Leftwing bile

From whence does the viciousness in the Leftwing soul emanate?

I know that most if not all of us in the Bookworm circle have seen this horrific video below. I post it because we need to see this again and again. We need to look into their eyes to recognize what this is. I view this with fascination, much as I would were I an anthropologist viewing South Pacific cannibals at the village feast…with morbid horror at the depths of human depravity:

I have never, never experienced such hatred and vileness emanating from any group of conservatives that I know. Not even close. When I have observed rank racism, misogyny or homophobia, it has almost always emanated from people of the Left. It’s as if by incanting a few pat phrases of Liberal/Left orthodoxy or voting for a half-black man (speaking of race, not culture) as President, they feel they get a pass at spewing such vileness (as in, “I can’t be racist, I just voted for Obama”).

I like to use my own Leftwing /Liberal brothers-in-law as my own anthropological laboratory. A couple are happy cheerful people who don’t have a mean bone in their bodies. OK, they are clueless, but that is another story. There is one, however, who projects a portly, kindly exterior that absolutely seeths with venom underneath (his Facebook postings make my skin crawl).

Perhaps one clue is that he is also a man very much disappointed with his choices in life. I also don’t know if he is able to see himself as others see him. Similarly, we have the wife of a close family friend…outwardly, she is a very kind and considerate person. She talks the talk, anyway. But if you get her on the subject of George Bush or Sarah Palin, she transforms into a writhing, spitting demon (to her credit, she is at least aware of this and admits it as a character flaw).

Frankly, these people scare me. I feel that, should they ever be given the power to act out what they verbalize, they would unleash great evil on humanity.

What’s going on with such people? What goes on in their hearts and minds?

Does any budding psychiatrist within our discussion group have insights to share?

Be Sociable, Share!
  • suek

    You haven’t been to Pat Santy’s site yet?  She offers a ray of hope, but I fear she’s one of a kind…


    Dr. Sanity

  • Danny Lemieux

    Thanks for the link, Suek.
     
    I used to go to her site on a regular basis but then she quit blogging for a while and stopped visiting.
     
    I’m surprised that she hasn’t posted regarding that video. It should be right up her alley.
     
     

  • suek

    I notice your link to FA as well…
     
    What do you think about their new layout?  It seems to me to be slower to load – and it seems to have cut down on commenting as (perhaps) a result.  I find myself not checking in there or commenting as often as a result.
     
    As a matter of fact, I’m surprised at how much the layout affects my preferences on certain blogs.  Another one – “America’s Right” was a regular for me till they changed their layout – after that…not so much.  I can’t even explain what difference there was or why it made a difference.  I think it has to do with continuity of articles – like Books – as opposed to a layout that more or less has all the current articles, and you have to click around to find more than half a dozen lines for each article.  And then it seems more difficult to find a flow in the comments, maybe because the articles themselves are disconnected.  I’m not sure – I just know when I don’t like the changes.

  • Danny Lemieux

    Suek, I don’t like the new FA layout, either. The other one had true character.

  • pst314

    FA? Oh, you mean Flopping Aces? I too dislike their new layout for the reasons you enumerate. I liked the old logo better, too.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Frankly, these people scare me. I feel that, should they ever be given the power to act out what they verbalize, they would unleash great evil on humanity.

    I don’t think they should be assigned the threat level that you are giving them, Danny.

    To me, what they look like are disposable tools. Meaning, in the hierarchy of evil, they can only ever occupy the role of “overseer” rather than slavery enabler, start a war to preserve slavery, begin the KKK terror movement, or the plantation land owner itself.

    If organized, and many of them are, they can do great evil. But by themselves, they basically implode. So long as you take out the C3 binding them and their leadership, they are mostly harmless.

    Specify your question down further, Danny. What is it you wish to know, that’s different from what has already been discussed here concerning the Left?

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com David Foster

    “a man very much disappointed with his choices in life”….I’d be willing to bet that he doesn’t blame his own choices for the disappointments, but rather other factors, whether specific individuals/organizations or the entire “system.”
    In general, it seems that people who have suffered a fall in status, or who had expectations of status which have not been met, tend to be attracted to radical and totalitarian belief systems especially of the fascist flavor. And I do think there is a significant fascist element, as well as a significant Marxist element, in the current “progressive” movement.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Btw, that guy’s laugh is so fake (microphone operator). Even I can hear it from here. He’s doing the “laugh when you figure out you need to laugh” line. There’s a certain “delay” that you can pick up as being fake. First he did the “gasp” like he was surprised at the “fields” comment, then transitioned to a sort of garumph or deep chested chuckle. Then his “yeah” that came later was tinged with something inconsistent with laughter. It was full of stress tones, not something you would expect from someone that had just laughed for real.
     
