>>> Is Liberalism A Mental Illness ?<<<

[marlowe]

Dr. Rossiter describes liberals as having strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions that relentlessly undermine the most important principals on which our freedoms are founded.
{ this thread is not a joke }

http://rightamerican.wordpress.com/scientists-find-%e2%80%98liberal-gene%e2%80%99/is-liberalism-a-mental-illness/

[seeker/reader]

having strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions that relentlessly undermine the most important principals on which our freedoms are founded. I feel exactly the same way about CONservatives and republiCONS.

[Frank V]

having strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions that relentlessly undermine the most important principals on which our freedoms are founded. I feel exactly the same way about CONservatives and republiCONS.

Not being a US American myself, I prefer to refer to the US American bipartisan system as the Democrites and the Repuglycans, or alternatively, the DemiGods and the Repulsicans. :p

Either way, here's what Lewis Black had to say about it... ;-)

qhw66uVf6_4

[bruno dante]

Life is one big mental illness. Why pick at the parts?

[Dennis Leahy]

"Liberal" is a meaningless term, completely co-opted and twisted inside out and back again. You need to point to SPECIFIC policies that you don't like - you'll be surprised at who ALSO doesn't like those policies.

Political insanity is rampant in the US. In my belief, ANYONE who identifies with either of the Elite-controlled duopoly parties is insane - and anyone that thinks that ANY "third" party could ever win 2/3rds of the seats in the legislative body (Congress) is insane. Anyone who is a warmonger is insane. Anyone who is an imperialist is insane. Anyone who supports the fascist takeover of the government by corporations and oligarchs is insane. Anyone who supports The Patriot Act, NDAA, HR 357... is insane. Anyone who supports drone bombings is insane. Anyone who supports a privatized prison system is insane. Anyone who supports the DHS and militarization of police is insane. Anyone who thinks it is OK to have a bunch of people with dual citizenship (USA+Israel) in any government position is insane. Anyone who thinks that the Big Energy Mafia's suppression of non-polluting (non-fossil fuel and non-atomic fuel) energy technologies - including Free Energy - is OK is insane. Anyone who supports the dumbed-down public "education" system is insane. Anyone who supports bigotry and racism is insane.

Pick your insanity - there's plenty to go around.

Dennis

p.s. Anyone that is a selfish bastard without compassion is mentally ill in a way that may be worse than insanity.

[Chip]

I don't know what I am with regards to politics. There are aspects of each that I agree with but as soon as you endorse your belief you are given a 'label'.
What's the 'label' for a human trying to survive in a system against it?

[Frank V]

What's the 'label' for a human trying to survive in a system against it?

"Sane". ;-)

[Chip]

What's the 'label' for a human trying to survive in a system against it?

"Sane". ;-)
Yep,
Cheers bro

[Robin]

Left-wing/Right-wing politics is just a metaphor for Left-brain/Right-brain IMBALANCE.

Watch this video between 23:00-27:05


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0V9Nz7Rk4o4

I'd also suggest watching the whole video. :)

[Omni]

In my belief, ANYONE who identifies with either of the Elite-controlled duopoly parties is insane

Underlined and bolded mine. This sums up my post which I was about to make. But Dennis sums it up rather masterfully. :)

The whole thing disgusts me... The division of America into red and blue parties and communities is ridiculous, and is the mental illness. Not one side or the other, which they will finger point all day...

The whole system is for stagnation, and keeping the current powers the be in power. They take turns doing the agenda and screwing over America, while America fingerpoints to the elephant or donkey...

[jagman]

"My liberal friends simply know so much that isnt so."Ronald Reagan"
The progressives are who scare me.

[rgray222]

This wonderful definition of classical liberalism given all the way back in 1873 by England's Sir William Harcourt, who made the point in a talk at Oxford. Liberty, said Harcourt,

…does not consist in making others do what you think is right. The difference between a free Government and a Government which is not free is principally this -- that a Government which is not free interferes with everything it can, and a free Government interferes with nothing except what it must. A despotic government tries to make everybody do what it wishes, a Liberal Government tries, so f
ar as the safety of society will permit, to allow everybody to do what he wishes.

Unfortunately the way we define liberalism has dramatically changed. It is no longer anything it started out to be. It was originally meant to be defined as a government that only intruded to keep society safe. Liberalism never started out to tell people what is right or wrong. It has morphed into different shades of socialism, large and intrusive government. Liberalism has started to tell people they type of lights bulbs to use,cars to drive, types of toilets we should be flushing, the size of your soft drink, school lunches you should eat and even whether people should smoke or not. It was never meant to do such thing, It has even morphed under the current administration to be pro domestic spying, pro drone, pro extremely large government and to a certain extent pro war. In the last 20 years liberalism has moved in favor of big business, bailed out banks, insurance companies and car companies. The core liberal philosophy was never meant to be this involved.

