posted
Here is something someone brought to my attention that was on WorldNetDaily. Some posters here may find this interesting, or revelatory, or at least amusing, if they are not too threatened by it:
______________________________________________ Top shrink concludes liberals are clinically nuts! Makes case ideology is mental disorder
Posted: February 17, 2008 9:31 am Eastern
WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON – Just when liberals (Fascists) 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 (fascists) relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal (fascist) 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 (Fascists) 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 (Fascists) 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 (Fascists) do."
Dr. Rossiter says the liberal (Fascist) 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 (Fascism)– and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational belie fs of the liberal (Fascist) mind," he says. "When the modern liberal (Fascist) 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 (Fascist) mind becomes painfully obvious."
_________________________________________________
Here is the link to the webpage for the book, The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness, by Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D.:
posted
Yeah, where do you really think you're going to go with that Ron?
Coincidentally, I just saw a news article on the nightly news the other day that said MRIs have been done recently on Democrats and Republicans (self described) and preliminary tests show that by and large, Democrats look at issues using the parts of the brain that have to do with reason and logic, whereas Republicans use the parts more associated with base emotion. In otherwords, we're thinking things through rationally while you're running around calling us fascists.
I think it was the NBC nightly news, you can look it up.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stop it. It's seriously pissing me off. I hate that so called newspaper. Especially when they print how dare they impede on our right to spank (beat with blunt objects) our children. That is not cool We need middle ground. Not all this liberal bashing, conservative bashing. It doesn't do a bit of good. Middle ground Facts. TRUTH! That's what I'm craving.
Also liberalism and fascism are not the same things. Where do they get that from? They don't even know the real meaning of that word...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I don't actually find it 'threatening' (dumb humor, though it was going to "go somewhere"), I really think it's inappropriate*. Though I am VERY amused, but *especially because your version of it with the (fascist) tagging. Because actually Synethesia, it's Ron doing that Posts: 299 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
That doesn't sound logical either. Where are the solid facts? I was struggling to find some source about the Vietnam war that didn't equal Hinoi Jane made us lose.
And what does this one guy reviewing this book have against minimum wage and unemployment insurance. Those are good things. I'd be screwed without unemployment.
Perhaps it's not worth being bothered with. i should instead study Japanese and do research on attachment.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually since we're on the subject and all, I'd like to ask: What is Liberalism and what is Converatism?
I did the wiki thing with the Right/Cons and Left/Liber, but I still don't understand why the two are opposed and why members of either who define themselves by either term act the way they do and take a certain stance with various issues. With the wiki articles at least, personally I agree with the general positions of both (conserving, individual freedom, yadda) Is it just something ambient I have to pick up on? Because the more dictionary definitions don't seem to explain to me what's going on, and when I try and look it up in other places I just get negative attacks.
Is there some site that just lays it all out?
Posts: 299 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wish I could find something like that. I want some sort of useful middle ground between the so called left and the so called right and it just isn't happening. You can have individual freedom AND make sure folks don't slip through the cracks, but who on earth is saying something like that? It's just fighting and divisiveness It makes me so irratable I can't even spell properly. If you find such a site, let me know.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm confused as to why (fascist) was added after all the instances of "liberal". That wasn't in the article. Is it a joke? Are you trying to get a rise out of the liberals on this forum?
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm confused as to why (fascist) was added after all the instances of "liberal".
Answer: Ron Lambert is an impressionable fool with a black-and-white perception of the political world, and he thought that even an article from WorldNetDaily (a yellow journalistic rag for old, dumb conservatives) was too subtle for his tastes in demonizing liberalism.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anyone else find it ironic that liberal, quite literally, means free, yet people say it means fascism?
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:He’s attempting to define Progressivism (of the historical, capital ‘p’ variety) as a literal fascist movement, so that everything liberals ever do, have ever done, or may do in the future can be identified with figures such as Mussolini and Hitler.
posted
Thanks Ron, that's a great article. I couldn't help thinking of the the film "Reefer Madness".
I love the continual use of the "liberal (Fascist)" nomenclature - it's as if the author assumes the reader is afflicted with some sort of attention deficit disorder.
Posts: 892 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Y'all know that I'm not a big fan of modern liberalism. I think it absolutely does choke the freedom out of people, and favors a horrible paternalism that infantilizes the general populace. That said... Good Lord, Ron, are you trying to parody yourself?!
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if conservatives get that rampant conservatism causes rampant liberalism and vice versa.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really can't stand the rampant hate in our political discourse. What ever came of disagreeing with somebody but still respecting their opinion and their person?
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My new book--Conservative (Communists) Are Insane. It shows how all Conservative views in reality will lead to bigger government, loss of individual rights, and an end of Democracy being replaced by a corrupt cronyistic aristocracy. This must prove that they are crazy folks, just crazy.
Actually this falls under what I call the Sauron Doctrine. Gandalfs plan in LotR was to sneak a small group into Mordor to destroy the ring. It would succeed because Sauron was so focused on world domination that he could not imagine anyone actually destroying the ring. So do I notice that some politicians will project their own worse nature on the opponent, accusing them of things that they are guilty of.
The standard diagram of politics has Fascists on the far right, so when a group of far right politico's want to attack the left, the grab what they are used to--Fascism.
When a politician says "My opponent is slinging mud at me" one needs to check very closely at who is slinging the mud.
When a politician yells, "My opponent is all talk and no substance" check out who really has the most substance.
When a politician complains, "My opponent the war hero was actually a coward during the war." check and see if that politician even saw any action, or if he sat out the war in some protected way.
