The Care and Feeding of Progressives

The Care and Feeding of Progressives By Robin of Berkeley I've had to ask readers of my blog to register in order to post comments. There are three reasons why:

(By the way, I often tell clients that there are three rules for dealing with the character disordered: "Boundaries, Boundaries, and Boundaries." Not surprisingly, the same can be said about extreme progressives.)

When I started my little blog, it didn't occur to me that trolls would come out in droves. Why would leftists expend their energies on me? And why would they subject themselves to scrutiny by a licensed psychotherapist?

But apparently, numerous trolls have been drawn to me, like venomous bees to honey. These trolls use the same weaponry of other extreme progressives: shame and degradation. They try to use ridicule as sort of stun gun, immobilizing the other. (Another interesting tidbit: People with character disorders do the very same thing. Coincidence?)

As a psychotherapist, I can see right through them to who they are and how they operate. Nonetheless, I still remain curious about these creepy crawlers, whom I have dubbed "My Friends, the Enemy." (This is my generally futile attempt to be magnanimous like the Dalai Lama, who uses the phrase to describe the Chinese.)

I wonder to myself: Where do these trolls come from? Where do they live and breed?

Do they write in dank basement rooms while their bedraggled girlfriends (or moms) pick up their dirty shorts? Do they intermix trolling with downloading internet porn? (I'm not being snarky here; I'd bet good money that violent smut gives them endless inspiration.)

Are these cyber-stalkers getting paid from a Soros organization? If so, why can't they find more respectable employment? (Hmm...I suppose the answer to that question is rather obvious.)

The creepy thing is that in the minds of trolls, and other extreme Progressives, their behavior is as normal as apple pie. This is because their worldview is amoral and asocial. Therefore, the merit of hurling insults at a complete stranger is a no-brainer.

Many leftists are positively clueless about how to conduct themselves in a civilized manner. Believe me, I have tried over and over to engage some -- any -- in a respectful discussion.

Although I rarely give up on people, I have had to conclude that many extreme progressives are not simply choosing to be vicious. They do not know how to restrain themselves.

For instance, a progressive e-mailed me with the following, "Man, you're really messed up." I replied, scolding her, explaining that her remark was inappropriate.

She responded this way, sounding genuinely confused and shocked: "I was trying to be sympathetic! I really didn't mean to hurt your feelings." And in this case, I actually believed her!

The most hardcore of the leftists seem almost feral, wild, and undomesticated. Many lack even the most rudimentary of social skills; some people may very well be diagnosable on the autism spectrum.

Many militants are devoid of an essential ingredient of being human: empathy. While they exude endless compassion for an endangered snail, they are contemptuous of living, feeling human beings. This is why they can cavalierly imagine snuffing out Granny, a late-term fetus, or, in fact, anyone who gets in their way.

With the progressives in charge, we now live in "interesting times," to quote the Chinese curse. There's a breakdown in the basic rule of law that keeps a society knitted together. Without the moral fiber to stitch us, it's survival of the fittest -- every man and woman for themselves.

It's no coincidence that God has also been shunned, because God is the thread that weaves together the rich tapestry of life. With Judeo-Christian values missing in action, the left engages in a manic free-fall-all. They afford themselves free rein to act out their basest of impulses.

The more extreme progressives have no impulse control whatsoever. They act more primitively than a wild beast as they beat up opponents and sexually degrade conservative women.

These progressives are engineering a New World Order, which is dark and devolved and completely unlivable. Their actions remind me of a famous quote by Gandhi about Western civilization.

When asked what he thought about Western civilization, Gandhi replied, "Western civilization? I think it would be a good idea." One could say the same thing about progressives' civilized behavior.

I hope the newly elected conservatives will have the courage and intestinal fortitude to create some order out of the chaos. If they can break up this manic (Democratic) party, there's hope for this country yet.

