrats attract are illegal immigrants: when one of the parties offers to make you legal, why would you not, if you can register in a state with lax voter ID laws, illegally vote for them? That tacit understanding has probably resulted in more Democratic votes than most realize. 

The Democrats have essentially cobbled together a coalition of gullible women, people of color, sociopaths, crazies, the low-IQed, perverts, and criminals. That's a lot of people.

One of the cleverest ways the Left has done this is by constructing an entire edifice of circular reasoning to explain why the dumb are not really dumb, why perverts are not really perverted, and why any lack of accomplishment on your part is the fault of heteronormative white males. 

Which would you rather believe, that you're crazy, or stupid, or a pervert -- or that you're a victim of prejudice? It's a pretty easy choice for most. (Particularly if you're crazy or stupid enough to swallow the Left's reasoning.)

In all of this the Left has been aided tremendously by their stranglehold on the mainstream media. If you're determined to make heterosexual white males the scapegoat, you must constantly publicize their crimes and downplay everyone else's. Thus, when it appears that some white Duke lacrosse players may have raped a black woman, you pounce. And if that "scandal" backfires, well, you just move on to the next one. 

If a white policeman shoots a black man, you make that front page news for weeks, while ignoring police shootings of whites, and ignoring the extraordinarily high rate of black on black murders. 

Making heterosexual white males the malevolent force behind every social ill is a full time job. 

But the more victim categories you can create, the better your chances at the polls. 


John Engelman said...

Today, 43% of Republicans and 67% of Democrats say humans have evolved, a 24-point gap.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

According to The Scofield Reference Bible, which is favored by Fundamentalists, this happened 6,021 years ago. Once one believes that the universe and everything in it is that young it becomes easy to disregard scientific evidence that supports man made global warming, and most Republicans do reject such evidence.

Despite the economic evidence of the Reagan and Bush II administrations, most Republicans continue to believe that tax cuts for the rich balance the budget.

President Trump has promised to pay off the national debt in eight years, while increasing military and infrastructure spending while cutting taxes.

The President also promises that Mexico will pay for a wall between Mexico and the United States, even though such a wall will harm Mexico, and even though the Mexican government has said repeatedly that it will not pay for the wall.

Most Republicans believe all that.

John Engelman said...

Tom Craig,

In order to demonstrate that one understands a point of view that he disagrees with he must be able to express that point of view in ways a person who has that point of view acknowledges that his opinions are fairly expressed. You do not do that.

Instead, you give an example of the Straw Man Fallacy. You distort the liberal position in order to make it easy to refute. Actually, there is no uniform liberal position. The term "liberalism" covers a wide variety of views on society, the economy, and the environment. Liberals seldom agree with each other in each of these areas.

The terms "left" and "right" were first used politically during the French Revolution. The terms "liberal" and "conservative" were first used politically about a generation later.

Since the French Revolution the march of Western civilization has gone from right to left, and from conservative to liberal. We can see that in the shifting definition of "liberal." Initially a liberal was one who supported laissez faire capitalism. By the late nineteenth century laissez faire was a conservative doctrine. Now reactionaries favor it. During the last two centuries laissez faire capitalism was advocated; it was tried; eventually it was rejected by the voters.

Liberals and the democratic left have made mistakes. They still do. Nevertheless, the vast majority of people in the West are better off than their ancestors were before the French Revolution. To an extent this has been because of the industrial revolution. To an equal extent it has happened because of liberal reforms that spread the advantages of industrialism, while curbing its excesses.

John Craig said...

John Engelman --
I keep hearing about people who don't believe in evolution, though I only know one myself (he's a Republican). I"m sure you're right that there are more fundamentalist Creationists among the Republicans though. However, as far as all of the effects and implications of evolution -- especially those that guide national policy -- it does seem as if it's the Democrats and not the Republicans who are the biggest deniers, as I wrote about here:

Whether or not God created humanity 6021 years ago --which I agree is ridiculous -- has no bearing on national policy; whether or not men are different than women and whether or not all races evolved to have the exact same average IQ does.

As far as balancing the budget, that's a two-sided equation: revenues vs. spending. The theory among some Republicans is that if you lower the tax rate, this will stimulate the economy and thus overall tax revenues will not go decline; I'm agnostic on that myself, although I agree that in the short term it will decrease revenues. But the deficit will certainly never go down as long as government spending goes up rapidly, and the biggest offenders on that side have traditionally been the Democrats.

I agree that there's no way Trump will balance the budget in eight years; but has there ever been a President who's come into office without promising to balance the budget. As I recall, as a Senator Barack Obama actually called George W. Bush "unpatriotic" for wanting to raise the debt ceiling; that viewpoint seemed to change once he was in office.

Obviously there's no way Mexico will willingly pay for the Wall; my understanding is that Trump intends to get them to pay for it indirectly by withholding aid to the tune of whatever it costs. Over what time period, I'm not sure.

