Mental illness amongst liberals

Adrian

 
Banned
Orthodox Catechumen
This isn’t meant to be derogatory or to make light of mental illness, something that many of us have experienced in our lives, but one thing I have definitely noticed over the years is something of a correlation between those highly susceptible to mental health issues and their political leanings; there seems to be a high prevalence of mental health problems amongst the left, and noticeably so in contrast to the right

I’ve not considered it closely enough to say if some mental illness can in some way caused by the political worldview, and perhaps the associated literature, or whether those with a natural predisposition for mental illness are for some reason, eg hyper sensitivity, inclined towards socialism, but the correlation, at least anecdotally, is there

Has anyone looked into this?

I think it’s no coincidence for example, that the left can’t meme; you need a sense of humour to do this. Good humour indicates good mental health and clear thinking – it’s the opposite of paranoia. I think this ability on the right which is weirdly absent in the left highlights a fundamental difference in personality types
 

Tom Slick

Kingfisher
Orthodox
Liberalism is a mental illness. Nobody sound of mind would hold such views
Although you can readily find leftists who are mentally ill, I'd put someone like Keith Olberman into the less extreme end of that category, I don't really think it's easy to classify all liberals that way.

While the raving maniacs are obvious, what about AOC? She's an actress, but she probably is genuinely liberal, however I don't think she is mentally ill.

Another example I just came across was this man yesterday, where he made a twitter thread that is an unintentionally hilarious left-wing fever dream, and in it he misconstrues conservatives' humorous reactions to his ridiculous musings.

I may not really have my finger on the pulse of typical lefties, but this guy seems like someone who is genuine, probably a little smarter than average, and mostly operating on a stack of incorrect presuppositions.

He's super, super serious though, and this zealotry can blind someone.

 

andy dufresne

Pelican
Other Christian
The liberal mantra that all those that oppose them are fascists/racists/homophobes/evil etc, etc just shows how easily blind they are to their own shortcomings. They're nothing more than spoiled, self entitled children who sponge off the system, contributing almost nothing of tangible value. Sadly, they subconsciously realize they are nothing more than societal cancer and spread their disease to all they come in contact with.

They are nothing more than a collective group of useful idiots and when society collapses they will be the first to go. The 'jab' uptake among these drones is proof.
 

Lawrence87

Kingfisher
Orthodox
Although you can readily find leftists who are mentally ill, I'd put someone like Keith Olberman into the less extreme end of that category, I don't really think it's easy to classify all liberals that way.

I'd say there are degrees of mentally unsoundness. I certainly don't think I am completely mentally sound. But I think you have to have some degree of moderate to severe mental illness to entertain ideas of liberalism. You might not have to be raving mental, but if one was perfectly sound of mind, one would not be a liberal.
 

ed pluribus unum

Ostrich
Protestant
Another example I just came across was this man yesterday, where he made a twitter thread that is an unintentionally hilarious left-wing fever dream, and in it he misconstrues conservatives' humorous reactions to his ridiculous musings.
It looks like he photoshopped out his chin for his profile pic :squintlol::

Screenshot_20220409-103145_Chrome.jpg


Edit: I still find it hard to believe that some of them actually believe the whole "execute teens who get abortions" shtick, and would be a lot more understanding if I knew they were using hyperbole to push their agenda on impressionable normies. All the same, I am afraid of how many actually do believe it.
 
Last edited:

Tom Slick

Kingfisher
Orthodox
I'd say there are degrees of mentally unsoundness. I certainly don't think I am completely mentally sound. But I think you have to have some degree of moderate to severe mental illness to entertain ideas of liberalism. You might not have to be raving mental, but if one was perfectly sound of mind, one would not be a liberal.
Yes, agree.

I think a large part of the unsoundness is the past 1000 years of history since the schism and especially since the Enlightenment. Outside of the church, it's almost impossible not to inherit a belief system that has been mostly shaped by the devil in order to separate us from Jesus.
 

rouchno1fan

Robin
Orthodox Catechumen
All I can say is in February in our city library there was a "gay and transexual history month" stand with a "children's mental health awareness" stand right next to it.
 

