The Psychology of Modern Leftism
6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general.

7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, "politically correct" types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by "leftism" will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)

8. Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn't seem to be any remedy for this. All we are trying to do is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early 20th century.

9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call "feelings of inferiority" and "oversocialization." Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.

[edit]
Feelings of Inferiority
10. By "feelings of inferiority" we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strictest sense but a whole spectrum of related traits: low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.

11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights advocates, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities. The terms "negro," "oriental," "handicapped" or "chick" for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. "Broad" and "chick" were merely the feminine equivalents of "guy," "dude" or "fellow." The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights advocates have gone so far as to reject the word "pet" and insist on its replacement by "animal companion." Leftist anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the word "primitive" by "nonliterate." They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)

12. Those who are most sensitive about "politically incorrect" terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual, white males from middle-class families.

13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals), or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit it to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not suggest that women, Indians, etc., ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology).

14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.

15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist's real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.

16. Words like "self-confidence," "self-reliance," "initiative", "enterprise," "optimism," etc. play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone's needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his own ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.

17. Art forms that appeal to modern leftist intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.

18. Modern leftist philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftist philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e. failed, inferior). The leftist's feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual's ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is "inferior" it is not his fault, but society's, because he has not been brought up properly.

19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. 1 But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.

20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait.

21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principle, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists' hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.

22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.

23. We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.

These are the ideals of Theodore Kaczynski, I am not stating I agree or disagree with his ideals.

Please post your opinions on Theodore Kaczynski's view points on mordern leftism. I would like this thread to be very interesting.

-LOD

That has got to be the dumbest psychology I have ever encountered.

It is a classic example of how right is every bit as much a disease as left.

That discourse on leftist psychology was pure rationalization.

Theodore Kaczynski, as in the Unabomber?

The Psychology of Modern Leftism, as in the Unabomber Manifesto?

I think that if he had such great ideas, he probably wouldn't have had to send bombs to get people to publish his work. He is a murderer, nothing more.



[edit on 24-4-2005 by Duzey]

Originally posted by Scorpio Shaping Flow
That has got to be the dumbest psychology I have ever encountered.

It is a classic example of how right is every bit as much a disease as left.

That discourse on leftist psychology was pure rationalization.

Can you explain why you feel this way a bit more please? Did he offend you, what makes your view points different from his? Are you using rationalization by stating that was the dumbest psychology you ever encountered? I am not trying to harass you or your view points, just I am interested in them. Thanks

-Your friend LOD

Originally posted by Duzey
Theodore Kaczynski, as in the Unabomber?

The Psychology of Modern Leftism, as in the Unabomber Manifesto?

I think that if he had such great ideas, he probably wouldn't have had to send bombs to get people to publish his work. He is a murderer, nothing more.



[edit on 24-4-2005 by Duzey]

With all due respect, please reframe from talking about how he killed others, instead please talk about his ideologies, and how they impact you. Thanks.

-LOD

[edit on 053030p://000 by LiquidationOfDiscrepancy]

[edit on 063030p://000 by LiquidationOfDiscrepancy]

With all due respect, please reframe from talking about how he killed others, instead please talk about his ideologies, and how they impact you. Thanks.

I think the fact that he killed others is relevant. What is wrong with discussing his actions in addition to his ideologies?

Jemison

Because I did not make this thread to talk about his actions, only his ideologies.

My problem with it is that it is no more than one percent correct. There really is no place to start because it's all wrong and is rationalization to boot. Depression amongst leftists is about the only correct idea.

I think that is an opinion. Plus you still haven’t answered my questions.
Please answer them, and thanks

-LOD

As with most any "right" or "left" ideal I find both sides are just cans of thick word soup. The unabomber is no worse than the ultra-right neocons or their hypocrytical christian cohorts. Intelligence is obviously not a key to evolution. The intelligence of most anyone that is "famous" is used to further labelling and compartmentalizing of groups of people. Shows mental laziness really.

Originally posted by ShadowHasNoSource
Intelligence is obviously not a key to evolution.

Why is this? Don't we need intelligence in our species to survive?

Originally posted by LiquidationOfDiscrepancy

Originally posted by ShadowHasNoSource
Intelligence is obviously not a key to evolution.

Why is this? Don't we need intelligence in our species to survive?

I meant that intelligence isn't often used for mental evolution. It's used mostly for devolution and feeding the ego at the expense of others. It's definitely necessary just rarely used.