Many liberals today openly reject the US Constitution, the primary reason for this is because this document limits government power, it tells government what it can't do and people that want a large all encompassing government do not want limits on government power.

While liberals and conservatives have almost always wanted the same core objectives they have vastly different ideas on how to get there. I think that we are eventually heading towards some sort of hybrid government. This may not be a bad thing if it is put in place correctly. Government setting the standard and corporations using their money to implement the desired outcome. Government would get out of the way and let the market work. Government would then provide oversight to insure proper implementation and desired outcomes.

In other words we would not have a complete government takeover of health care, education, taxes, prisons, pharmaceuticals etc. We would have a hybrid system where corporations have a financial stake in the game to make sure things go according to plan. We vacillate between all government and all corporate but neither systems serves the people very well.

[Jake]

The entire article seems to be a political stunt similar to the one attempted by liberals regarding conservatives in recent times. Consider the following article: Study of Bush's Psyche touches a nerve. (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/aug/13/usa.redbox)

Snippet:
A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".
As if that was not enough to get Republican blood boiling, the report's four authors linked Hitler, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan and the rightwing talkshow host, Rush Limbaugh, arguing they all suffered from the same affliction.


In more recent times, Every Human Emotion Classified as a Mental Illness (http://www.naturalnews.com/038322_DSM-5_psychiatry_false_diagnosis.html)


This article here declares that Creativity itself, (http://naturalsociety.com/scientists-creativity-part-of-mental-illness/) is a mental illness...


A Comprehensive Medical Bill (http://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/newsarticle.aspx?articleid=1865903) was recently introduced to create an enormous Governmental arm including a new Position within DHHS to coordinate activities within the agency. $40,000,000 a year for the National Institute of Mental Health to fund the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies..

Translation: Governments, along with Lawyers and Psychologists have been hard at work redefining 'Mental Illness' in a way that includes 100% of people, in a continued effort to force people onto psych drugs and into prisons,, as well as a way to control the courts. Everyone is insane, therefore under control of HR3717, which will coordinate with firefighters and law enforcement.

I see it as just another brick in the wall.

Jake.

Last but not least: United Nations Preparing to Manage Global Mental Health. (http://www.activistpost.com/2012/01/united-nations-preparing-to-manage.html) UN Agenda 21?

[enfoldedblue]

Divide and conquor. Keep us focused on our differences to distract us from the fact that the ways we are the same...our humaness ...wanting feel safe, to be free, and to be healthy have been compromised.

[Frederick Jackson]

Dr. Rossiter describes liberals as having strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions that relentlessly undermine the most important principals on which our freedoms are founded.
{ this thread is not a joke }

http://rightamerican.wordpress.com/scientists-find-%e2%80%98liberal-gene%e2%80%99/is-liberalism-a-mental-illness/

I used to feel this way about Liberals. And I still do. But now I also feel this way about so called conservatives. They both manifest social disease, they bring their own characterological disturbance and project it onto others in the political arena. And when it is catching it becomes what WR Reich called emotional plague. I have friends to my left and right and I always seem to be getting hammered for not having the correct liberal or conservative view or stance.

[Agape]

Any 'ism is insane in todays world , no matter what 'ism it is , trying to define 'truth' as a movement or strategy , a group of people who will win ..it's an outlived system .
The tragedy is .. that you still have countries in this world , like China for example and that's not a little country and not the only one who are not even close to the idea of freedom and democracy and the idea of two or three competing ( and potentially competent ) sides is missing .
In most developed countries politics equals stagnation , and disability .. partially because the system is artificial .

And then you look to the 'big politicians' presentations , lets assume that representatives of all the different countries should have above average IQs, overviews , analytic and synthetic abilities and global awareness , and Master Degree in no matter what , at least ,
and you ask ...

if the rest of us can see how very dangerous and inhumane is the war game they play , playing against /with people , the game of divided world , game of allies and enemies , like boys who got hands on big toys and real battlefields ,

how they can't ? How can they agree to playing a game , big monopoly , with peoples lives .
There has to be a level of megalomania in their heads, anyone basically , stepping up on the political stage and claiming 'I'll sort it out for you' .

What they do on global level though is completely unacceptable in many ways .. they all do, and how 'they can't see ' ?