Brother Abdul Majeed

Kingfisher
Catholic
Gold Member
One of the burdens that "liberals" have is that it requires an incredible amount of cognitive dissonance to support their world views.

It's possible to live with a few blind spots in our lives, I'm sure we all do to a degree. The fewer that you have, the healthier your mind will be. Sometimes it's a bit painful to let go of some beliefs that you had, but it's far better than experiencing the mental illness you will suffer by hanging on and doubling down on these conflicting beliefs.

There are still ardent feminists, very strident ones. They have been tricked into believing that feminism was all about women and the "empowerment" of women. The gullible fools had no idea that feminism is all about promoting an agenda (I'm not really sure it's a Marxist agenda - I believe that Marxism, like feminism, is just another tool used by those who seek to control. The Marxist idiots will be brushed aside as soon as they are no longer needed, just like what's being done to traditional feminists now). However, in the meantime, their are dozens of different branches of feminism, it must require so much cognitive dissonance to remain referring to oneself as a "feminist". Today men are running rampant over women in sports, the worst result so far was a fractured skull, but chances are that a death will occur soon if men continue to fight women in sanctioned sports. The majority of feminists applaud this, after all, feminism is about tolerance.

We are supposed to tolerate (nay - cheer on) all manner of things that don't make sense, are offensive, repugnant to the senses, and are downright evil. The majority of western society embraces this. That's why they are insane.

Imagine tolerating this nonsense, a man in his 50's who identifies as a six year old girl. But it's cheered on. No wonder so many people are mentally ill. I'm a bigot if I think that this is a laughable load of nonsense. I'd rather be a bigot than believe that this man is a 6 year old girl.
If you don't fancy watching a man in his 50's prancing around like a 6 year old girl, don't watch the video.



Case closed.
 

fortyfive

Kingfisher
Other Christian
There is the answer, and description of liberalism:

28And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

People foolishly think, that rejecting God is like refusing candy from an unknown person on the street. "No, thank you, I'm not interested, just let me be alone"
But it doesn't work that way. God is not some door-to-door solicitor, whom you can turn away.
Rejecting the Creator has dire consequences for human life.
It will alter a person's mind and changes his life trajectory.
Dealing with God is not a game as fools think. One can die very easily.
 

Coja Petrus Uscan

Crow
Orthodox Inquirer
Gold Member
I think there's more than this.

<- left --- right ->
rkK8naZ.png

photo_2020-02-12_18-42-28.jpg


Source - Slate Star Codex

5x0gjBY.png



Source: Antonio Vallejo-Nájera

article-5fbeb34886cfe.jpg


Source - Pew



If you look at the material on MBTI tests and political affiliation, you'll find that the defining decider on affiliation is people who make decisions using emotion - which is much higher on the left and lowest with libertarians.

As I have said several times on the forum - the left is displaying the characteristics of socialised borderline personality disorder (BPD). BPD is when someone learns to get what they want by the most extreme forms of emotional manipulation. These traits are more broadly considered hysterical. They use these as they can't get what they want via voluntary interactions or via physical force/coercion. That is why these traits are much more common among women, gays and soys.

Signs of BPD, compared to the left:

- Self-destructive behaviours - see Detroit, LA, Sod Francisco, NYC, Paris, Portland, Berlin
- Using victimhood to control people - pretty much every aspect of institutional society
- Frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment - extreme sheep-like behaviour, see COVID, St. Floyd etc.
- Unstable and chaotic interpersonal relationships, often characterized by alternating between extremes of idealization and devaluation - cancelling today what was fine yesterday
- Markedly disturbed sense of identity and distorted self-image - trans, furries, LGBT etc., cultural revolution
- Impulsive or reckless behaviors - modern monetary theory, sexual liberation etc.
- Recurrent suicidal gestures or self harm - higher rates for liberals and their most prized constituents (trans etc.), this is an emotional response
- Intense or uncontrollable emotional reactions - just disagree with them
- Chronic feelings of emptiness - rootless, cosmopolitan, Los Angeles etc.
- Inappropriate, intense anger or difficulty controlling anger - just disagree with them

BPDs seek to control others to calm themselves down, create an environment that is safe and useful for them, and have others that are below them. The left-wing society is the same, but socialised.

