Finally clinical proof that Liberalism is a mental disorder

[Frankg]

Top psychiatrist concludes liberals clinically nuts
Eminent psychiatrist makes case ideology is mental disorder
Posted: February 15, 2008
3:40 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON – Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder.

"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book,

"The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness."

"Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."


While political activists on the other side of the spectrum have made similar observations, Rossiter boasts professional credentials and a life virtually free of activism and links to "the vast right-wing conspiracy."

For more than 35 years he has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist.

He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago.
Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by the two major candidates for the Democratic Party presidential nomination can only be understood as a psychological disorder.

"A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do," he says.

"A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do."

Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government."The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says.

"When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56494+

I concurr

[Moby]

What about the study that showed that most psychopaths would vote for Bush if they were allowed to vote? It was a real scientific study with measurable results instead of some guy just trying to sell a book to the stupid.

Isn't this from that same source about Obama being gay?

Frank, you really need to get back on your meds.

[Kanadesaga]

from wikipedia.

WND was founded in 1997 by Joseph Farah. In 1991, after resigning as editor of the Sacramento Union, Farah co-founded the Western Journalism Center, known for its promotion of conservative causes, with James H. Smith, former publisher of the Sacramento Union.[3] In 1994 and 1995, foundations controlled by conservative financier and former owner of the Union Richard Mellon Scaife gave $330,000 to the Center.[4] By May 1997, Farah set his eyes on the internet and set up WorldNetDaily as a project of the Center. In 1999, WorldNetDaily.com, Inc., with offices in Cave Junction, Oregon, was incorporated in Delaware as a for-profit subsidiary of the non-profit Western Journalism Center with the backing of $4.5 million from investors.[5] As a result, Farah and the Western Journalism Center possess the bulk of the WND stock, but the remainder is owned by about 75 private investors. In August 2001, Business Week cited Farah who claimed WND had begun to turn a profit.[6] Currently the webpage has a staff of approximately 25 people.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldNetDaily




Not the most neutral of news organizations, to say the very least.

[Smurf-Herder]

You don't need a shrink to figure that out.

Just randomly browse through some of the infantile rantings on this board.

It's not as much their views. It's the childish way they express themselves. Like third graders in a school yard.

[Cat slave]

Yeah, third graders who have learned to use a four letter word here and there.:lmao2:

[Independent Harry]

Amazing, all this partisanship. I don't get it, the conservatives over here support liberal style governments. They support leaders who don't take responsbility for their actions and leaders that loot the government and let the corporations loot the taxpayers for all they are worth.

Its the same god damn party. There is no difference between the two. The only difference, is that liberals have actually been more conservative in their spending in the last 20 or 30 years than conservatives have...

[Moby]

You don't need a shrink to figure that out.

Just randomly browse through some of the infantile rantings on this board.

It's not as much their views. It's the childish way they express themselves. Like third graders in a school yard.
So you think Frank's show no sign of mental instability? :D

[bigfootzx]

Top psychiatrist concludes liberals clinically nuts
Eminent psychiatrist makes case ideology is mental disorder
Posted: February 15, 2008
3:40 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON – Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder.

"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book,

"The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness."

"Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."


While political activists on the other side of the spectrum have made similar observations, Rossiter boasts professional credentials and a life virtually free of activism and links to "the vast right-wing conspiracy."

For more than 35 years he has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist.

He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago.
Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by the two major candidates for the Democratic Party presidential nomination can only be understood as a psychological disorder.

"A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do," he says.

"A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do."

Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government."The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says.

"When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56494+

I concurr

I've seen similar behavior in both neocon and liberalism preaching politicians and the media, different words but the same ideology envoking fear, envy, hate, mis-trust, dishonesty, etc.....

Both ideologies go too far to the left and right of traditional politics and attempt to create a new vision that defines our nation. Politicians who are closer to the center or moderate are better decision makers than those too far to either side.

Compare Ted Kennedy to Mitt Romney, both are way off and away from the norm, yet people listen to them. Rush Limbaugh vs. Al Franken two media hypsters who are full of it too. The list goes on and on.