BTW, I don't think that most Republicans believe all that. Many campaign promises are taken with a grain of salt. When Barack Obama said that his election would herald the end of the oceans rising, did most Democrats believe that?

John Craig said...

John Engelman --

"In order to demonstrate that one understands a point of view that he disagrees with he must be able to express that point of view in ways a person who has that point of view acknowledges that his opinions are fairly expressed. You do not do that. Instead, you give an example of the Straw Man Fallacy. You distort the liberal position in order to make it easy to refute."

Is that not what you just did in your previous comment? I don't think that "most" Republican believe that tax cuts for the rich by themselves will balance the budget.

Sure, there are more reasonable Democrats who don't subscribe to the excesses that I described; but all of the positions I describe are held by people on the Left. (And btw, I used the term "the Left," or "Democrats," not "liberalism," in the post.) And the most recent Democratic President actually subscribed -- or at least paid lip service -- to most of those views.

Democrats like to bring up the past, and equate getting rid of Jim Crow laws and enforced segregation with current "civil rights" debates. But in fact what civil rights in the 1950's and 60's were all about have been turned on their head; now "civil rights" are all about special privileges and racial set-asides. Trying to equate the two is actually a perfect example of the Straw Man Fallacy you bring up.

Deiphobus said...

Tell you what's weird about that Pew poll re views on evolution. In 2009 39% of Republicans said that humans did not evolve; in 2013 the number was up to 48%. What's with that?

John Craig said...

Deiphobus --
I actually found both the Republican and Democratic numbers from that poll hard to believe.

Anonymous said...

This is probably the worst post you've ever written. It is based on your preconceived ideas than on research.

Do you have any references for mentally ill people hating the rich or well-adjusted? Many mentally ill are rich or at least come from rich families, and I doubt there is high voter turnout amongst alcoholics, drug addicts or people with serious psychosis. Likewise, do you have a reference for the mentally ill gravitating towards the idea that nobody is better than anybody else? This would be hard for psychiatrists to believe, when their patients forever complain about feeling inferior.

J.S. Mill said something like "conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservative". Nothing has changed since the C19th as intelligent people are usually liberals and the dumb conservative:

The idea that IQ is a social construct actually comes from bright people - not people with science degrees, but the gender studies types. Bertrand Russell's essay 'An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish' remains relevant: some ideas are so ridiculous that only an intellectual could believe them. The dumb know full well that that's what they are. If the dumb vote at all, they usually vote conservative due to their anti-immigrant sentiments. For them to consider the complex reasons behind their poverty is too difficult: easier to just blame immigrants (who contribute more in tax than what they take out of the public purse).

In France and the UK, LGBT people are equally likely to vote Right & Left:

The Left is frequently accused of wanting a police state. The UK Labour Party introduced hundreds of new criminal offences between 1997 - 2010 (there's a documentary on YouTube called 'Taking Liberties', detailing this). Jeremy Corbyn has announced he wants to bring in all sorts of authoritarian laws. It is the Left that brought in the anti-smoking laws, and the sugar tax was their idea. They're the ones who want to introduce mandatory ID cards, and to make prostitution illegal. To encourage more prosecutions, the UK Left altered criminal trials so that the complainant has many more privileges and the defendant fewer.

I'm pretty sure most who evade tax - taking billions out of the public purse - are conservative voters. Drug dealers seem to be mostly libertarian (Howard Marks and Ross Ulbricht expressed libertarian ideas in writing). Other types of criminals are often anarchists, and unlikely to turn out to vote.

As annoying as the Left can be, your post does them a disservice. There are many reasons for voting Left, not just ID politics.

- Gethin

Fled The Undertow said...

I'm so glad you mentioned that Democrats tend to attract Cluster B personality disorders. My mother is a Borderline, and for years she was a faithful footsoldier of the Left. It's the "magical thinking" they have in common. (Actual quote from my BPD mother: "The false notion of the dangers of secondhand smoke was created by the evil Clinton administration to distract people from his philandering with that fat Lewinsky woman".) Not surprisingly, she's been a 3-pack-a-day indoor smoker my whole life, while my siblings and I suffered from regular bouts of ear infections, strep throat, and bronchitis (totally unrelated to her smoking in the house, of course).

As an aside, I've noticed that far fewer blacks ever get tagged with Cluster B's, and my assumption is that blacks' baseline behavior (which would be considered abnormal by white standards) is more consistent with personality disorders in general, but especially Cluster B's like Narcissistic and Antisocial PD.

John Craig said...