What does it help any of us if few people live in luxury if the rest is lacking basic resources of some sort , hygiene and medicines and education and clean water and air and food and without this , the planet, the ecosystem is being exploited and destroyed ,
it's no win situation . If they can't think for all planet and its people they should not be there .


There's plenty of young kids who have a better idea than this old fashioned club .

[wnlight]

Insanity is thinking that you can find truth, love, and goodness in any political party.

[Frank V]

Dr. Rossiter describes liberals as having strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions that relentlessly undermine the most important principals on which our freedoms are founded.
{ this thread is not a joke }

http://rightamerican.wordpress.com/scientists-find-%e2%80%98liberal-gene%e2%80%99/is-liberalism-a-mental-illness/

I used to feel this way about Liberals. And I still do. But now I also feel this way about so called conservatives. They both manifest social disease, they bring their own characterological disturbance and project it onto others in the political arena. And when it is catching it becomes what WR Reich called emotional plague. I have friends to my left and right and I always seem to be getting hammered for not having the correct liberal or conservative view or stance.

Actually, the political left-right horizon is an outdated concept. More correct would be to think of political orientation as a compass, with a West-East axis and a North-South axis. The North-South axis represents authoritarianism versus libertarianism.

Here (http://www.politicalcompass.org/test) is a link where you can test your own political orientation on this compass. ;-)

[Frank V]

[...]
There's plenty of young kids who have a better idea than this old fashioned club .

You know, I really wonder how many people would be so eager to run for any kind of political office or other position if they were being paid only as much as what I myself have to survive with every month, and if they were no longer allowed an expenses account courtesy of the taxpayer which grants them the ability to eat at five-star restaurants, sleep in five-star hotels and buy a big BMW or Mercedes with a chauffeur all paid from said expenses account.

Take all that away from them, and then see how many of those so-called idealists remain. If any, chances are that those are the people who are in it for the kick of being in power. Anyone who wants to run for office is someone who by definition doesn't deserve to set one foot in it, because they are all in it for the sake of their own ego. We are all sovereign beings, and although some things need to be regulated - even if only by consensus - no one has the right to rule over his fellow human beings.

A similar thing can be said about the death penalty or other such extreme punishments. Any form of punishment is worthless unless it is explicitly conceived as a lesson for the perpetrator. But that said, there will always be people who refuse to learn, no matter what, and the argument that the death penalty would be a suitable deterrent from crime is also false, because psychopaths will never think about the consequences of their actions and are by definition unfamiliar with the concept of personal responsibility. They will always blame everything on someone else.

Besides, the hideous gang rape cases in India prove that the death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent, because there are still gang rapes going on there every day. Not too long ago, a European woman was gang raped there, and after the perpetrators had left her, she tried to make her way over to a police station, but on the way over, she was attacked by another gang and again raped by each of those gang members. And this despite the fact that the gang who raped and ultimately killed that young woman on that bus (and nearly killed her male friend, who was trying to defend her) were given the death penalty.

The whole system doesn't work. Society needs to be overhauled in its entirety to make any kind of sense at all anymore. And it probably will be, as soon as everyone's awake and aware. But that's going to take a very long time still, and in the meantime, we've got lots of busybodies all coming up with their own versions of alternative rules, which are just as bad as the original ones.

[Omni]

Any 'ism is insane in todays world , no matter what 'ism it is

I thought a little while to test this. I came up with this word (one of my favorites actually): Altruism. Is that one insane? Seems it's one of the best things there is. One thing that is void of insanity. And humanity has it within some as well. I don't mean to post against what you say Agape, I do believe you have a valid point with the isms... I just had to test it out because that is my nature... I'm curious if you would revise your comment, or do you think Altruism is tainted too?

[Agape]

Any 'ism is insane in todays world , no matter what 'ism it is

I thought a little while to test this. I came up with this word (one of my favorites actually): Altruism. Is that one insane? Seems it's one of the best things there is. One thing that is void of insanity. And humanity has it within some as well. I don't mean to post against what you say Agape, I do believe you have a valid point with the isms... I just had to test it out because that is my nature... I'm curious if you would revise your comment, or do you think Altruism is tainted too?

Altruism is needed on every level , that's completely right Omni . As long as it remains 'natural virtue' and does not turn to some sort of 'institutionalised movement' that would claim itself as main 'owner' of altruistic ideals and make its members perform acts of loving kindness because 'it's right to do that' ,
against somebodies own will, wish or conscience .

The 'goodness with staff' if you know what I mean . And also and especially , as long as it remains 'organic' , heart virtue . It has to be taught from living being to another one, by example .
The moment people turn it to 'production line' and try to sell their 'altruism' as sort of product , it too loses merit . Because then it benefits the alleged 'owner' rather than those who should have been benefited .


