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.”

wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56494

the revolution is coming.

can you feel it?

Kind of. I still don’t know what the hell it’s supposed to be though.

You know what I don’t get? How Republicans can lay claim to currently being a party in the classical liberal (i.e. the proper, British, sense of the word) tradition. Because the right to abort, marry your partner whatever the sex in order to enjoy the financial advantages, be gay in the military, euthanasia, smoke weed or take harder drugs etc aren’t important freedoms?

Not to mention a justification for such an interventionist foreign policy.

So, a question to all of the Republicans currently posting nonsense. The only candidate who I am aware of that stood on a platform that is recognisably classically liberal (i.e. after the principles that, essentially, founded America) was Ron Paul. And how did the Republican establishment treat him?

My diagnosis: if you really care about freedoms, vote Libertarian. Because I need it explained to me how the party that twice put forward a man who panders to that institution (Christian fundamentalists) that seems diametrically opposed to any kind of liberal (again, British sense) principle that I would say I hold dear can be any kind of champion for these long-standing, and valuable, principles about how society should be run.

Now that is clinically insane.

By the way, I’m British, so if you don’t understand my use of the word liberal go and look it up. Think 19th century political philosophy…

Top philosopher concludes sheep clinically followers

The article made me laugh. Well lets see.
We don’t bomb anyone who disagrees with us.
we prefer dialogue instead of violence.
WE are not pathological liars like republicans.
We don’t hold fantasy’s like MLK was a republican or we are winning in Iraq.
We don’t run up outrageous deficits like the GOP
We don’t invade countries and lie about the reasons why
We don’t out CIA agents for political reasons, which is treason
we don’t believe that creationism is science
We don’t say we are for the troops and then cut their benefits.
we don’t lie about global warming

we do however believe in the constitution
freedom of speech, freedom of press.

we don’t say we are for education and then cut the education budget
we don’t say we are for the environment and then cut the environment budget
we don’t steal elections
we don’t say we hold family values and then get caught in the airport bathroom having sex with a man
we don’t say we are pro-family and get caught trying to proposition a male 15 year old congressional page
we don’t discriminate against gays by preventing them from marrying.

I would say this psychiatrist is clinically insane. He clearly hates liberals to the point of obsession and
that boys and girls is insanity.

Kropotkin

Democrats vs. Republicans debate is a distraction. Do you want to vote for the puppet on the right or the left? Neither side stands for the constitution the way they should.

What revolution is that?

What makes anyone think that that ideology motivates anyone. I think idealogy, literally, what a person thinks is ideal is rather a justification for behavior, as an end justifies a means. But, then again, clinically nuts is not much of an educated diagnosis either. The quotation you have sort of says it all: Imaginary victims, imaginary villains, and running the lives of. Now, you know that reactionaries are just as prone to producing their imaginary victims, villains, and of wanting to run the lives of people. In fact, if they do not allow industry to be governed when it is industry that has the greatest effect upon all of our lives it is all the more certain that human behavior must be encumbered with a myriad of laws. It would take quite few laws to control industry, and fewer still would be required to amend human behavior, but with industry out of control; economic injustice will forever make the lives of people uncertain and unpleasant. Primitives long ago discovered that if access and use of resources were controlled that humanity could be left free in every ot her detail. We need to rediscover that truth.

It is the constitution which is failing us; or parties, which as an actual part of the governmental process would normally be considered constitutional, when now, they are clearly extra constitutional. We have a lot inertia built into our government. Parties add another layer of inertia to a system of government already burdened with inertia. Think of the necessity of moving all that inertia to actually change the constitution to fix a problem or to improve government. If it seems impossible, it is because it is impossible, making revolution, and violent revolution inevitable. Change is an essential to life, and it ought to be built into any form of relationship, even of government so past faults can be corrected in the present day. It is because it cannot be fixed that it is doomed, and we are doomed to suffer first it and then the dangers of anarchy and revolution and civil war. It is crazy.