I think both ideologies are responsible for the segragation and division of politics, politicians and the ever wide splitering of the media. Ironically both groups have strong ties to big money and have huge lobby support to front run their end game.

[Mr, gone]

Frankg: Truly a puppet without a master :taunt:

[Mr, gone]

I feel that Bigfootzx has hit the nail on the head with his response. Not only is diagnosing a mental disorder somewhat subjective in nature, it also crosses all gender, ethnic and political alliances.

[Moby]

We keep acting like there was something clinical involved here. He didn't do an actual study. He's just giving his opinion and selling books.

There was no actual study completed.

[bigfootzx]

I feel that Bigfootzx has hit the nail on the head with his response. Not only is diagnosing a mental disorder somewhat subjective in nature, it also crosses all gender, ethnic and political alliances.

Exactly, both parties have splintered into different groups within the same parties. The splintering crosses all boundaries.........gender, ethnic and political alliances, etc. To say liberalism and neconism is a mental disorder is a stretch of the imagination by a study that only focuses on one group when there are two groups on opposite sides of the same game.

Both groups appear to be quite mental when examined by people who disagree with them. I disagree with both ideologies since they require us to follow them. Seems more like a form of subjective controlling of what we think or should think. Both groups use us to gain money and power for themselves while using us to span their message across the nation.

[bigfootzx]

What is "Neo-Liberalism"? Read this article, while neo-liberalism is seldom mentioned today, the strong points of neoliberalism are just as bad as the neocon ideology. Its ironic both ideologies want to erase past values in favor of new ones that are quite offensive to those who disagree. Neoliberalism is quite common today, the difference is they masquerade as being just liberal.

Liberals call it progressive but the fact is they always want change in favor of their big money special interest groups while masquerading that this is for the common good of the people. What I like to call
"TrickyDickTrickleDownEconomics".

http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/econ101/neoliberalDefined.html

What is "Neo-Liberalism"?

A Brief Definition
by Elizabeth Martinez and Arnoldo García
Updated: February 26th, 2000

"Neo-liberalism" is a set of economic policies that have become widespread during the last 25 years or so. Although the word is rarely heard in the United States, you can clearly see the effects of neo-liberalism here as the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer.

"Liberalism" can refer to political, economic, or even religious ideas. In the U.S. political liberalism has been a strategy to prevent social conflict. It is presented to poor and working people as progressive compared to conservative or Right-wing. Economic liberalism is different. Conservative politicians who say they hate "liberals" -- meaning the political type -- have no real problem with economic liberalism, including neo-liberalism.

"Neo" means we are talking about a new kind of liberalism. So what was the old kind? The liberal school of economics became famous in Europe when Adam Smith, a Scottish economist, published a book in 1776 called The Wealth of Nations. He and others advocated the abolition of government intervention in economic matters. No restrictions on manufacturing, no barriers to commerce, no tariffs, he said; free trade was the best way for a nation's economy to develop. Such ideas were "liberal" in the sense of no controls. This application of individualism encouraged "free" enterprise," "free" competition -- which came to mean, free for the capitalists to make huge profits as they wished.

Economic liberalism prevailed in the United States through the 1800s and early 1900s. Then the Great Depression of the 1930s led an economist named John Maynard Keynes to a theory that challenged liberalism as the best policy for capitalists. He said, in essence, that full employment is necessary for capitalism to grow and it can be achieved only if governments and central banks intervene to increase employment. These ideas had much influence on President Roosevelt's New Deal -- which did improve life for many people. The belief that government should advance the common good became widely accepted.

But the capitalist crisis over the last 25 years, with its shrinking profit rates, inspired the corporate elite to revive economic liberalism. That's what makes it "neo" or new. Now, with the rapid globalization of the capitalist economy, we are seeing neo-liberalism on a global scale.

A memorable definition of this process came from Subcomandante Marcos at the Zapatista-sponsored Encuentro Intercontinental por la Humanidad y contra el Neo-liberalismo (Inter-continental Encounter for Humanity and Against Neo-liberalism) of August 1996 in Chiapas when he said: "what the Right offers is to turn the world into one big mall where they can buy Indians here, women there ..." and he might have added, children, immigrants, workers or even a whole country like Mexico."