But I think you can come up with other benevolent 'isms' and all will look and behave innocent unless they're politicised .


:thumb:

[Agape]

Anyone who wants to run for office is someone who by definition doesn't deserve to set one foot in it, because they are all in it for the sake of their own ego. We are all sovereign beings, and although some things need to be regulated - even if only by consensus - no one has the right to rule over his fellow human beings.

That's more less exactly the way I see it as well . Those who 'want the chair' automatically do not deserve it . In righteous society, and times of old ( long forgotten I guess ) when people needed the Elders advice or leadership,
they sought for them and asked them for help .
The 'Elder' would never promote himself as one leader or start a movement .. unless it would be for exceptional circumstance like saving the tribe from calamity ( for example ) . How possibly can anyone ( truly ) think that such role/post can be payed by money or that ideals ( devoid of wisdom ) are enough to aspire for leadership of nations ,
or that 'my judgement' is leading judgement in all matters human ?

There are exceptions to the rule I suppose and people who truly want to serve their fellow human beings ...even then , many fall for some kind of political ideology and end up compromised after entering the office , simply because everyone else 'up there' are already compromised .




Besides, the hideous gang rape cases in India prove that the death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent, because there are still gang rapes going on there every day. Not too long ago, a European woman was gang raped there, and after the perpetrators had left her, she tried to make her way over to a police station, but on the way over, she was attacked by another gang and again raped by each of those gang members. And this despite the fact that the gang who raped and ultimately killed that young woman on that bus (and nearly killed her male friend, who was trying to defend her) were given the death penalty.

It's an extremely sad situation . India has very old and noble culture that respects woman ( and man ) as manifestation of the Divine itself ..
but what we see nowadays is slow erosion of that complex and ancient culture that is being overridden by western secularism , materialism , and generally , devaluation of traditional values .
This has not payed off well in any culture , from the complex ones to the primitive and India has both and many in between ,
it's historically , multileveled and multi-cultural society that was able to protect its heritage so long thanks to its abiding on spiritual principles .. ethical principles , and knowledge that goes deep bellow the differences of creed and caste .

It's not that India is 'perfect' in any sense but it still contains a wealth of knowledge passed over millennia that withstood many challenges and tests of time ,
and the knowledge is or could be applied with all humanity .

I hope for a hope for India to find its way and preserve its true knowing .. some of which is not even written anywhere but abides in hearts of sages , people who can't be found anywhere else in the world .. and are not the 'poster gurus' or 'big names' but have to be sought for, at times of need , by those of pure heart ..

as much as I hope for humanity on Earth to find its true values . It's probably never too late but it looks to me sometimes as if 'we are losing'.


:panda:

[marlowe]

For those of you who have the time here is an interesting interview with Jay Weidner on Red Ice Radio which took place a month ago. I think it is relevant to this thread. Politically correctness & the border crisis are discussed among other things.
I was a liberal leaning type when I was in my teens and 20s but as I grew older
I became more conservative AND I stopped voting in national elections after Reagan
was elected in 1980....I read a book 20 years ago called Paved With Good Intentions which talked about how LBJ's "war on poverty" has only created more poverty.It appears that the welfare system is a bit of a failure..IMHO.
When I was in my early 20s I thought {wrongly} that I knew more about the way things worked than my father. He used to say " You can't get something for nothing."...It took me quite a while to realize my dad was talking about karma .

You end up "paying" for what you get for "free" in one way or another.{IMO}
http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2014/07/RIR-140718.php

PS: I have a high opinion of Jay Weidner . We are about the same age and are interested in many of the same ideas...

[Frederick Jackson]

Aw. foo, jeez, whaddya know, I came out leftist and somewhat libertarian. dah, used to call myself a conservative. but always had a radical side also. like a conservative who believed in worker ownership of means of production. tried that on a conservative chic in a bar and that did not go well, which is as well.

Here (http://www.politicalcompass.org/test) is a link where you can test your own political orientation on this compass. ;-)[/QUOTE]

[Agape]

Here (http://www.politicalcompass.org/test) is a link where you can test your own political orientation on this compass. ;-)

And that looks like detailed 6 page questionary ;)

[marlowe]

Dr. Rossiter describes liberals as having strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions that relentlessly undermine the most important principals on which our freedoms are founded.
{ this thread is not a joke }

http://rightamerican.wordpress.com/scientists-find-%e2%80%98liberal-gene%e2%80%99/is-liberalism-a-mental-illness/

I have to wonder how many people who posted on this thread actually read the article at the link ?