    It started in the beginning, but you wouldn’t notice it later cause he got better at it.
     
    Humor is a test. It tests people’s honesty and sincere reactions. If they feel truly at east, their laughter will come at the appropriate moments. Depending on the atmosphere, those moments are only going to be appropriate for a short time. If they feel un at east or are faking laughter to join in the group, there will be a “delay” or some other inconsistency going on that can be detected by trained ears.
     
    Btw, the Code Duello signifies in writ that the challenger does not get to choose weapons. Only the challengee gets to choose weapons and circumstances in which those weapons may be used, and that choice extends to BOTH parties in the duel. So even if the old lady has a glock, the fact that she is challenging Glenn Beck, or calling him out to a duel, means that whatever weapon or manner of arms Glenn Beck chooses, it has to equally apply to all parties, in order to disqualify “unfair” methods. That is the point of a code, is it not, to make things uniform when otherwise they would not be. Some medieval scripts said that a woman could make a duel such that the man would have to fight in a pit, in order to equalize the differences between male and female. Don’t know how that would have worked out.
     
    I’m mostly near the end of this video. These people are pretty funny. Part of it is that I don’t feel threatened by them. They lack the violent capacity to make their delusions into reality. The best hope they have is to rely on government or other factions to do it for them. That’s a problem we already have, it’s not something new they introduced.
     
     

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    And I do think there is a significant fascist element, as well as a significant Marxist element, in the current “progressive” movement.

    A lot of people, like Zach here, would disagree with you, Foster. They might even say that the current Leftist movement is moderate vs the extreme Communists of before.

  • MacG

    Y, interesting take on the operator’s laugh.  I thought it was a coaxing laugh designed to get more out of those being filmed especially when he said “we’re all friends here” to get more out of the comrads er uh commentators.

    I guess the ACLU has not wieghed in on this because Clarence is not black enough.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    I thought it was a coaxing laugh designed to get more out of those being filmed especially when he said “we’re all friends here” to get more out of the comrads er uh commentators.

    I would say it was too. But that, by itself, means it was fake. Meaning, something went through the mental department, then fired down to the vocal box. Rather than being more spontaneous. A natural laugh is spontaneous in both que and timing. In fact, you know it’s the real deal when people try to stop laughing and find that they cannot. Or find that they must exert abnormal pressure on themselves to stop.

    What makes a laugh consistent or “natural” involves a bunch of complicated “ques” or signals that come before or after or during the laugh. Unless somebody already knows how a person’s natural laugh sounds, there’s no way a stranger can tell whether one laugh is weird or not weird. It’s all the other signals that come in before and after, that are used to determine consistency or inconsistency.

    This is what triggers people’s Instincts when they think they “know” when someone is being fake. Their brain has analyzed these signals sub-consciously and rendered them a result from the “gut”. But they can also be analyzed consciously. The process is incomplete without seeing the person’s face, but the voice tone itself is enough.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    I wrote two copies that seem to be in moderation. Key words rather than htmls. both copies are the same.

  • Libby

    Talk about cognitive dissonance! I would bet good money that these people – the ones who so blithely advocate lynching, torturing, dismembering someone with whom they disagree – probably see themselves as open-minded, tolerant, peace-loving pacifists.
    What they say is truly ugly. The Tea Party and conservatives in general are constantly accused of being deeply hateful, but being the devious haters that we are, expressing it in “code words” and “dog whistles”. And here are people who feel no shame in making direct references to slavery and lynching, some of our country’s worst moments, and they’re not even hesitating with the knowledge that what they’re about to say is sooooooo un-PC. I don’t know anyone who thinks in those terms toward Obama and other Democrats, let alone says these things, either as a joke or in a moment of exasperation.

  • Leah

    Not a psychologist, but here is something I’ve observed. Was with a lovely liberal friend yesterday, she is always anxious to point out how non judgmental she is. How if she inadvertently insults someone, she will change her ways.
    But then while walking down the street, she is so critical of the ‘fat people’ who clearly don’t know how to eat correctly – or those evil Christians that hate gays.
    When she tried to repeat what she heard on NPR about Ronald Reagan having no empathy – I stopped and said : no way, I think I am much more familiar with Reagan, his writings, what people close to him said than an NPR report. That was a fight I was willing to have. Btw, she backed down.
    I on the other hand tell her quite frankly that I am judgmental and would rather her consider me out of line than pretend – which is what she is doing.

