[Kabal]

Modern Liberalism is both figuratively and literally a religion.

Although Modern Liberals would despise traditional Christians, a lot of the tenets of Modern Liberal thoughts are legacies of religious, Christian views.

Human Exceptionalism, Blank Slatism, Great Chain of Being, Tylorean Psychic Unity of Mankind. Modern Liberals believe that humans are essentially immune to biological processes that apply to other animals, that individuals and groups of individuals are imbued with identical suites of characteristics; Christians in the past believed something similar (at least among "races"), because humans were created in God's image.

Communalism. Self-explanatory in Modern Liberalism, "Love thy Neighbor" in Leviticus. Although clearly, economists and anthropologists would emphasize the difference in gestalt when it comes to expected reciprocity, game theory, and Fallacy of Composition between traditional Christian and Modern Liberal thought.

Redemption. In many religions historically, including Christianity, there have been a myriad of options and opportunities for achieving redemption. Rehabilitation, 10,000 hours of practice, "training" and "seminars"... sound familiar?

[greekgod]

Liberals lives in an idealistic world because at one point or another, something in the physical, actual world stuffed them into their heads. It could be a mental short coming, not being accepted as part of the "in group", missed two mile time at soccer tryouts, or any other event. However, they didn't take it in stride and pick themselves up and move on, no, this altered their world.

Instead of evaluating themselves or the goal, they seek to change the rules. However, they know they are being disingenuous about their motive for changing the rules or barrier so they do it under the guise of inclusiveness or being a "good human".

Since the initial event is usually something small, this modus operandi gathers steam and starts to snowball. Its a tactic for life now. There is a lot more that goes into it but essentially in one area they were R-Selected and the ego couldn't handle that so they wail until their sense of a "level playing field" its satiated.

The good thing is most liberals are long on talk and short on action so its just hot air.

[Aurini]

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned Anonymous Conservative's book The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics. This book is a must-read to understand what's going on - this is his blog: http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/

It boils down to mating strategies predicated on whether the environment is r or K selective. K (competitive) selection requires planning, skills and talent, restricted reproduction, and high investment rearing: wolves. R-type (reproductive focus) occurs where resources are plentiful, and social-structures are chaotic: rabbits.

The wolf:
*Faces danger and starvation every day, he must be an expert.
*To be reproductively successful, he must invest in his children; the incompetent starve.
*He must build strong bonds of trust with other like-minded wolves, the tribe uber alles.
*What violence there is, is usually ritualistic and non-lethal.

The rabbit:
*Faces plenty every day; there's no reason to fight with another rabbit over grass.
*Encounters predation which cannot be skillfully avoided; there is no strategy in "running away", it's luck of the draw.
*Ergo, the rabbit breeds with whatever partner is available, shows no preference in mate choice, and then abandons the children as soon as they're weaned.
*When the rabbit engages in violence - because some other rabbit is trying to better themselves, thereby increasing the threat every other rabbit will face from predation - the violence will be mob-initiated and lethal.

Every species has a set point as to where they are on the r/K spectrum, but that set point has a fair bit of leeway in either direction; rabbits facing scarcity will begin to act K, and wolves facing plenty will act r. Our own species is primarily K-type, morally we know that prey behaviour is disgusting, but nonetheless we've begun acting r thanks to the incredible wealth bequeathed to us by prior generations.

Liberalism is a mental illness in that Liberals know they're contemptible, treacherous people, who aren't fit to be part of the human race; so in response, they lie to themselves and pretend to be K-type when they know they're not.

Liberalism is fine for rabbits, but terrible for human beings.

[Tytalus]

(11-28-2015 08:38 PM)AntiTrace Wrote:  

I've never followed politics, for many many reasons. However I've gotten interested in politics lately. Maybe I'm getting old and actually care about what happens in the world besides me, I don't know exactly what sparked my interest.

However when I browse Facebook or the comments on popular news articles, I can't help but question what makes a person throw all logic to the side and appeal to the emotional side that liberals seem to celebrate.

The vast majority of liberals seem so far out of touch with what is actually going on around them that is actually scares me. I've always prided myself with being able to look at both sides of an argument to come to a reasonable solution. However when it comes to major campaign topics the liberals push, I can't stop myself from doing the face palm and wondering what goes on in their brains. I try to look objectively and consider their arguments, but I can't see to understand why liberals are so...liberal. It seems to completely contradict all logic. They cite biased statistics in order to make themselves feel morally superior.

For example, one female was spewing at the mouth statistics about the relationship between drug use and unemployment. She claimed and "cited" some study that only 1% of unemployed persons were drug users. I questioned her on that, and she retorted with an aire of superiority that I should just "Google it". I responded that I don't need to google it, I can just walk down the alleys downtown instead.