[Frank V]

Dr. Rossiter describes liberals as having strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions that relentlessly undermine the most important principals on which our freedoms are founded.
{ this thread is not a joke }

http://rightamerican.wordpress.com/scientists-find-%e2%80%98liberal-gene%e2%80%99/is-liberalism-a-mental-illness/

I have to wonder how many people who posted on this thread actually read the article at the link ?

I read it diagonally. :p

[Jake]

Dr. Rossiter describes liberals as having strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions that relentlessly undermine the most important principals on which our freedoms are founded.
{ this thread is not a joke }

http://rightamerican.wordpress.com/scientists-find-%e2%80%98liberal-gene%e2%80%99/is-liberalism-a-mental-illness/

I have to wonder how many people who posted on this thread actually read the article at the link ?

I read it diagonally. :p

I read it. :) I didn't see any footnotes, as to reference his work. But I definitely read it. It is basically a preview to a book that is being sold. (I suspect an election coming up,, lol) ;)

My overall view is that mental illness is a REAL problem that Governments and big-pharma are planning to capitalize on,, on a global scale... (even much more than now.)

A more focused view is that this article was written by a Doctor who has worked with lawyers and courts, and as a consultant,, more than he has worked with patients. Which is fine.. I am just skeptical of his overall view being taken too seriously, considering he has taken his 'expertise',, and somehow applied it to a specific political party.

I see it as a rouse,,, a gambit,,,,, I read it just now,, again just to humor you!! :)

Jake.

[Roisin]

Personally, I don't see any difference between either party because no matter which one wins, be it a Republican or a Democrat, they still have to follow the directives of the same puppet-master once they are in office.

[marlowe]

Personally, I don't see any difference between either party because no matter which one wins, be it a Republican or a Democrat, they still have to follow the directives of the same puppet-master once they are in office.

Yes...You can google "Are conservatives mentally ill" and get just as many hundreds of hits as if you google

"Are liberals mentally ill "........IMO you have to look beyond the political party system .......

Think in terms of a pole shift and a mass die off and the restarting of 'civilization".....IMO it will be conservative .....Liberalism is a luxury ...It hasn't been around that long....It went viral with the boomer generation growing into adults in the 60s and 70s...:suspicious:...

[Dennis Leahy]

Dr. Rossiter describes liberals as having strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions that relentlessly undermine the most important principals on which our freedoms are founded.
{ this thread is not a joke }

http://rightamerican.wordpress.com/scientists-find-%e2%80%98liberal-gene%e2%80%99/is-liberalism-a-mental-illness/

I have to wonder how many people who posted on this thread actually read the article at the link ?

Not me, and I don't intend to.

Instead, I pointed out that the question you asked was fallacious and specious. [ The word "liberal" has been deliberately co-opted and repeatedly gang-raped by neo-Orwellian doublespeakers. If you really want to have a meaningful conversation, you simply have to dispose of some of the words in the lexicon that fall into this cluster of deliberately destroyed words. Calling your thread topic/question "specious" may be overly generous.]

I also pointed out that if you really want to drill-down to the underlying issues (specific attributes that are problematic, or even insane), you should specifically identify an issue. I'll bet you one dollar that you believe that I am "liberal"; and I'll bet you two dollars that there are issues that we agree on. Does that make YOU a liberal too? Or does it underscore that the word "liberal" is not only a contronym of itself but also attempts to paint a picture with a mile-wide brush?

If you still don't believe that there are words that have been deliberately sabotaged, maybe take a look at the Metanoia Films production, PsyWar: The Real Battlefield is the Mind. Allow me to add a link to it [http://metanoia-films.org/psywar/] (I won't be upset with you if you refuse to watch it, the same way I refused to go read something that attempted to substantiate the thread title. But, I hope you do. The people playing us one-against-another are really really good at what they do, and they have had fantastic success. We can only stop them with knowledge (see their gambit), and ultimately with love. We have to figure out how to focus on our common ground, and our loving relationship with Gaia, with life, with humanity.)

I can disagree with you and still love you.

Love you, bro.