  • Kirk Strong

    @Leah — Good on you for standing up for the truth about Ronald Reagan.
     
    I think liberals have abused the word “judgmental” and turned it into a pejorative term.  When they say a certain person is “judgmental” they mean that they think s/he is excessively critical of other people and/or their ideas.
     
    The truth, of course, is that we all have to make judgments all the time in our daily lives.  None of these judgments involve criticizing someone else.  They’re just the normal process by which we decide what to do next.
     
    When a liberals accuse us of being “judgmental,” what they really mean is that they are upset that we don’t agree with them and they are not capable of defending their position.  It is another way, like calling us “racist,” of diverting attention from the fact that logic and the facts are not on their side.

  • MacG

    Y, in case I was not clear the coaxing laugh was intentional to egg on those who were commenting.  “thanks for answering.  Now tell me what youi really think we ought to do with him.” It was used more as a trap, a trojan horse that says I’m on your side , now what would like to see happen to him.  It worked it does not seem to take long to draw out what they feel like doing.  I doubt they would do any of the things they say but it is certainly more inciteful than anything Palin has said.

  • MacG

    “You know what?! You’re judgmental!”

    “Is that your judgement?”

  • MacG

    Kirk “When a liberals accuse us of being “judgmental,” what they really mean is that they are upset that we don’t agree with them and they are not capable of defending their position.”

    I had a fresh out of college student tell me that I was trying to make her look bad when I was pointing out that what her teachers had told her was in error.

  • Leah

    I guess it never fails to amaze me how the worst bile will come out of these people and then the slightest disagreement will be shut up with – you are judgmental.
    Maybe it’s cuz they really don’t believe what they are saying but can only justify it by silencing any kind of disagreement. All the while showing how ‘good’ they are cuz they support with words some victim group, as long as a member of that group doesn’t move in next door.

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Danny Lemieux: I have never, never experienced such hatred and vileness emanating from any group of conservatives that I know.

    It’s entirely appropriate to call out people who espouse such views. Many, on reflection, know that they were wrong. But it’s odd you say you don’t know of any group of conservatives who espouse similar views. Consider these examples, from people who don’t appear embarrassed in the slightest: 
     
     
    “I tell people don’t kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus — living fossils — so we will never forget what these people stood for.”

    “Because they are warmongers. They love war. They love the suffering it causes. And they love the money, the power, and the wealth redistribution that war gives to them.”

    “A great deal of good could be done by arresting Bill Keller having him lined up against the wall and shot.”

    “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.”

    “Should the entire American Left fall over dead tomorrow, I would rejoice, and order pizza to celebrate. They are not my countrymen; they are animals who happen to walk upright and make noises that approximate speech. They are below human. I look forward to seeing each and every one in Hell.”

    “And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we’re not going to do anything about it. We’re going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.”

    “If that happens, we get to march on Washington, drag you naked and screaming from your offices, and hang you from the ornate lampposts that line The Mall.”

    “My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.”

    “I’m thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I’m wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it”

    “They ought to hang this Soros guy.”

    after publishing another blogger’s home address: “Not saying anything in specific, mind you, but we’d be damn careful about showing our face in public if we were you. You just never know who that perfect stranger behind you in that alleyway might be.”

    “Howard Dean should be arrested and hung for treason or put in a hole until the end of the Iraq war!”

    “These people want every boy to die. They’re bloodthirsty animals. Howard Dean is a vile human being.”

    “Progressivism is the cancer in America… And we need to address it as if it is a cancer. It must be cut out of the system because they cannot co-exist. And you don’t cure cancer by – well, I’m just going to give you a little bit of cancer. You must eradicate it. It cannot co-exist.”

  • Charles Martel

    Zach, thank you for a classic tu quoque. There is nothing funnier than when a ideologue like you attempts to defend the classlessness of his political cohort by shouting, “You do it, too!”

    Kid, you are one master of indirection. Did you feel like actually addressing the hypocrisy of people on the left shouting for civility, or is this just another one of your knee-jerk reactions to Bookworm Room topics?  (I know, I know, rhetorical question.)

    I’m now waving my hand at you, son: Go, thou, and assemble yet another collection of “cites.” While you’re scurrying about, we’ll have a nice cup of tea and an adult discussion.