I answered your questions. The guy turns human psychology all backwards and then twists it into a rationalized ideology.

For example:

His idea: Leftists are depressed.
My Idea: Openly depressed personalities are more likely to become leftists.

Conclusion: 1% correct. 99% political-fanatical rationalization which makes use of psychological terminology. The rest of his ideas are off the mark. The guy is severely confused, or he knows how to act severely confused. He is a very typical politically modelled mentality. He does not know human psychology, and if he does, he knows how to avoid discussing it sensibly.

His ideas on socialism are basically academic and hardly original. This is a superficial understanding at best, strictly tied to political ideology and organizational function within that context. Socialism as understood by those who know what that word implies on a practical and real level - civil reality level - know that socialism is very much integral with right-wing thinking, though they go through such pains to associate the word with left-wing thinking. In fact, right-wing thinking tends to be more effective in establishing socialism for the long term verse the more confused-but-honest left-wing thinking (sentimentally correct if anything).

In the evolving, right-wing-ruled Capitalist world, socialism is effectively reserved for the lower civil classes, who simply will not attain for themselves a capital nature on an individual level even prior to monetary capital considerations; you will be indoctrinated to think of yourself as strictly capitalist though, the word socialism effectively being tied to left-leaning political groups. The capitalists simply have the more common grade "socialist" severely out classed across the board. All the lower classes can do any more is whine and become confused. Maybe even violently confused for a time. If you want power, you must be powerful. And then what will you do with that power? Abuse it right away?

Here's an interesting bit of trivia for you, Theodore Kaczynski was a participant in the Government's LSD pyschotherapy experiments in the 50's. Your tax dollars created that guy.

Those LSD experiments were, most probably, secret experiments being conducted to test the effects LSD had on the practices associated with astral-projection-based vampirism. The idea is that the LSD makes you increasingly crazy, which is the spiritual equivalent to fried chicken. Every experiment was a potential astral vampirism fiest, the subjects becoming a little crazier with each session. The drug would simply break down any defenses against the practice by making the aura bloom in a chaotic fashion, revealing talents the aura would normally keep hidden, as well as break down any characterological armoring the subject might already suffer in self-defense against previous attacks and other influences. The subject would enjoy a crazy session, which only really offers an initial, abortive form of illumination, and then the vampirism session would begin once the subject went home and went to bed that night.

Sheesh.

Everyone talks about "leftism" as though it suddenly cropped up in the past 5 minutes or so.

Liberals have been with us ever since the start of civilization.

Liberals are the ones who say "we don't like the way things have 'always been done.' We want a new way."

Liberals were responsible for groups of people having organized leaderships. Liberals were responsible for most of our modern laws and most of our ancient laws (the "no, it's not okay for Og to run around hitting everyone with rocks. We're going to put a stop to it" is a liberal thing. Conservatives thought that since Og had always done it there was no need to change.)

The reason you can vote today is because of liberal policies.
The reason you have a public education is because of liberal policies.
The reason we have laws against pedophilia is because of liberal policies.
The reason we have laws to ensure good city sanitation is because of liberals.
The reason we have laws to keep big logging companies from clearcutting every tree in America is because of liberals.
The reason we're an independant country is because of liberals.

...and on and on and on.

Remember, Conservatives don't like changes to the status quo. They make laws to enforce the "way things have always been."

The "psychology" angle for it is ridiculous. It doesn't take depression or clinical psychosis to see that if a man is beating his teenager to death, society should step in and keep him from killing the kid instead of standing by and handing him rocks so he could finish the kid off (by the way, that's a Biblical law, as I'm sure we all remember, and is mentioned in the Bible (and by Jesus) that if a man's child offends him and is difficult, then the man is obliged to kill his own child.)

Liberals changed that Old Testament law. And Jesus, who challenged it, was also a leftie-liberal.

Regarding the portion of the essay posted here. It is the only writings I have read from this author but I think the point he makes is evident in the world around us! This is just how the liberal mind is.

And by the way, what is wrong with RATIONALIZING our experiences? Isn't that the function of thought? I see this playing out all the time. Its the "high mindedness" of the left that gives them their incredulous streak when it comes to common sense and the world around them. They constantly play the victim instead of doing anything constructive.

OK, this guy is a murderer for sure, but also a certified schizo with brain chemistry problems. And Bill Ayers also planted bombs and the Weather Underground started Riots for their beliefs. People listen to their arguments and discuss their ideas, so why can't people stay on topic and respect the poster's comment that he wants to discuss the ideas not the actions of Ted K.