Dennis

[Oouthere]

The link is actually a good read. Here's something from the link that sums-up about everything:

..."What the liberal mind is passionate about is a world filled with pity, sorrow, neediness, misfortune, poverty, suspicion, mistrust, anger, exploitation, discrimination, victimization, alienation and injustice. Those who occupy this world are “workers,” “minorities,” “the little guy,” “women,” and the “unemployed.” They are poor, weak, sick, wronged, cheated, oppressed, disenfranchised, exploited and victimized. They bear no responsibility for their problems. None of their agonies are attributable to faults or failings of their own: not to poor choices, bad habits, faulty judgment, wishful thinking, lack of ambition, low frustration tolerance, mental illness or defects in character. None of the victims’ plight is caused by failure to plan for the future or learn from experience. Instead, the “root causes” of all this pain lie in faulty social conditions: poverty, disease, war, ignorance, unemployment, racial prejudice, ethnic and gender discrimination, modern technology, capitalism, globalization and imperialism. In the radical liberal mind, this suffering is inflicted on the innocent by various predators and persecutors: “Big Business,” “Big Corporations,” “greedy capitalists,” U.S. Imperialists,” “the oppressors,” “the rich,” “the wealthy,” “the powerful” and “the selfish.”

IMO there are some real issues in the above (i.e. free energy suppression, oppressive government, etc). I live in a area that thrives on welfare and a lot of the people have no desire or intention of helping themselves. Why should I pay 30% of my take-home pay to help them? Why can't I help those that I wish, and think deserving of help? To me, that's all a conservative really desires. Most of the other stuff is simply made-up by the political machine.

[marlowe]

I have to wonder how many people who posted on this thread actually read the article at the link ?

, the same way I refused to go read something that attempted to substantiate the thread title.

Great.Dennis...But I don't want your love . .......But at least I know that you think you know something that you don't...;)

[ghostrider]

the whole thing is insanity , doing the same thing and expecting a different result , oh if we can just get our candidate in the oval office , things will change for the better , yes we can , it's time for them to go , change you can believe in ... the two party system owns the whole enchilada , no matter who sits in the chair , the system is broken ... I say having faith in a two party system is mental illness ... vote for the challenger , clean house , fire them all ... toss conservative and Liberalism from our language and let us all be Americans ... bye bye division ... go 50-50 on all ideas , share the blame and share the fame , then the only finger pointing is the one in the mirror ... we have no one to blame but ourselves , the system will change when WE change it ...

[Dennis Leahy]

Great.Dennis...But I don't want your love
It's not something you get only if you want it - it's not just allocated to those "deemed worthy."

What I will withdraw is my participation in this thread, as it's obvious you're not going to respond to what I wrote about the term "liberal" and why using that term destroys the premise of the question in the thread title.

Something to ponder: Is drone bombing "liberal", "neo-liberal", "conservative", or "neo-conservative?" Does it change depending on the whether the puppet in the Oval Office has a "D" or an "R" tattooed on their butt cheek? How about siding with Monsanto in their quest to take over the world's food supply by genetically modifying and patenting seeds? Is siding with that "liberal", "neo-liberal", "conservative", or "neo-conservative?" Is aiding and abetting the Big Energy Mafia's suppression of pollution free (and or simply "free") energy "liberal", "neo-liberal", "conservative", or "neo-conservative?" Are you catching on yet that these labels are as hollow as a campaign promise, that these labels are used to manipulate us, that the exact same actions performed by your political enemy are labeled with whichever word/phrase you want and that word/phrase is made pejorative? If you want to talk about issues, talk about issues, not meaningless labels.

Dennis

[East Sun]

You're needed here Dennis. Don't be bothered by a few criticisms. Speak your truth as you see it.

[Jake]

I have to wonder how many people who posted on this thread actually read the article at the link ?

, the same way I refused to go read something that attempted to substantiate the thread title.

Great.Dennis...But I don't want your love . .......But at least I know that you think you know something that you don't...;)

Great, Phil,, you just pissed away one of the greatest minds on this forum. You don't really want a discussion, you just want an argument. And a one sided on, at that.

To Whom it may concern!! This article is a solicitation of a book called "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." The author is SELLING you his bias.

Phil, if you want a debate about liberalism and conservatism,, why are you masking it in BS??? The author of this book is trivializing a serious problem, mental health. He should be ashamed of himself,, IMHO..

You mean to tell us that if the worlds falls apart after a poll shift, or a die off,,, the only thing you are worried about is making sure Republicans are elected?????

Again,, Brilliant..


IMO you have to look beyond the political party system .......


When you say "You",, do you mean, just US,,,,, or do you include yourself too??? Just wondering, because you opened up with a fairly biased slant regarding mental illness and Liberals... I think you should practice what you preach.. But that may be asking a bit too much.

Mental illness is a REAL issue, Phil. Not one that needs to be exploited, simply because of a political bias. If you want to be political,,,, I'd say that voting for either party, and expecting a difference is pretty close to crazy,,,, no?

Jake.