Some difference between UK political affiliation:
Dennison-personality-traits-fig-1.jpg
 

Stoyan

 
Banned
Orthodox
I would argue that there is no such thing as "mental illness". There is either some kind of temporary psychological and emotional disruption because of huge stress, or there is a demonic possession. And the former leads to the latter. I don't accept the atheistic approach to mental illness.

Also one doesn't have to be "mentally ill" in order to do crazy illogical things. They can be justified by ideology for example, and the person thinks that their beliefs are completely sane, rational, and correct. They are not exactly "mentally ill" per say, they just cannot see outside of their bubble. A mass formation psychosis or brainwashing.

iu
 

Wutang

Hummingbird
Gold Member
I would also add in that that there's a certain fashion among left-leaning groups to identify as having a mental illness of some sort. I think it's hits the same parts of their brains that gets satisfaction from identifying as a racial or sexual minority or having some sort of other victim identity.
 

DenizenJane

Woodpecker
Non-Christian
You wonder sometimes if mental illness is the pre-emptive insurance policy if this whole thing ignites and we get full blown Red Terror ala China. If, God willing, that comes and goes, the peon leftists will want a pre-fab excuse if they ever get confronted or even tried over a multi-year murder/pillage orgy.

"Hey...hey man. I was certifiably mental ill at the time, so they took advantage and tricked and manipulated me into doing what I did"
 

Adrian

 
Banned
Orthodox Catechumen
I think there's more than this.

<- left --- right ->
rkK8naZ.png

photo_2020-02-12_18-42-28.jpg


Source - Slate Star Codex

5x0gjBY.png



Source: Antonio Vallejo-Nájera

article-5fbeb34886cfe.jpg


Source - Pew



If you look at the material on MBTI tests and political affiliation, you'll find that the defining decider on affiliation is people who make decisions using emotion - which is much higher on the left and lowest with libertarians.

As I have said several times on the forum - the left is displaying the characteristics of socialised borderline personality disorder (BPD). BPD is when someone learns to get what they want by the most extreme forms of emotional manipulation. These traits are more broadly considered hysterical. They use these as they can't get what they want via voluntary interactions or via physical force/coercion. That is why these traits are much more common among women, gays and soys.

Signs of BPD, compared to the left:

- Self-destructive behaviours - see Detroit, LA, Sod Francisco, NYC, Paris, Portland, Berlin
- Using victimhood to control people - pretty much every aspect of institutional society
- Frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment - extreme sheep-like behaviour, see COVID, St. Floyd etc.
- Unstable and chaotic interpersonal relationships, often characterized by alternating between extremes of idealization and devaluation - cancelling today what was fine yesterday
- Markedly disturbed sense of identity and distorted self-image - trans, furries, LGBT etc., cultural revolution
- Impulsive or reckless behaviors - modern monetary theory, sexual liberation etc.
- Recurrent suicidal gestures or self harm - higher rates for liberals and their most prized constituents (trans etc.), this is an emotional response
- Intense or uncontrollable emotional reactions - just disagree with them
- Chronic feelings of emptiness - rootless, cosmopolitan, Los Angeles etc.
- Inappropriate, intense anger or difficulty controlling anger - just disagree with them

BPDs seek to control others to calm themselves down, create an environment that is safe and useful for them, and have others that are below them. The left-wing society is the same, but socialised.