A frequent American Thinker contributor, Robin is a recovering liberal and a licensed psychotherapist in Berkeley. You can reach Robin through her blog: www.robinofberkeley.com. The above information is intended for educational and informational purposes, not to offer definitive diagnoses.

How true, e.g. we must save the poor polar bears even if it means the destruction of our society.

God is replaced by man who seeks to build utopia. Not being God however, he is incapable of that and wastes millions of lives. See Nazi Germany or the USSR or many other recent examples.

Oh I dont think they are insane. After all, insanity is morally excusable, or at least understandable and deserving of pity. If someone is mentally ill (and as Robin will tell you that is extraordinarily common - the majority of people are certifiably mentally ill for at least part of their lives) - then their pronoucements and beliefs can be safely taken with a pinch of salt. The problem here is that an awful lot of progressives aren't do-lally. They are perfectly rational and really mean what they say. In fact, their conclusions are a natural consequence of their way of looking at the world. This, sociologically, is a real problem.

If Conservatives and Liberals in the US had the same basic culture and belief system, but just came to different conclusions, then there would be hope that the democratic process could be used to persuade, or at least reconcile the two. But increasingly that is no longer the case. It is far harder to persuade someone to the rightness of your cause if they don't understand (or in some cases even comprehend) the framework by which you have come to your beliefs. The schism is widening, and I think that is going to cause trouble.

Good intentions cause most of the world’s great evils.
When Good People Do Bad Things (If you want good to prevail, the key is wisdom, not the heart)
National Review ^ | 06/14/2010 | Dennis Prager
http://article.nationalreview.com/436333/when-good-people-do-bad-things/dennis-prager

<>//<>

Secular Progressives (liberal leftists) hold a worldview about man’s existence different from those who hold to the Judeo-Christian worldview. It goes in this order…

Judeo-Christian worldview: (Man is the pinnacle of God’s creation and is supposed to rule the earth and all that comes with it. Not rule over other men but the resources of the earth to improve existence in a benevolent manner.)

Man
Animals
Birds
Fish
Plants
Earth

Of course we want to take care of the earth – we need it and we do take care of it. The biggest proof that our environment is actually always improving is human life expectancy and quality of health less than 200 years ago life expectancy was less than 30 years. How can we live to 80 and beyond today if we have poisoned our planet? It just doesn’t add up.
It’s IMPORTANT that you read this when you have time: http://web.archive.org/web/20060402205422/http://nwi.org/

Now look at the Secular Progressives…this is how they look at our existence…

Earth
Animals
Birds
Fish
Plants
Man

Man is at the bottom. We must all serve the earth. We must always inconvenience man at the benefit of the others. It makes absolutely no sense and that is exactly why today – you will go to jail for destroying an eagle’s egg but not go to jail for getting rid of human beings before they are born.

More IMPORTANT reading here: The Almighty, Liberals [Regressives calling themselves “Progressives”] and Liberty - By Dennis Prager 10/12/2010 http://jewishworldreview.com/1010/prager101210.php3

<>//<>

Biodiversity: Replaces Climate Change As The Weapon For Political Control
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/29005
Thursday, October 21, 2010

<>//<>

November 04, 2010
Tuesday’s Election Was a Vote to Bring the 19th Century to an End
By J.R. Dunn
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/tuesdays_election_was_a_vote_t.html

<>//<>

November 03, 2010
The Dialectic of Obama
By Thomas Lifson
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/the_dialectic_of_obama.html

bttt

Thursday, September 25, 2008
Irreligulouse
By Robert W.Godwin, Ph.D (clinical psychologist)

Apparently, Bill Maher’s absecular new film, Religulous, mainly features him doing man-on-the-street interviews with stupid people, asking them about religion. This is done with the intent to demonstrate how stupid religion is, when it actually demonstrates how foolish and shallow Bill Maher is.

For example, what if he had conducted the identical exercise with regard to the U.S. Constitution, or the Theory of Relativity, or art ,or literature, or economics? Would the answers he elicited be a useful reflection on the value of these subjects? No, of course not.