  • Danny Lemieux

    Thanks, Zach. Would you care to attribute those quotes you listed?
    A recognize at least some as Ann Coulter’s quotes, but those of us that follow Ann know she says what she says with bombastic, snarky humor that carries no hint of malice. Thus, you take them totally out of context.
    Not so with those people in the video.

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Charles Martelthank you for a classic tu quoque.

    It was in direct response to Danny Lemieux’s expressed unawareness. 
     
    Danny Lemieux: Would you care to attribute those quotes you listed?

    Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Melanie Morgan, Bill O’Reilly, to name a few. On the one hand, we have unguarded comments of an edited selection of people at a rally, on the other, the views of prominent spokespersons broadcast across various media. 
     

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    I’ll put my other response to you, Danny, on my blog.

  • Charles Martel

    Here is where Zach’s analogy bites the dust: Are there any videos of Tea Party or other conservative get-togethers where somebody on camera has called for the death, torture or hanging of any leftist?

    Didn’t think so. 

  • Pingback: Violence Peddlers of the Left (verbal) « Sake White()

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    On the one hand, we have unguarded comments of an edited selection of people at a rally, on the other, the views of prominent spokespersons broadcast across various media.

    That only means there are more people on the Left saying such things than on the Right.

    What Zach probably means is that he thinks the Right functions like he does. A popular Leftist conceit. Because there are “spokespersons” on the Right saying such, Zach thinks this echoes, like an echo chamber get it, what other people on the right are thinking or saying. Whereas Zach thinks that on the Left, it’s only some people at the bottom, the cannon fodder, saying so, so this means it isn’t widespread.

    The premise is actually 180 degrees turned around. It is precisely because it is people at the bottom in the Leftist alliance voicing their biased views in what they think is a biased interview, that indicates the entire Left thinks so. Whereas propaganda about right wing “spokespersons” has nothing to do with what conservatives or Republicans think or say. For one thing, somebody on tv talking has nothing to do with what I or anyone else here thinks. Just because they say something, means what for us? They are no authority we obey. They have no authority over us, to begin with. Nor are they politicians who have political power to force us to do anything. Nor do they have economic power to boycott us and coerce us into doing things their way. (This is an issue Bachmann took to the Republic party leadership and shoved it into their faces. They got far more claim over Bachmann than they ever did over us.)

    The Left, however, has all of these things working for them in controlling their members (reference stories of Leftist cult brainwashing and fear mongering). Thus the reason why I say Leftists seem to think the Right operates like they do, when spokespeople say something it means everybody in the organization thinks the same way. Not so with individual centric, de-centralized systems like what we have. Doesn’t work that way in a non-hive system. I know it’s something Zach has a problem with, this idea that a person can think for themselves without the help of a committee of 2,000 helping in the decision making process.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    This reminds me of the justification for voting Obama. Some people said that Democrats were better at governing and while both parties are corrupt, the fact that Democrats get caught red handed doing more corruption than Republicans, means Republicans are simply better at corruption deals than Dems. So they voted for Obama on the belief that Democrat corruption would be caught and that Democrats were better at “governing” than Republicans.
     
    Of course most of you here know that it was in fact, the other way around.

  • Danny Lemieux

    Thanks, Zach.
     
    Now I know that you have taken those quotes completely out of context, if not misquoted or falsely attributed in their entirety.
     
    To put people like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck (I don’t know Melanie Morgan) in the same category as the people in that video tells me you don’t listen to these commentators. You must simply regurgitate what you are told.
     
    Please let us know whose quote is whose along with links so that we can actually document what these individuals said and in the proper context.
     
    Please…to help us all out…please come up with direct quotes (documented) of conservatives spewing racist bile.

  • Charles Martel

    Danny, have you ever dealt with somebody who lacks any ability to turn red when he’s caught with his pants down?

    No, you say? Well, you have now.

  • Gringo


    Here is a more complete Ann Coulter quote, from September 13, 2001.
    We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war.

    There were a lot worse things said in the aftermath of 9/11.
     
    From a “best of” Ann Coulter for 2010:
    The reason not to burn Qurans is that it’s unkind — not to jihadists, but to Muslims who mean us no harm. The same goes for building a mosque at ground zero — in both cases, it’s not a question of anyone’s “rights,” it’s just a nasty thing to do.

    Howcum the libs and progs aren’t publicizing this example of wingnuttery?
     
    Ann Coulter is a bit of a comic.  As a comic, Jon Stewart also says things to provoke, but there is much less stink raised over HIS rhetoric. Perhaps less stink is raised  over Jon Stewart ‘s rhetoric  because he is not as well educated as attorney Coulter and is not as prolific a writer as Coulter.
     