[bruno dante]

Threads like these make me wish Kurt Vonnegut was still around...maybe even posting on the forum. I think he'd have been wonderful here. But Dennis is a pretty damn good consolation prize. And if you're still giving out some love my friend, I'll take it. God knows I need it.

I'm reminded of the book '1984', the bit where words are being deleted from the dictionary, as new words are invented that can mean one thing and its opposite all at once. I get a splitting headache every time I try to write about 1984, and it's no coincidence. Trying to coherently explain insanity is an exercise in insanity itself. You have to speak the language of the matrix, and I just hate doing that.

Thoughts are language too. I think we can all agree on that. Scramble the language and the thoughts will scramble as well. It's often been called an ingenius plan by our controllers, and maybe it is...but why does it then seem so obviously devious to me? I'm not too terribly bright, and I do not possess xray vision, but I'm staring at the emperors d!ck as we speak. Its impossible to avoid, unfortunately....he's wagging it in all our faces. How is it being missed? Do chemtrails and fluoride cause blindness?

Sigh.

How can we possibly have a reasonable discussion if we can't arrive at a consensus regarding the meanings and disinformation surrounding certain words? Eliminating any word with an ist or ism suffix would be a start. Seems to me it's a process of hacking away at the foliage, bit by bit. OK, I'm done with the machete...who wants it now?

[johnf]

I read the majority of the article, it has various examples of the standard types of propaganda.
I learned these as 8 different types in high school. Once in a civics class, once in a sociology class, second term, which focused on marriage sex, and family.
The teacher had come up with the eight different approaches the guys would use to get the girls to have sex with them.
It was hilarious, and of course he had my attention, and between the two classes I have never forgotten the pointers I received, on seeing through presentations like this one above.

Here is a description of the various techniques for those who are interested.

http://shepherdenglish.pbworks.com/f/AdvertisementAssignment.pdf

This article, and probably the book is just one more example of how we are going through a period where propaganda is replacing any honest presentation of facts in society in general, and
it often has the stamp of legitimacy on it such as a medical degree etc, but there is a blatant scarcity of actual facts from that discipline in these
various presentations.

Reading the article immediately brought to mind the assertation made by Monsanto about why
there was no need to test GMO's for safety because the only thing changed in them was the addition of DNA, since food organisms already had DNA, this was obviously a safe practice.
So we are supposed to completely ignore the obvious complexity of DNA, and the unknowns involved in altering it ,because of this oversimplification of the subject.

Propaganda for, and against many approaches to real human problems is increasing in volume from all directions, the main thrust of it seems to be to prevent large numbers of average people getting together and opposing the elite minority. So there are presentations such as the above attacking conservative views as well. If one really looks at what is behind the words liberal, and conservation, they will find helpful understanding of life coming from both sides, and they are likey to concede that real rational thought and action does include elements of both.
Just as physical life needs a middle ground type of environment to thrive, human societies
do as well.
Real actions as a whole tend to fall somewhere in between the extremes. Extreme conditions are thankfully somewhat rare, and though extreme conditions call for more extreme actons, they are the exception rather than the rule.

The discussion I would like to see more of is, Are extreme political and religious convictions the root causes of many mental illnessse?

I took these classes in 1972-1974, I would be interested in hearing from younger folks and parents how well the facts of propaganda are being taught in schools today.
The biggest weapon that has been used against the populace is under education, and since the late 60's, early seventies education has been defunded , and usurped by political groups.

Because of that there is a certain danger that large numbers of people will buy into nonsense such as the above.

It would be nice to see discussions like this move out into the general populace, and not just in places like here on Avalon.

John

[Oouthere]

I do not see any difference in drone bombings/missile attacks and fully manned aircraft. The trigger is still pulled by a human and the result is the same.

Communism (which is liberalism imo) sounds great, but until each person feels a need to help society as a whole it will not and cannot work. There are simply too many sociopaths, psychopaths, drug damaged brains, religious freaks, and any number of other issues that cause it not to work.

[Frank V]

I just wanted to comment on this little part here...


I do not see any difference in drone bombings/missile attacks and fully manned aircraft.

Well, call me cynical, but there is a difference. With a manned aircraft, the pilot/aircrew may lose their life when shot down, or - from the sociopathic vantage of military command - even worse, the pilot/aircrew may fall into enemy hands, and could then possibly become a liability, i.e. they might reveal classified information when tortured. And of course, the US government knows all about torturing, so they expect no less from the enemy, whoever that enemy may be - there's always at least one, and there are so many to choose from, right?