But Bill Maher is not a serious man. Well, perhaps seriously bitter. Which is another point. Maher does not have the insight or depth of character to delve into the roots of his own bitterness and anger, which pose insurmountable obstacles to any understanding of the Subject of the subject he pretends to explore in Religulous. Thus, the whole exercise is one of triumphant self-justification and narcissistic exultation. Obviously, if he were truly curious about God, he could have dialogued with serious intellectuals possessing valid gnosis. But if he were to do that, he would look like the unlearned rube that he is. ...

...In the case of Maher, it doesn’t take a psychologist to see that he isn’t actually curious about religion. He has no desire to actually understand the Divine, much less to humbly take the steps necessary to develop an open relationship with That which transcends him. Rather, he is bound by a kind of childishly arrogant, intrusive, and presumptuous curiosity that imagines it can know All without any work or preparation, much less humility and surrender.

This is not at all like proper curiosity, which is much more analogous to patient openness to the Real, embodied in faith... Thus, Maher does not — and cannot — reach any useful conclusions about God, only foreordained ones that are implicit in his original arrogance and omnipotence. As such, the film will be a memorial to his own cosmic stupidity, nothing more. No wonder he’s so bitter, because the bitterness is merely the residue of some kind of deep disappointment. Bitterness is a “presence” that always conceals a “present absence.” So, what is absent in Maher?

It would be uncharitable to go down that route. We’ll just leave it alone for now. Rat faced homunculus. ...

....Often, when someone is speaking about a subject, the more important communication is the emotional tone of the communicant, not the supposed subject matter. Or, you could say that the subject matter is just a superficial excuse for the person to evacuate a primitive emotion. For example, we vividly see this in the left’s unhinged reaction to Sarah Palin. What is most noteworthy to the discerning listener is the primitive emotionality that she provokes — very similar to the primitive emotionality that women provoke in the Islamic world.

In the case of the latter, no men in the Islamic world seem to have the insight or maturity to turn inward and wonder at the source of the violence and contempt in their attitudes toward women. Likewise, with the left vis-a-vis Sarah Palin. There are actually some noteworthy exceptions who are alarmed and appalled at the primitive display, but for most of the left, their reaction is all about their own narcissistic trinity of envy, contempt, and triumph.

Imagine the envy Sarah Palin must provoke in desiccated old feminist hags such as Maureen Dowd, Erica Jong, or Gloria Steinem. The envy is intolerable, so it is quickly transformed into contempt and then triumph. But again, it is the triumph of a sick part of the mind, so it is obviously a pyrrhic victory; if you win, you lose. ....

.....Maher represents it as the bitter transformation of Paradise Lost to Paradise Doesn’t Exist and I Didn’t Want it Anyway; or, to put it another way, I’m Back in a Triumphant and Contemptuous Narcissistic Paradise of My Own Making. Plus, Hugh Hefner Invites Me to His Parties, So I Can Pretend That Those Airheaded Bimbos and Porn Stars Would Ever Be Attracted to a Rat Faced Homunculus Like Me if I Didn’t Have All This Money. ...”

http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2008/09/irreligulouse-and-braytheistic-ass-bill.html

It’s been that way (different world views) since at least the 60s when I became politically aware. I suspect it’s been that way from the beginning.

It took me years before I became aware of the concept. Before that I thought logic and facts could show liberals where they were in error. I thought we both wanted to go to the same destination, but disagreed about how to get there.

While they will fudge aboaut the facts, they are as logical as conservatives when making their arguments. They just start from a different point, so that they can wind up where they want to be.

The point is, they will ignore facts that get in their way. Most conservatives will at least consider whether their destination is the right one, and how new facts afect it.

Facts, consequences, failure of their policies. None of these will affect a liberal’s mind. Only thing that might work is a whack up-side the head by one of their beloved victim classes. Although often even that won’t do.

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.