Some difference between UK political affiliation:
Dennison-personality-traits-fig-1.jpg
That's amazing and fits exactly with my own experience. How interesting that within the left the marxists stand out

There's a bunch of illnesses bagged together in the questions and I suspect depression is particularly high amongst them

Also very noticeable that the prevalence of illness is more pronounced in men particularly, so an extremely liberal woman has roughly the same incidence of MH problems as a moderately conservative woman whereas in the men it's a 3 or 4-fold difference: left wing men (as with my anecdotal experience) are very likely to suffer mental health issues. They are feminised in some way, highly emotional and in a state of pschological turmoil because of this - my own well worn theory with those who virtue signal and bang the drum for 'ThE OPpReSSed' is that it is a form of displacement activity for worrying about their own poor mental health, low self-esteem and terrible family relations
 

Adrian

 
Banned
Orthodox Catechumen
Liberalism is a mental illness. Nobody sound of mind would hold such views

I think liberalism is a psychological attitude which has many causes and different influences and is determined by personality type and character and a society that is set up to harness the energy of the intellectually curious, but credulous, and drive them in a particular direction

It's a demonic state of mind that incubates mental illness
 

Blade Runner

Hummingbird
Orthodox
They use these as they can't get what they want via voluntary interactions or via physical force/coercion.
Indeed, in colloquial language they are called "losers." And yes, they have to scheme with collectivism and emotional manipulation, as you've stated, in order to even sniff a chance of getting what they want, which is usually void of any virtue whatsoever, rather it focuses on being impulsive or selfish.
 

Lawrence87

Kingfisher
Orthodox
There's a lot of insanity in liberalism. Like the idea that so long as you don't harm other people then whatever you want to do with your life is fine.

There's no concept that society is comprised of individuals. So, for instance, if a society is comprised of a large proportion of sodomites, or socially inept porn addicts who smoke weed and play video games all day, this will have a detrimental effect and inevitably harm others.

There's this bizarre separation between the individual and society, like if society let's the individual do whatever even if it is destructive (let's even give them free crack pipes) then there's no damage to society at large because all those who freely choose to not be denegerate losers will keep things afloat. It's an insane premise.
 

HatefulTwerp

Pigeon
Other Christian

Is Liberalism Really a Mental Illness?



Conservative pundits like Michael Savage and Mark Dice like to ruffle feathers by claiming that liberalism is a mental disorder. Well… Is it?



No. Of course not. It’s crude and dangerous to pathologise the political beliefs of half the population - beliefs which have often changed the world for the better.



However, this pathologising has been done to conservatives since the end of World War II. In his theory of anti-democratic authoritarianism, Theodor Adorno identified a number of ‘symptoms’ of an authoritarian personality ‘syndrome’, including sexual inhibition, support for conventional values, and admiration of toughness and power (see Adorno et al., 1950). The political bias of the concept was sealed by psychologist Bob Altemeyer in 1981, when he coined the hugely popular concept right-wing authoritarianism.

Since then, psychologists have condemned conservativism as dysfunctional. For example, Van Hiel, Mervielde and De Fruyt (2004) investigated the link between right-wing ideology and “maladaptive personality”; right-wing beliefs are routinely linked to prejudice (e.g., Ekehammar et al., 2004); and studies have reported that conservatives have, on average, lower IQs (e.g., Onraet et al., 2015; a rare example of leftist academics admitting that IQ tests do measure intelligence, and that group differences in intelligence do exist). Meanwhile, the esteemed American Psychological Association has endorsed pseudoscientific leftist ideas like toxic masculinity and white privilege.

Psychological interventions likewise seem strangely often to tend towards left-wing goals. For example, Broockman and Kalla (2016) used “deep canvassing” (encouraging empathetic perspective-taking during door knocking) to increase voter support for transgender bathrooms, without ever considering whether it was ethical to do so. More recently, psychologists have found that magnets, applied to certain areas of the brain, can “cure” religiosity and in-group preference (Holbrook et al., 2016). The adoption of this tech is foreshadowed today by ‘unconscious bias training’ corporate seminars. It's not enough to control your behaviours: progressives now want to get right inside your brain and eradicate what they don’t like there, too. If you thought censorship of conservatives on Twitter and Facebook was bad enough today, consider whether Silicon Valley would draw the line at shadow-banning your thoughts before they happen.

Outside of academia, the corporate media likewise deifies liberals and demonises conservatives. As just one illustration, the press ridiculed ‘trad wives’ (called “radicalised” by The Times, with “a dark heart” by the Guardian), while speaking in gushing terms about Bella Thorne’s $1m OnlyFans payday (The Mirror talked about her “smashing records” while the Mail reported on how she “celebrated” her “success”). The media promotes a Sex and the City lifestyle, while ignoring the fact that the show’s writer, Candace Bushnell, said she regrets choosing a career over children and is now “truly alone”.