The main points of neo-liberalism include:



THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.

CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.

DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminish profits, including protecting the environment and safety on the job.

PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.

ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."

Around the world, neo-liberalism has been imposed by powerful financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank. It is raging all over Latin America. The first clear example of neo-liberalism at work came in Chile (with thanks to University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman), after the CIA-supported coup against the popularly elected Allende regime in 1973. Other countries followed, with some of the worst effects in Mexico where wages declined 40 to 50% in the first year of NAFTA while the cost of living rose by 80%. Over 20,000 small and medium businesses have failed and more than 1,000 state-owned enterprises have been privatized in Mexico. As one scholar said, "Neo-liberalism means the neo-colonization of Latin America."

In the United States neo-liberalism is destroying welfare programs; attacking the rights of labor (including all immigrant workers); and cutting back social programs. The Republican "Contract" on America is pure neo-liberalism. Its supporters are working hard to deny protection to children, youth, women, the planet itself -- and trying to trick us into acceptance by saying this will "get government off my back." The beneficiaries of neo-liberalism are a minority of the world's people. For the vast majority it brings even more suffering than before: suffering without the small, hard-won gains of the last 60 years, suffering without end.

Elizabeth Martinez is a longtime civil rights activist and author of several books, including "500 Years of Chicano History in Photographs." Arnoldo García is a member of the Oakland-based Comite Emiliano Zapata, affiliated to the National Commission for Democracy in Mexico. Both writers attended the Intercontinental Encounter for Humanity and against Neo-liberalism, held July 27 -August 3,1996, in La Realidad, Chiapas.

[Kanadesaga]

I somehow don't think that destroying welfare programs is "liberal" neo or otherwise. since it is conservative elites that are controlling the "global" economy to the detriment of all but themselves. It is Orwellian to name this Liberalism. What needs to happen is a little France circa 1789. http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh46/kanadesaga/emos/728_guillotine.gif

[Frankg]

We keep acting like there was something clinical involved here. He didn't do an actual study. He's just giving his opinion and selling books.

There was no actual study completed.
I think I see your point , its just like when historians and learned scholars say that George W Bush , President of the United States of America will go down as one of the worst presidents ever, but to your point SirMoby , they don't really know for sure until they do a study or actually wait and see what future effects President George Walker Bush will have on the world over the next 10 or 15 years

[Smurf-Herder]

Exactly, both parties have splintered into different groups within the same parties. The splintering crosses all boundaries.........gender, ethnic and political alliances, etc. To say liberalism and neconism is a mental disorder is a stretch of the imagination by a study that only focuses on one group when there are two groups on opposite sides of the same game.

Both groups appear to be quite mental when examined by people who disagree with them. I disagree with both ideologies since they require us to follow them. Seems more like a form of subjective controlling of what we think or should think. Both groups use us to gain money and power for themselves while using us to span their message across the nation.

The extremes on both the Left and Right are just different forms of fascism. Whether they're working toward a goal of a Big Brother state or a Nanny state. They each only label the other side to keep the middle fighting among themselves; and unable to see what's really going on. I'm starting to think it's just in the nature of governmental evolution. We created the beast to serve us. And in one way or another, allowed it to become our master, on a basic level.

[bigfootzx]

The extremes on both the Left and Right are just different forms of fascism. Whether they're working toward a goal of a Big Brother state or a Nanny state. They each only label the other side to keep the middle fighting among themselves; and unable to see what's really going on. I'm starting to think it's just in the nature of governmental evolution. We created the beast to serve us. And in one way or another, allowed it to become our master, on a basic level.

This is true, they act like kids with big toys and consider us to be kids too. The division in the parties is alarming but bth sides would argue that this is progress. Use to be a person could go to the democratic party or republican party website and learn what each party stood for. Now we have liberalism and neocons who want the entire party to change to thier ideology.

The moderates and those closer to the center are the normal ones. I can't say either group has a mental disorder but maybe they are definitely under the influence of money and power and we all know that leads to collusion and corruption in govt.:crazzy: