temporarily deferred due to user complaints

and since there are more of them their false reality is dominant, as it was in the soviet union. and we also have cartoon versions of the originating places as well.

that is, they cartoon their enemies to control what their group thinks about them

and they cartoon others like them that are known, so that they appear different and their goals appear differnt. but its exactly the same.. EXACTLY (as much as it can be in reality).

the whole of the public has the cartoon image of the enemy as a whole, that the left has as their enemy in part.

we share reality on stalin, hitler, and such, that is just as false as the reality the left believes of the small government, limited powers, maximum freedom people..

i followed the link and he is an adorno guy…
Why in particular do working class and rural Americans usually vote for pro-business Republicans when their economic interests would seem better served by Democratic policies?

because with socialists you dont have a job…

We psychologists have been examining the origins of ideology ever since Hitler sent us Germany’s best psychologists, and we long ago reported that strict parenting and a variety of personal insecurities work together to turn people against liberalism, diversity, and progress.

he is a leftist socialist… his liberalism is not john stewart mills… and my family was strict. thats why my cousin died of aids as a leatherman, my wedding was attended by my cousing with her black boyfriend, and i married a chinses woman.

he is just trying to push an old old old thing…
“scientific socialism”

of which most of the work that kicked it off was the guys of the franfurt school. most importantly theodore adorno, who created a sham with the “authoritarian personality”.

a complete projection and a practice in inversion.

we have refined our diagnosis: conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death.

really?

cognitively inflexible… he means of less ability to think than a collectivist can thing… more original than a collectivist, etc. (again opposite what it is)

afraid of uncertainty.. how so? they dont want the state to make their lives certain, they want the freedom to fail and to enter uncertain areas. isnt knowing that a big all powerful state taking care of you in exchange for self determination in an uncertain world, being afraid of uncertainty?
(again opposite what it is)

and on fond of hierarchy… communists have a fixed feudal class system with only two classes. the upper class is a complete strict heirarchy were no one below can thing other than what above tells them too, and no one below can question or oppose above. compared to communists, american structure in mitliary and life was decidedly not heirarchical other than a temporary state that constantly shifted as people moved up and down the structure.
(again opposite what it is)

and on inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death… thats why they want to be independent and not know the future but leave it up to themselves.. thats why they are willing to go to war to defend their property rather than give up their freedom. they are afraid of death?

most of the military is conservatives… and its the neo liberals who want everything made safe certain, with no waves, and no changes. (again opposite what it is)

and on progress… who is into social justice that stagnates progress, who is into taking all profits away and so stagnate progress, who is into central planning which stagnates progress, who is into stagnating nature so nothign goes away, who is into stagnating nature so that the weather doesnt change, who is into stagnating development by shorting darwin and abortions?
(again opposite what it is)

never trust a shrink that discusses republicans and conservatives, and then conveniently leaves out adornos authoritarian personality so you dont know where his metnors and others got their crappy communist idea. remember the goal of the franfurt school was the destruction of the west or rather answer the question about the west. and so they did to the west and its supporting structures. and given that their goal was utopia, they lie

do a search on Elliot Turiel with adorno, and see all the quotes and refernces that come up.

its not a great piece…

it basically does what leftists always do. they dont understand it, or it doesnt fit, so throw it out.

if morality is about how we treat each other, then why did so many ancient texts devote so much space to rules about menstruation, who can eat what, and who can have sex with whom? There is no rational or health-related way to explain these laws. (Why are grasshoppers kosher but most locusts are not?) The emotion of disgust seemed to me like a more promising explanatory principle.

he never studied the culture he wanted to destroy..

why menstruation? that has to do with fertility and choices and mates… how much mroe conflect and murder do we have in our society because we dont adhere to these certain rules.

on food, it was discovered that by forbidding certain foods, groups of humans could get along becuse they didnt compete for the same food. so you will find certain neighboring groups not eating certain foods, while the other group does. its a cultrual way of saying i will eat X and you will eat y and we wont have to kill each other over subsistence resources.

grasshoppers and locusts are the same creature. but one is a pestilence the other is not. and many when they change create toxins and things that were not present in the original.

basically the culture came up with traditions that worked, and unlike the author, they didnt throw out what worked, they kept it.

todays scientists are like the incompetent car repair man who ends up with extra parts they think they dont need.