Fled --
Actually, I don't think that sociopaths are disproportionately creatures of the Left. I was about to say, "As I wrote in my reply to Gethin...." but I just looked above and see that my reply to Gethin didn't get posted for some reason. And it was a long one too, damn it. Anyway, I'd say a slight majority of the sociopaths I've known have been right-leaning. (it's the LEADERSHIP of the Democrats who are more likely to be sociopathic, not their followers.) But I also think there's a strong element of narcissism in being an SJW, as I wrote about here:

One of the other Cluster B disorder is histrionic personality disorder, and while "histrionic" is not the same things as "hysterical," there is overlap, and I do think there's a strong element of hysteria on the left as well, which I wrote about here:

And here's a more general post I wrote about the Left, as seen through the prism of the DSM:

Of the two people I've known well enough to be convinced they are borderline, one was a die hard liberal and the other's political views were unclear. But your description of your mother rings true, Borderlines are great justifiers of their own actions and beliefs, and always see themselves as being in the right no matter how selfish their actions. For your mother to completely ignore all the evidence and put her own kids at risk is pure Borderline behavior.

Sometimes blacks don't seem to fall into the normal categories. A lot of times people will ask me if a certain black criminal is a sociopath, and my answer is just sort of no.....he's just black. For instance, you might hear of a horrendous wanton crime, like a carjacking and rape of an older woman, and if a white did it you really wouldn't have to know anything more, you could be pretty sure that person is a sociopath. But with a black, as often as not, they don't really fit the profile, they won't have the rest of the traits you associate with sociopaths: the manipulative ability, the emotional falseness, the constant brimming over with bitterness, the complete inability to feel the positive emotions. So it's hard to say that they are sociopaths. I wrote about that here:

Anyway, I guess I've assigned you enough homework for today.

John Craig said...

Gethin --
I wrote you a long reply a couple nights ago, and I just noticed that for some reason it didn't get posted, and I can't find it anywhere. I'll try to piece it back together sometime in the next day or two.

europeasant said...

"savior of the oppressed?"

And food provider to the hungry. In our state there is a very rich Democrat running for the governors job. He has been running a lot of TV commercials where he says that he will make sure that all our children do NOT go hungry.

It's hard to know what people think.I was thinking of putting together a series of questions during social events when there was a lull in the conversation.
First question would be;
1. Is the earth roundish or flat?
2. Is the earth millions of years old or the biblical 5, 6 thousand years old?
3. Are all people created equal?
etc., etc.

It would be presented as a fun game but the real intent would be to find out just what people really believe. Can you think of some questions along those same lines?

John Craig said...

European --
It'd be interesting to find out how people answer the age of the earth question. John Engelman above quoted a study showing that only 43% of Republicans believe that man has evolved (I wonder how that question was phrased), then he quoted the Scofield Bible which says that the earth is only 6021 years old. I suspect you won't find anybody who believes that, but I have no idea what your neighbors are like.

The questions I like to ask tend to be more along the lines of human differences, along th lines of your question number three, and I tend to take this tack when arguing with liberals. First, I ask, do you believe that men have more of a propensity to violence than women do? They almost always answer yes to that one. Then, I ask, isn't that sexist? They then dismiss the silliness of the question. Then I ask, why is it that men were the ones who came up with all the important scientific inventions? Liberals will usually say that this was because women were busy taking care of the housework and babies and so on, and that men didn't take them seriously enough. Then I"ll point out that there were plenty of women who never got married, women who used to be referred to as old maids or spinsters, and they never invented anything either. Why was that? And so on. And if the subject is racial differences, I'll start out by asking if they believe that there is any difference in sprinting ability between the races. Then go on from there.

John Craig said...

Gethin --
Okay, here goes, I'll try to piece together what I wrote in reply to you several days ago, but it won't be as long. (That may have been the problem, when I pressed "publish your comment" it may have indicated that it was too long, and I must not have noticed.

First, I appreciate your honesty.

As far as this post being based on "preconceived ideas [rather] than on research," I'd say MOST of my posts are based on various personal observations or theories. As I recall you once commented on some hard core feminists having Aspergers Syndrome, and called it an epiphany; that wasn't used on "research," with a lot of footnotes and links, that was just personal observation and theory. I have no problem with that, I'm surprised you suddenly have a problem with me posting something similar.

I've heard the theory, always advanced by Democrats, that conservatives are dumb. If they want to compare IQ's, that's actually pretty easily disproven. In this country, which is roughly 13 or 14% black, 90% of blacks are Democrats. (And when there's a black candidate running, the percentage going Democrat is even higher, witness the 98% who voted for Jesse Jackson in the '88 primaries and the 96% who voted for Obama in '08.) That means that roughly a quarter of Democratic voters have an average IQ of 85; that would be a pretty big handicap to overcome in any sort of objective IQ comparison.

In France and the UK, LGBT types may be equally likely to vote conservative or liberal, but in this country, they definitely tend to vote Democrat. As a matter of fact there was an article I read recently (which I linked on this blog) about a gay man who wrote about how he voted for Trump and how he was shunned by virtually all of his (now former) friends and acquaintances afterward.