This is despite number of premarital partners longitudinally predicting substance abuse (Ramrakha et al., 2013), and some research suggesting that frequency of casual sex predicts suicidal thoughts later in life (Sandberg-Thoma & Dush, 2013).

Anyway, the narrative is clear: right-wing bad, left-wing good.

This is not to say that the aforementioned points are not valid; conservative beliefs likely are correlated with certain disorders in the population at large. Rather, the issue here is the weight of focus on conservatism compared to liberalism – unsurprising, given that liberals outnumber conservatives in psychology academia by a ratio of fourteen to one (Duarte et al., 2015). Indeed, a search on Google Scholar returns almost six times as many results for “right-wing violence” as it does for “left-wing violence”. As radical Marxists burn, loot, and murder across the US, would anyone seriously argue that leftist violence is not equally worthy of study? Of course it’s right to analyse Hitler’s pathologies - but what about those of Mao or Stalin?

Fortunately, academics have recently started to explore the psychopathologies of the left. Thirty years ago, a typical paper on the subject would be that published in Political Psychology under the title The Myth of Left-Wing Authoritarianism (Stone, 1980). Yet, by 2018, the tide had started to turn: in their paper Finding the Loch Ness Monster: Left-wing Authoritarianism in the United States, Conway and colleagues (2018) found evidence that left-wing authoritarianism - as measured through items like, “The only way our country can get through the crisis ahead is to get rid of our ‘traditional’ values” - was a “viable construct”. Even more recently, the ‘horseshoe hypothesis’ was supported by a study finding that authoritarianism exists on both the far-right and the far-left (Costello et al., 2020). Indeed, this year, endorsement for totalitarian COVID-19 measures (e.g., increased government powers, immunity certificates, banning the sale of firearms) has been predicted by both left- and right-wing authoritarianism (Manson, 2020).

Evidence is plentiful, therefore, that pathology can exist on both sides of the political spectrum. However, there is also evidence that liberalism may be associated with its own unique disorders.

Firstly, the modern self-identified strain of 'liberalism' is explicitly correlated with mental illness. Studies of the mentally ill have found that they tend to vote less conservative and more liberal (Howard & Anthony, 1977; Kelly, 2014) . One paper, for example, found that 78% of mental illness outpatients in Germany preferred liberal political candidates, compared to just 56% of the general public. More recently, Kirkegaard (2020) analysed the General Social Survey data and found that extreme liberals had a 150% increase in the rate of mental illness compared to moderates. Conservatives - even extreme conservatives - were 17% and 24% less likely than moderates, respectively, to be mentally ill. Meanwhile, Pew Research Center’s March 2020 American Trends Panel Survey similarly showed that 38% of “very liberal” whites have been told by a doctor that they have a mental health condition (compared to 20% of moderates and 15% of the “very conservative”).

More broadly, the same strain of (illiberal) 'liberalism' has been associated with destructive and unhealthy behaviours. Conservatives tend to be happier (Napier & Tost, 2008), healthier (Subramanian & Perkins, 2009), and - you guessed it - more attractive (Peterson & Palmer, 2017). Believing, as they do, that they have personal responsibility for their lives, they also tend to live longer (Kondrichin & Lester, 1998; Smith & Dorling, 1996). Studies suggest that liberals, meanwhile, are more likely to drink alcohol (Yakovlev & Guessford, 2013), take drugs (Nour, Evans & Carhart-Harris, 2017), and be promiscuous (Hatemi, Crabtree & McDermott, 2017).

These unhealthy behaviours probably share a common neurobiological root with liberal political beliefs.

A disorder called the behavioural variant of frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) sheds some light. Miller and colleagues (2001) reported on a 63-year-old patient who was conservative before developing bvFTD. She then became “politically opinionated” about her anti-conservative political beliefs, to the point of confronting strangers; she started dressing in a more casual manner; and she developed an interest in animal rights; altering her preference for collecting jewellery to collecting stuffed animals.