Maybe this should go in the deep forum, because I would like contrasting unbiased opinions. I just can't seem to find that level of conversation with the typical liberal.

There was a good RoK article about this - there is a book you can get on amazon for $4 called "The Anointed Ones" - very good.

[Wutang]

(11-28-2015 11:10 PM)Sherman Wrote:  

Excessive wealth seems to be a pre-condition for liberalism. Both the US and Europe are extremely wealthy compared to the rest of the world. When you have large numbers of people who are comfortable and never have had the experience of having to protect themselves from predators or find food, it disconnects them from reality in a fundamental way. A deer raised by humans to not have fear and then walks up to a lion was a liberal deer. My parents grew up during the depression and couldn't even begin to understand liberals and only saw them as whiners.

A line of thought I developed a while ago and have promoted on here a few time that is that people have causation backwards when they say progressive values such as feminism and unconditional openness to every single lifestyle and idea is what allows for prosperous first world societies. Rather I think it's that societies that are prosperous can afford costly luxuries such as feminism and whacky far-left ideologies.

A thought experiment to show my point: Sweden is seen as a utopia for leftists in the United States with Bernie Sanders being the biggest promoter of Nordic style socialism right now. People think that these societies are great because of their progressive values. Now imagine a place like Somalia or Ghana having their governments replaced with a bunch of Swedish feminists and leftists who start implementing Swedish style policies to in these nations. What would the result be? If if it true that it is progressive social policies and values that can transform a society into a prosperous one then Ghana and Somalia should bloom into flowers in the desert of Africa after a period of time.

I'm very open to the idea that I might be wrong. If there's one good thing coming out of the massive immigration to Sweden and other European socialist countries is that we're getting to an empirical social experiment being done in real time. Will these countries still be able to afford their free health care and free education and hold to their progressive values now their societies are being flooded with people from cultures where these values have never taken root? We will find out in the next few decades.

[Paracelsus]

(11-30-2015 02:49 AM)Wutang Wrote:  

A line of thought I developed a while ago and have promoted on here a few time that is that people have causation backwards when they say progressive values such as feminism and unconditional openness to every single lifestyle and idea is what allows for prosperous first world societies. Rather I think it's that societies that are prosperous can afford costly luxuries such as feminism and whacky far-left ideologies.

Precisely. I like the idea that successful societies as well as individuals mirror Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs:



If a society does not meet the foundational needs of food, shelter etc, that society cannot support higher aspirations such as security of family, aetheticism, etc. Likewise, a society that compromises one of the foundational needs in favour of a higher need is doomed. Equality and tolerance are aesthetic values; they can exist in a virtuous cycle with the foundational needs for a time or up to a point, but if equality and tolerance are preferred over the basic requirement for security and basic need for family stability, they destroy that society. Consider John Adams' famous quote: "I must learn the arts of war and politics so my sons have the chance to study navigation, naval architecture, and economics, so their sons may have the right to study porcelain and poetry."

[Glaucon]

I am more and more on the opinion liberals are not right in the head. Acting against reality is not normal.

[CynicalContrarian]

(11-30-2015 03:04 AM)Glaucon Wrote:  

I am more and more on the opinion liberals are not right in the head. Acting against reality is not normal.

Much easier on a fragile psyche to live in a Disney-esque fantasy,
as opposed to facing the harsh truths of this world.

[Lime]

(11-30-2015 04:10 AM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 03:04 AM)Glaucon Wrote:  

I am more and more on the opinion liberals are not right in the head. Acting against reality is not normal.

Much easier on a fragile psyche to live in a Disney-esque fantasy,
as opposed to facing the harsh truths of this world.

Hm I know too many liberals that it can't be just a fragile psyche. It's more that they debate and argue with their emotions rather than with logic.

[CynicalContrarian]

(11-30-2015 04:18 AM)Lime Wrote:  

Hm I know too many liberals that it can't be just a fragile psyche. It's more that they debate and argue with their emotions rather than with logic.

Would not the two assertions :
- fragile psyche,
- argue from emotion,
essentially be two aspects of the same underlying problem?

IE., that they argue from knee-jerk & hastened emotion to protect their fragile ego?
Cause if their fantasy world view was to be crushed, they'd lose all sense of identity & purpose.

Lord knows they hate to face cold, harsh reality.

[Lime]

Those people believe dat cultural differences do not really exist and that everybody is about the same. This line of thinking wants to get rid of dictators in the Middle East, naively believing that democracy will take over.

[Bill]

(11-30-2015 03:04 AM)Glaucon Wrote:  

I am more and more on the opinion liberals are not right in the head. Acting against reality is not normal.

As always things are 1000 more complex than the eyes can see. Who would want to blame nature for creating dinosaurs as it´s "obvious" they were realistically to big?

Others would say they are to big to fail. They are the new super species.

Biologically seen in the time of wealth nature and individuals are allowed to do "crazy experiments". If one of them work out one comes to the next step of the evolution.

The cambrian explosion could be seen as the "libertarian" phase of evolution.

[LEMONed IScream]

https://www.academia.edu/179525/Free_Spe...tmodernism

Guys, pretentiousnesss aside. Read this if you want to understand "liberals" or whatever that means.

[Rush87]

If you look into every single political movement the left push for: The overriding effect is destabilisation. Why they are seeking destabilisation? That's another story entirely: And something I would love to try and figure out.

[LEMONed IScream]

Check what posted above. Destabilisation comes from their own previous failures. Since they failed to succeed with rational and factual themes they attempt to crack the status quo by other means and therefore achieve success that way.

[CynicalContrarian]

Quote:

If you look into every single political movement the left push for: The overriding effect is destabilisation. Why they are seeking destabilisation? That's another story entirely: And something I would love to try and figure out.

Quote:

Check what posted above. Destabilisation comes from their own previous failures. Since they failed to succeed with rational and factual themes they attempt to crack the status quo by other means and therefore achieve success that way.

There was also a Return Of Kings article which detailed quite well, how pro-(re)-gressives prefer
to drag every one else down to their sorry, self-loathing level.
Rather than achieve or succeed from their own efforts.

Easier to wallow in the muck & the mire.
Than to stoically stride forth for success.

[HonantheBarbarian]

Liberals are out of touch with reality, In a word, because of a lack of existing hardship.

Liberalism is born from an economic position of abundance. If things were really rough right now, and we had to worry about enemy tribes killing us and taking our women, or where our next meal is coming from, then there would be no outlets from which Liberals could exist.

The welfare state, and everything we hate about it came from a position of having too much and having it too easy, for too long.

After World War II, the baby boomers were a generation that had it relatively easy. The generation after them is even more insulated from the direct hardships and issues that ultimately shape the direction and identity of a society.

In the depression era, you walked down the street and saw and smelled the soup lines and shantytowns. There was no filter, if anything you most likely had to wait in one of those lines yourself. The current generation gets their doses of "reality" and "current events" through a constantly shifting glass screen.

This creates an entire society and generation of virtual armchair quarterbacks, and among the worst of them we find the feminists and SJWs.

Liberals are out of touch with reality because they have never had to face it.

[It_is_my_time]

(12-01-2015 12:35 PM)HonantheBarbarian Wrote:  

Liberals are out of touch with reality, In a word, because of a lack of existing hardship.

Liberalism is born from an economic position of abundance. If things were really rough right now, and we had to worry about enemy tribes killing us and taking our women, or where our next meal is coming from, then there would be no outlets from which Liberals could exist.

The welfare state, and everything we hate about it came from a position of having too much and having it too easy, for too long.

After World War II, the baby boomers were a generation that had it relatively easy. The generation after them is even more insulated from the direct hardships and issues that ultimately shape the direction and identity of a society.

In the depression era, you walked down the street and saw and smelled the soup lines and shantytowns. There was no filter, if anything you most likely had to wait in one of those lines yourself. The current generation gets their doses of "reality" and "current events" through a constantly shifting glass screen.

This creates an entire society and generation of virtual armchair quarterbacks, and among the worst of them we find the feminists and SJWs.

Liberals are out of touch with reality because they have never had to face it.

I wanted to add to this. I read one of the many biographies done on General George Patton. Talk about some red pill realities, that man was as red pill as they come.

Anyway, he had a belief that war was a necessarily evil in life to cleans the earth of the weakest men. Sort of like how forest fires clear out all the brush and dead wood.

If you look at the modern day western liberal and then look at life 100 years ago, very few of these liberals would have been around to vote in this nonsense.

#1) Women didn't vote. So that takes out probably 60 to 70% of the liberal voting base alone.

#2) Most the rest of the liberals are the weakest men. Not physically, but mentally. When the going gets tough, no matter how big, tough or mean they act, they are the first to whine. If these men were put into those extreme conditions, and it was an every day battle to survive the elements and survive hand to hand combat, rest assured most would perish.

There were still some liberal men who lived long lives, but their views were no where near main stream enough to gain any ground until well after WWII and the short term safety that we are starting to see come to an end.

Naturally, this liberal movement will be crushed by one or a combination of many forces - economic collapse, Islamic extremism, the growth of Russia-China, men waking up, etc.

