Explaining American Leftists: Part I By Dennis Prager 7-10-18 As I watch a great number of my fellow Americans and virtually all of the mainstream media descend further and further into irrational and immoral hysteria — regularly calling the president of the United States and all of his supporters Nazis, white supremacists and the like; harassing Republicans where they eat, shop and live; ending family ties and lifelong friendships with people who support the president; declaring their opposition to Trump and the Republican Party the “Resistance,” as if they were American reincarnations of the French who fought real Nazis in World War II; and so on — I ask myself: What is going on? How does one explain them? Here are some answers: 1. Naivete Many Americans are naive, about life, about good and evil, and about America. They don’t realize how rare America is and how good they have it. This mass naivete was vividly expressed by the reaction of tens of thousands of mostly white middle-class Americans to then-candidate Barack Obama in 2008, when he was campaigning in Columbia, Missouri. Obama announced, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” ~Snip~ A disproportionate percentage of those on the left (not traditional liberals) do not lack for material needs, have no religion and are single and/or childless. Those left-wing screamers you see in restaurants, the left-wing mobs on campus, the left-wing “antifa” thugs and the left-wing Black Lives Matter demonstrators who close down bridges and highways do not generally consist of married people with children who attended church the previous Sunday. Source: http://www.dennisprager.com/explaining-american-leftists-part-i/ ~~~~~~ This is an interesting corollary to Jordan Peterson’s point about the human reaction to an excess of Order (vs. Chaos). As a practicing clinical psychologist, he writes that such a state of existence will cause people, especially men, to “break things” just to relieve the predictability of their world. IMHO, it also relates to his observation that the left has a problem with setting limits / boundaries to close off that behavior which is unacceptable. It is the left not the right “breaking things” We all have the choice to not think or inability to think plus evade reality which equals the inability to deal with people or reality, leading to fear of, anger at and hatred of the good, that leads to Nihilism and desire to destroy the good, which leads to violence
Perhaps morality should deal more with controlling one's own behavior and attitudes, rather than concentrating on setting boundaries for conformity within one's own arbitrary parameters of acceptance. Freedom should not be defined by those attempting to exploit it. Violence is a product of egocentrism, by those apathetic to the rights of others and the emotional turmoil caused by the attacks. Your allegation that violent behavior is a product of liberalism is illogical to the point of being nonsensical, as liberals are DEFINITELY more empathetic to the plight of the victims. . . . Liberal advocacy of stricter gun control legislation is an attempt to reduce violence and limit casualties. To define "fake news" as ANY information criticizing Trump or praising or defending Clinton or Obama is only hurting your credibility and exposing the intensity of your bias. If you think that YOUR personal endorsement of Internet sources mimicking your perspectives validate them, you overestimate your own influence.
`````` No where in my dialogue did I refer to Liberals. I was referring to Progressive Marxist Socialist Democrats. Liberals in my view refer to Libertarians. I find it amusing that rather that attack the author of the treatise, you attack me. As usual when the Left has no answer for things they attack the individual. We see this every day on this board and in daily politics. A good example is the latest attack on Jim Jordan with the scurrilous allegations that he knew of the sex abuse, when in fact he didn't. Nevertheless the attack is on. If you don't like what you've read either report it or do the obvious logical thing and ignore it completely as I do unless it's direct toward me. BTW, I define fake news as former Obama appointees getting on 5 different TV stations and repeating word for word that a attack on an Embassy extension was not a terrorist act but a spontaneous thing because of a vague video that no one saw. Now that was Fake News to cover up the deaths of an American Ambassador and three Americans and the Fifth Columnist Media covering for the big Obama/Clinton Fubar.
I DID attack the author of the treatise, and added an admonishment for your validation of such a ridiculous perspective. I do not advocate or condone extremism from either side of our political spectrum, but attacks on REAL core principles of the Democratic Party which mirror traditional American values I do take personally. . . . You cannot dispute the fact that you exclusively use far right sources as the basis for ALL your threads, of which many are quite offensive and some even threatening. . . . And your McCarthy style labeling is a scare tactic capitalizing on Americans' historic fear of communism. Your Benghazi reference is a biased example of "fake news", since it was reported later that a premature assessment was made before all facts were known. Your OPINION is that that was a lie, but you do not acknowledge that information because it adds a question to your narrative. Distorted, one-sided propaganda SHOULD be challenged.