As if these qualities weren't suggestive enough of many Antifa types, The Association for Frontotemporal Degeneration lists the following among the symptoms of the disorder: rude and offensive comments, inappropriate sexual behaviour, neglect of personal hygiene, binge eating, repeating words or phrases, clapping (it remains silent on the emoji 'clap' which has become so ubiquitous), re-reading the same book over and over again, questionable financial decisions (see $150k liberal arts degrees; not to mention the left's blind addiction to government borrowing), frequent and abrupt mood changes (see 2015-2020), and, perhaps most crucially of all, blaming others for the consequences of socially unacceptable behaviour. The neurobiological root of such liberal traits is highlighted by research into bvFTD. Namely, it is associated with a reduced emotional response to negative emotional stimuli (Jacques et al., 2015), reduced attention to threat (Joshi et al., 2014), and reduced reactivity to disgusting stimuli (Eckart et al., 2012). In short, people with the disorder are less sensitive to danger. As a result, it can impair the self-protection instinct (Shinagawa, 2015).

Overall, there seem to be three main traits which define what one might call 'pathological liberalism', all of which may have a core of reduced threat sensitivity.

The first is an extreme openness to new things and tolerance of ambiguity. Liberalism is indeed associated with the personality trait 'openness to experience': that is, adventurous and tolerant of new ideas and change (e.g., Schoen & Schumann, 2007; Vecchione et al., 2011). Looking at personality more broadly, conservatism tends to be associated with preferences for stability, order and structure, while liberalism tends to be associated with curiosity, creativity, and novelty-seeking. It is also - credit where it's due - associated with thinking deeply and rejecting simple solutions (Jost et al., 2003; Carney, Jost & Gosling, 2008; Jost, Federico & Napier, 2009; Caparos et al., 2015). Indeed, liberals tend to have more grey matter in the part of the brain that deals with processing signals for potential change (Amodio et al., 2007; Kanai et al., 2011; Schreiber et al., 2013). Liberals are more likely to prefer abstract art (Wilson, Ausman & Mathews, 1973) and have messy work spaces (Carney, Jost & Gosling, 2008).

There is a huge amount of value in being open-minded but not - as G.K. Chesterton said - so open-minded that your brain falls out. On this point, Woodley (2010) proposed the idea of ‘clever sillies’ – intelligent people who lack common sense and overanalyse things to produce sophisticated rationalisations for nonsense. In the words of George Orwell: “There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”

Similarly, the cultural mediation hypothesis argues that intelligent people are - rightly or wrongly - more likely to follow the crowd because they have the cognitive ability to rationalise doing so and to predict the social benefits therein (Woodley, 2011).

The second determinant of pathological liberalism is extreme emotionality and empathy. Liberals tend to be more empathetic (Hirsh et al., 2010), and more agreeable in general (Schoen & Schumann, 2007; Vecchione et al., 2011); they are also more likely to reject group loyalty (see Haidt, 2012) and, as discussed, are less prejudiced towards 'out-groups'. From a neurobiological perspective, political liberalism has been linked to activity in the part of the brain that deals with interpersonal trust (Belfi, Koscik & Tranel, 2015). Bringing this all together, a study of Twitter users found that those following Republicans used more words emphasising group membership (such as in-group identity, national identity, and religion), while those following Democrats used more emotional language (e.g., feelings, anxiety, positive emotions, and expletives; Sylwester & Purver, 2015).

Again, there are many benefits to such altruism - up to a point. Many researchers have also explored the concept of pathological altruism (Oakley et al., 2011), in which charitable giving actually does more harm than good (by, for example, fostering dependence and undermining organic economic development. One illustration comes from the donation of second-hand clothing to countries like Kenya, which has all but killed the once-thriving garment industry there.

But when liberal altruism becomes pathological, it can also be at the subject's own expense. For example, a survey by the American National Election Studies in 2018 asked respondents to rate how warm they felt towards their own race compared to others. All groups were biased in favour of their own except for one: white liberals, who feel warmer to others than to their own people. In other words, in contrast to all other groups, white liberals put others above themselves.