The book of Leviticus makes a lot more sense when you think of ancient lawgivers first sorting everything into two categories: “disgusts me” (gay male sex, menstruation, pigs, swarming insects) and “disgusts me less” (gay female sex, urination, cows, grasshoppers ).

yes,. we do relate our emotions to food and disgust, but he gets it bacwards.

he doesnt know the history of gays other than the history gays promote. in a world without medicine, the sexual practices of gays tend to be deadly. (connecting where you dispose waste with other thigns tends not to be very healthy, is it?)

menstruations purpose is to renew the womb and dump desease that may have collected there so that the baby can affix itself. so in the past, swaping human blood, liek today, was a path to desease. and of course there was not tampons and other things… so things were not so pleasant to be around. (on the rag is becuse we used rags).

and his disgusts me less matches the same reasons. interfemale sex is not as desease ridden as intermale sex. women do not mix faeces with their other things (generally). and often their practices dont swap fluids. and so its less disgusting cause fewer die from it in past times.

cows, well i am not sure where he gets that one from. cows are generally liked… either for food, or for the reaons the brahmans do. howecver if he cant explain good biological practices agtainst desease have a purpose and its reinforced by genetics, then he sure cant see that such self control icons also serve a purpose.

For my dissertation research, I made up stories about people who did things that were disgusting or disrespectful yet perfectly harmless. For example, what do you think about a woman who can’t find any rags in her house so she cuts up an old American flag and uses the pieces to clean her toilet, in private?

did he establish that lack of respect towards symbols amoutns to no harm? to him its perfectly harmless cause he serves one master, utopia. but to others we embue things we like with meaning. the flag is meaningless to him, but i bet if he was married and i said let me cut up your wedding ring, you would get the same answer as someone who thinks the flag is important.

the issue is not in which things we think are important, but whether we have the capacity to respect things we dont understand, dont like etc.

he certainly doesnt have that capacity, and so he cant understand any choice outside his own choices. and he says conservatives are that way.

i dont have time now to read the rest… but i sure hope he ends up describing how he turned his course.

i am surrrounded where i work by these people. they are dorknobs, and dumb as doorknobs. oh they have high iq, but they also suffer GIGO.

thanks for the article huxley… 🙂

Those of us on the center-right and right know the liberal-left gospel pretty well because we have that gospel preached to us directly everyday from the media, movies, and academy. Whereas the liberal-left mostly knows the right through a cartoon version filtered through those venues.

This has even been borne out in studies. Judith Warner in a NY Times article on Palin mentions the work done by Jonathan Haidt:

Haidt has conducted research in which liberals and conservatives were asked to project themselves into the minds of their opponents and answer questions about their moral reasoning. Conservatives, he said, prove quite adept at thinking like liberals, but liberals are consistently incapable of understanding the conservative point of view. “Liberals feel contempt for the conservative moral view, and that is very, very angering. Republicans are good at exploiting that anger,” he told me in a phone interview.

Haidt is an interesting character. For those interested in the psychological dimensions to politics, as many who come to this blog are, he is worth checking out. Try this article.

“The many soldiers who come to see us have a sense of futility and anger about being here. They are really in a state of depression and despair and just want to get back to their families,” said Captain Jeff Masengale, of the 10th Mountain Division’s 2-87 Infantry Battalion. …

“We’re lost – that’s how I feel. I’m not exactly sure why we’re here,” said Specialist Raquime Mercer, 20, whose closest friend was shot dead by a renegade Afghan policeman last Friday. “I need a clear-cut purpose if I’m going to get hurt out here or if I’m going to die.”

Most of us former liberals are still surrounded by them, so we know how difficult–almost impossible–it is to discuss matters with them. They usually change the subject, go into ad hominem mode, or get angry or insulting if challenged.

I’ve just about given up trying to discuss things with a liberal.

I think that, at least in Blue areas, it may be liberals who are more likely to know nothing about conservative people or ideas except what they think they know (along the lines of stupid bitter gun-clingers who don’t care about the poor . . . ) I can’t count how often I’ve heard a liberal friend say, “I’ve never heard anyone make that point before” or “I didn’t know that” when I (gently) make an argument or raise a fact that’s well-known among conservatives.