    Both sides of the aisle are capable of off the wall rhetoric. As I see it, the conclusion to draw from the video  is that given such examples of the left’s  rhetoric, the left’s totally unjustified blaming of Palin Limbaugh etc for the Tuscon shootings and the cry for “civility” was just an attempt to shut the right up. Surprise, surprise, surprise.
     
    The video  is even more outrageous since the libs and progs play the Chevy Chase Race Card ad nauseum: “You’re racist and I’m not.”
     
    Yeah, right. Sting ‘em up after they go back to work in the fields.
    From the enlightened, tolerant, unbigoted left. Which is one reason why I left the left. A while back, while still on the left,  I saw that the left’s self-portrait of being enlightened, tolerant, unbigoted had to be seen through very selective lenses in order to be correct.
     
    http://rightwingnews.com/2011/02/the-best-quotes-from-ann-coulters-2010-columns-34-quotes/ Best of 2010
    http://old.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter.shtml Sept 13,2001.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Please let us know whose quote is whose along with links so that we can actually document what these individuals said and in the proper context.

    This is one thing Zach chose to verbalize from memory alone. And it caught him dead surprised. Of course he will pick Leftist sites like MediaMatters to give the “propaganda interpretation” of such quotes. But from my experience, they, like Daily Kos, don’t really analyze the quotes in question. They just give their (biased) opinions about how it is so bad. There is nothing scientific, analytical, nor intelligence based around their views. So even if Zach links to them, we’ll get nothing substantial to work with. Just smoke and mirrors. They say potato, we say potato.

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Charles Martel: Are there any videos of Tea Party or other conservative get-togethers where somebody on camera has called for the death, torture or hanging of any leftist?

    There’s a whole list of them above, some on the radio, some on television, some in print. 
     
    Danny Lemieux: To put people like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck (I don’t know Melanie Morgan) in the same category as the people in that video tells me you don’t listen to these commentators.

    Too often. 
     
    Gringo: There were a lot worse things said in the aftermath of 9/11.

    Undoubtedly. That doesn’t excuse the outrageous statement people made in the video, or those made by those who have media presence, and therefore greater responsibility. 
     

  • Charles Martel

    I did some noodling around the Internet to see if Zach has shown up elsewhere.
    It turns out he’s a bit of a pest on several other sites, especially ones that have to do with evolution or intelligent design.
    What emerges from a reading of his comments is that many of the denizens of other sites have the same problem with him that we do: They find him tendentious, unclear on terminology or the field of science he’s discussing, and seldom willing to admit to his errors.
    On one hand, it’s neat that he’s perched here for awhile because we get to observe how a fairly intelligent—but not-very-well-educated—man with lots of time on his hands gets off by roaming from room to room and squatting.
    On the other hand, as has been pointed ad nauseum, Zach is not interested in real contact or communication. But that’s OK with me. In a way, he’s like my dog’s chew toy, “Binky.” Lily and I both know that Binky’s not real prey, but sometimes you just want to gnaw on a pushover.
    Here’s an eerily familar example of Zach’s comportment in another room (notice the use of “handwave”—where have we read that term before?):
    Guts Says:
    July 6th, 2008 at 9:43 am
    If only Zachriel would check his claims he wouldn’t misinterpret papers and reference irrelevant ones. But this is what you do Zach everytime you are proven wrong, you back peddle. I’ll leave this conversation here , as it is childish, but next time, stick to the topic at hand, and stop being so disingenuous with your arguments.
    Zachriel Says:
    July 6th, 2008 at 9:56 am
    You didn’t address the issue. All you’ve done is handwave. Anyone can determine for themselves that there was nothing in my comment that deserved banning.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Martel, the thing is, Zach likely believes the problem is with everybody else. He misses the fact that amongst all those situations, the only thing they all had in common was him.
     
    Gringo, looks like he can’t attribute the quotes.

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Ymarsakar: Zach{riel} likely believes the problem is with everybody else. He misses the fact that amongst all those situations, the only thing they all had in common was him.

    The bias is due to the selected topics. People who advocate pseudoscience often make fundamental errors in logic, refuse to admit to facts that are easily checked, and usually don’t have a good understanding of the scientific method. That can lead to protracted discussions with little headway.

  • Charles Martel

    “What emerges from a reading of his comments is that many of the denizens of other sites have the same problem with him that we do: They find him tendentious, unclear on terminology or the field of science he’s discussing, and seldom willing to admit to his errors.”