And it will go down in history as a laughable ruse and a lesson on how humans behave when they have it too easy.

[therealpoder]

(11-30-2015 02:49 AM)Wutang Wrote:  

A line of thought I developed a while ago and have promoted on here a few time that is that people have causation backwards when they say progressive values such as feminism and unconditional openness to every single lifestyle and idea is what allows for prosperous first world societies. Rather I think it's that societies that are prosperous can afford costly luxuries such as feminism and whacky far-left ideologies.

Truth!

It takes a lot of money to fund a welfare state and to have women work in non remunerative professions or quit working a profitable profession after a decade or so. By default, poor societies will be more traditional and conservative because these countries cannot afford free health care, paid vacation time, pro-labor laws, etc.

Second, liberals are out of touch because they are financially well off, are being pampered by mommy and daddy and likely never had to work a real job. It is not a coincidence that voters under 30 are more liberal than voter over 30. Despite leftists portraying themselves as representatives of the "working class", I cannot think of any major socialist thinker that actually was part of the working class. A lot of these socialist/leftist are elites or children of the elite that don't want to work a real job and get caught up in socialism. In fact, when I worked blue color jobs I never heard anybody promote socialism. They may have advocated for some liberal positions and have been a liberal themselves, but never did anyone outright say that they were a socialist.

If you look at the utopian socialists (socialists before Marx and Engels) they were either capitalists themselves, or the children capitalists or some other professional. Marx himself was the son of a middle class lawyer and Engels's father was a capitalist. Despite representing the working class, neither Marx nor Engels worked a real job. Even today, the vast majority of leftists aren't working class. Take Occupy Wall Street for example, "[a] third of protesters in the Occupy Wall Street movement in New York lived in households earning more than $100,000 and more than two- thirds were employed professionals...[w]hile they weren’t all homeless, many of the under-30 crowd who participated in the movement were recently laid off or underemployed, with nearly a quarter saying they work fewer than 35 hours a week." (see: http://nypost.com/2013/01/29/ows-is-expo...d-working/)

The strange irony of socialists saying that they represent the working class is leftists actually hate the working class. They see them as being backwards and stupid and they need someone (like themselves, of course!) to guide them through life. If you don't believe me, read how liberals speak with disdain of people in the "flyover states" or blue collar whites. If they are being nice or if they are an old school Marxist or Leninist, they just say that they have a "false conscious" or a "trade union consciousness". Ask a modern liberal today, and they just call them stupid, racist or on the wrong side of history.

[aeroektar]

(11-28-2015 09:13 PM)Eskhander Wrote:  

There's also Pathological Altruism to consider but I don't know enough about it.

Here is a great article on Pathological Altruism that explains what we see from liberals today http://www.amren.com/features/2012/07/pa...-altruism/

[WanderingSoul]

Because they're fucking idiots.

That's really the easiest way to explain the liberals that I know.

Weak, unintelligent, emotional, hysterical. None of them are really worthy of respect, even if you disregard their political affiliations.

[Paracelsus]

^^^^^

/thead.

[Eskhander]

(11-29-2015 02:15 AM)Kabal Wrote:  

Modern Liberalism is both figuratively and literally a religion.

Although Modern Liberals would despise traditional Christians, a lot of the tenets of Modern Liberal thoughts are legacies of religious, Christian views.

Human Exceptionalism, Blank Slatism, Great Chain of Being, Tylorean Psychic Unity of Mankind. Modern Liberals believe that humans are essentially immune to biological processes that apply to other animals, that individuals and groups of individuals are imbued with identical suites of characteristics; Christians in the past believed something similar (at least among "races"), because humans were created in God's image.

Communalism. Self-explanatory in Modern Liberalism, "Love thy Neighbor" in Leviticus. Although clearly, economists and anthropologists would emphasize the difference in gestalt when it comes to expected reciprocity, game theory, and Fallacy of Composition between traditional Christian and Modern Liberal thought.

Redemption. In many religions historically, including Christianity, there have been a myriad of options and opportunities for achieving redemption. Rehabilitation, 10,000 hours of practice, "training" and "seminars"... sound familiar?

And Progressivism, based on a liberal of liberal apocrypha, copies the infidel/kaffir stuff from radical Islam.

[Praetor Lupus]

Fucking socialist wankers were there with a megaphone when I was walking home last night.

Welfare, not warfare!

[Lime]

Some friends of mine really believe that our country and other countries in Europe can have 20% muslims. I often have discussions with them but it is impossible to discuss with them as they debate from emotion. Anyone here have these kind of friends and how do you deal with them? It's driving me nuts.