This prostration before other groups introduces the third trait that defines pathological liberalism: low self-esteem. Extreme liberals seem to live in a world of self-loathing: they believe they are born dirty thanks to new varieties of ‘original sin’; and they never recognise the good things their history has contributed, instead campaigning to actively ‘dismantle’ their own culture. Their protests are invariably forms of self-abuse or self-abasement, like lying in front of traffic or getting on their knees. A function of low self-esteem is also believing that one has little control over one’s life. Research has indicated that having an external 'locus of control' (i.e., believing that your fate is determined by powerful people and forces) is typically linked to a leftist ideology (e.g., Levenson & Miller, 1976). In surely one of the great reversals of history, a 2019 Cato Institute survey found that just 33% of people identifying as 'very liberal' agreed that “[their] life is determined by [their] own actions”, compared to 52% of those who are very conservative. It in turn makes sense that those who feel less in control of their own destiny would support ‘free’ healthcare, ‘free’ education, more welfare, and more regulation. As Edmund Burke said, “Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without.”

This external locus of control has recently manifested itself in victimhood culture - the Marxist belief that one is a perpetual victim of omnipotent but invisible power structures, from which only the same Marxist authorities can rescue such victim groups. What is less well known is a recent paper which found that those who exhibit these ‘virtuous victimhood’ behaviours were more likely to have ‘dark’ personality traits, including narcissism (Ok et al., 2020). Twenge, Zhang & Im (2004) explain the contradiction between low self-esteem and narcissism in terms of locus of control; the pathological liberal likely believes that, when something good happens in their life, it was their achievement; when something bad happens, they are the victim of oppression.

Pride is the vice with the strongest correlation with narcissism (Veselka, Giammarco & Vernon, 2014). This narcissistic culture of pride is another defining trait of pathological liberalism - even manifesting in parades to celebrate pride. A “born this way” mindset which embraces unhealthy lifestyle groups like the obese can only lead to disaster. As Thomas Aquinas said, pride is the worst vice and the source of all other vices. Without looking up towards the heavens, why would we ever seek to improve?

Ultimately, those suffering from pathological liberalism may have too much regard for others and too little self-respect; they may be too tolerant of uncertainty and novelty; and they may be too insensitive to potential danger. A few manifestations of this might include the mayor of Florence starting a “Hug a Chinese” campaign to fight racism at the start of COVID-19; a pop-up restaurant in Toronto where all the chefs have AIDS; and Drag-Queen Storytime, where toddlers are read to in public libraries by crossdressing fetishists.

That’s not to say the aforementioned traits are inherently bad. Such liberalism has produced some societal benefits that we all enjoy, of course. The opposing argument could be - and frequently is - made about conservatives being too closed-minded and intolerant. These two forces act on one another in a sort-of Hegelian dialectic, like yin and yang, with the resulting tension keeping society in motion. Ralph Waldo Emerson (1903) noted that “the two parties which divide the state, the party of conservatism and that of innovation, are very old, and have disputed the possession of the world ever since it was made.”

Rather, the issue is when the pendulum swings too far in one direction: “All things in moderation, including moderation,” as Oscar Wilde said. Liberals control academia, the press, and Hollywood, and are tightening their stranglehold on the internet day by day. In light of pathological liberalism, can we be sure these institutions are safe in only their hands?
 

Elipe

Ostrich
Protestant
There's a lot of insanity in liberalism. Like the idea that so long as you don't harm other people then whatever you want to do with your life is fine.

There's no concept that society is comprised of individuals. So, for instance, if a society is comprised of a large proportion of sodomites, or socially inept porn addicts who smoke weed and play video games all day, this will have a detrimental effect and inevitably harm others.

There's this bizarre separation between the individual and society, like if society let's the individual do whatever even if it is destructive (let's even give them free crack pipes) then there's no damage to society at large because all those who freely choose to not be denegerate losers will keep things afloat. It's an insane premise.
Or to put it into an analogy to human biology, liberalism is the concept that a small, local cancer is not a risk to the body.
 
Top