On the other hand, with a drone, all that's lost when it gets shot down is just the taxpayer's money - not that the government cares about the taxpayer either. No liability, no required personnel retrieval operations behind enemy lines. No fuss in the media.

So drone strikes - and possibly drone dogfights, should it come to that - are a more cowardly manner of killing people.


There was an episode of Stargate: SG-1 which was dedicated to this issue. To summarize, Jack O'Neill and his team arrive on another planet by way of the Stargate and are asked to assist in an air combat situation by way of drones, and they are assured that this is how wars are fought on that particular planet, but when O'Neill shoots down an enemy plane, he notices that it was not a drone and that it was manned by real live people, which results in an ethical conflict between the SG-1 team and the people among whom they had arrived via the Stargate.

[NancyV]

This pretty much says it all... In my opinion, of course.
26887

[ExomatrixTV]

How neoliberalism broke economics | Dr Abby Innes:

zb07GSYG_sY
Abby Innes goes in-depth into how neoliberalism has 'Sovietized' Britain, and the field of economics itself. Is Keir Starmer a Brezhnev or a Khrushchev?

Abby Innes is Associate Professor of Political Economy at the European Institute, London School of Economics. Her research focuses on state theory, post-communist transitions, and the political economy of the UK. She is the author of Late Soviet Britain: Why Materialist Utopias Fail.

Interviewed by Harry Carlisle at HowTheLightGetsIn London, in September 2024.


00:00 Introduction
00:33 How did you make the connection between the modern
British government and the Soviet Union?
05:06 Why has the field of economics been led so astray?
Why is there still such an appeal to utopianism?
11:27 Why does the Left have a blind spot to economic methodology?
16:17 Is there a way we can navigate past this methodological rabbit-hole?
23:43 Keir Starmer: is he a Brezhnev or a Khrushchev?

While Innes masterfully exposes neoliberalism's Soviet-like pathologies—its utopian dogmatism and institutional failures—she arguably overlooks a broader, more insidious framework: the technocracy (https://technocracy.news) movement. This perspective, articulated by researcher Patrick M. Wood, positions neoliberalism not as an isolated ideology but as a transitional phase in a century-old push for expert-led global governance, now advancing through entities like the World Economic Forum (WEF (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?118748-Top-10-Creepiest-Most-Dystopian-Things-Pushed-By-The-World-Economic-Forum)), UN Agenda 2030 (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?111148-The-Great-Reset), and Transhumanist (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?122628-Transhumanism-Upgrade-Wireless-Body-Area-Network-Internet-of-Bodies-Behaviour) visions. Wood's work, including Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation (2015) and The Evil Twins of Technocracy and Transhumanism (2023), traces this back to the 1930s Technocracy Inc. movement in the U.S., founded by engineers like Howard Scott.


more here (https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_e2c05228-6862-4225-bef5-a74738b1d54c)

[sdv]

I do not see any difference in drone bombings/missile attacks and fully manned aircraft. The trigger is still pulled by a human and the result is the same.

Communism (which is liberalism imo) sounds great, but until each person feels a need to help society as a whole it will not and cannot work. There are simply too many sociopaths, psychopaths, drug damaged brains, religious freaks, and any number of other issues that cause it not to work.

Brainwashing/conditioning to react to words and phrases, such as communism, socialism, democracy, terrorist, Islam, Hamas, Third World ... is very apparant to me, and people end up living in a box.

What struck me in your comment is that you get to the heart of the problem of any system ... the diversity and complexity of human nature. Every system has its weaknesses: democracy assumes that groups will make rational choices and that politicians in office will behave like extrememly competent civil servants. In reality, that does not happen. Communism/socialism assumes that everyone will work for the common good and ignores selfishness in human nature.

My only answer to that problem is that we must embrace complexity and have different approaches and use different tools for different situations. Politics is expensive and corruptible, so that must go. Those who serve in government should have a high level of competency to manage shared projects and tasks required by the country as a whole. The people can express their opinion through referendums, but with no persuasive advertising or political rhetoric ... discuss the facts and then vote for what is important to you.

Supposedly we are approaching the Age of Aquarius (so much disagreement about when it actually starts!). Parts of the old always carries through to the new (like Vatican City as a still influential relic of the Roman Empire), and the Age of Pisces will probably operate alongside the Age of Aquarius, but Aquarius will become much stronger and end up dominating. What kind of Aquarius though? And how much violence and suffering will there be as we move from one age to another?

Aplogies if my thoughts tend to be scattered and rambling, but I think that there are people here on PA who are already living in the Age of Aquarius but have not cut themselves off from those living in what they think is the height, rather than decline, of Pisces.