The Sauron Doctrine, my guide to understanding political speech.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is this article from the same people who insisted a while back that atheism was a psychological disorder?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Joldo: I really can't stand the rampant hate in our political discourse. What ever came of disagreeing with somebody but still respecting their opinion and their person?
I know there are good things about conservitism and good things about liberalism We need both in a good balance to make our country good.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm confused as to why (fascist) was added after all the instances of "liberal".
Answer: Ron Lambert is an impressionable fool with a black-and-white perception of the political world, and he thought that even an article from WorldNetDaily (a yellow journalistic rag for old, dumb conservatives) was too subtle for his tastes in demonizing liberalism.
Awesome. I didn't have the patience to check out the original article after reading the OP and I'm glad you did check it out and did notice that. Yikes.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, this is the kind of thing that is only crazy if you start from the premise that it isn't true. If it isn't true that we should care for those who are less fortunate, then it is "crazy" to believe that we should. It is only crazy to think that some people are victimized by the system if we start with the premise that the system is just.
It is like saying that Jesus had a messiah complex. Of course, Jesus would already been considered crazy by Dr. Rossiter.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have done some re-checking, and should state: I did not insert the word "fascist" in the text. I just copied and pasted a quote someone else provided of the article. I checked, and see now that the WorldNetDaily article did not have the word "fascist" inserted. I thought it was a little strange. It is apparent now that the person who did insert the word "fascist" was trying to distinguish between classical liberalism (which he believes in), and the much different kind of modern liberalism Dr. Rossiter is critiquing. Sorry for the confusion. It would have tipped me off if the inserted word had been enclosed in proper brackets instead of parentheses.
The word "fascist" is often applied loosely to anyone who is controlling, in the sense of being a control freak. They routinely trample upon the individual freedom of choice of others.
Of course, in historical terms, German and Italian fascism involved an unhealthy alliance between government and industry--which was characterized by very controlling rules and regulations that favored whatever government and its approved industries wanted to be favored. So the trains ran on time, even if they had to run over people to do it.
I know some of you might like to wish that this article came from the satiric Onion, but the book is actually available at Amazon.com, and Dr. Rossiter is an actual forensic psychologist listed at: http://www.forensicpsychonline.com/cvs.html/rossiter.html
Dr. Rossiter is qualified to offer this scientific opinion. No one who respects science can say it is unworthy of consideration. Some of you need to re-read what was actually said; you evidently did not get it right.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dr. Rossiter is qualified to offer this scientific opinion.
No he isn't. He is a licensed clinician. He is not a research scientist. He has a total of one published paper from back in the 70s. This book is not he result of any sort of valid sceintific research.
A person publishing their opinion doesn't become scientific because they have letters after their name.
---
edit: I'm a little conflicted about saying he could offer this as a professional opinion. If he attempted to treat "liberals" as an entire group according to this perspective, it is extremely likely that he'd be censured and then stripped of his credentials in pretty quick order. There are rules that a clinician has to follow and he would be violating a number of them by doing. I would not be surprised if he is no longer practicing as a counseling clinician and is fully forensic now.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But his opinion is more qualified than yours.
Perhaps he is trying to drum up more business, since the implication is that a good portion of the Democratic Party is seriously in need of psychotherapy.
This is something that the rest of us have been able to see for years. Dr. Rossiter is simply one of the first to provide specific details about how the liberal dementia works, and how the mental disorder developed.
Instead of reacting instinctively with denial and anger, the first response of a wise person would be to do a little introspection, and see if there is any possibility this qualified analysis of a respected psychoanalyst might be true, and apply to himself.
Dr. Rossiter has never been associated with any form of activism before, or been identified with any conservative groups. But he is saying that both Democratic major candidates for president clearly give evidence of this serious mental disorder. This is no trivial matter, if what he says is true. We do not want to elect a madman, or madwoman, to run the country! This is exactly what many of us believe Democrats are in danger of doing.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But his opinion is more qualified than yours."
Sure. But there was a book saying basically the same thing about conservatives a few years ago. And that book had actual research in it. This is one man's opinion. Research>>opinion.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But his opinion is more qualified than yours.
Which opinions are you talking about?
This isn't science nor is it scientific. That's not an opinion. It's a matter of basic definitions.
I've published more peer reviewed papers in psychology than this guy has, but neither of us have published any peer reviewed research relating to this subject. Neither of us is qualified to offer an informed scientific opinion.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And may I remind you, Dr. Rossiter is a forensic psychologist, whose "opinion" is used to provide useful profiles to aid law enforcement in identifying criminals and tracking them down, and his testimony has been used in court to help convict criminals. Psychology may be a "soft" science, but this is about as solid with actual testing as you can expect to get with it. Dr. Rossiter's opinions have been authoritative enough to help send some people to prison.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dr. Rossiter has never been associated with any form of activism before, or been identified with any conservative groups.
This is not actually correct. He's been a member and established blogger on townhall.com since at least 2006. And that's with me barely trying to find out information.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That does not make him a card-carrying member of any conservative-activist organized group. Just because I post in this forum, that does not make me a Mormon.
He would have to publish where he can readily get published. Moveon.org is hardly going to be receptive to his professional opinions.
But if he knows what he knows, he would have to care about it, and feel a conscientious obligation to say something about it--especially when it comes to warning people that we may be on the verge of electing someone to be president who is suffering from a clinically identifiable mental disorder.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Psychology may be a "soft" science, but this is about as solid with actual testing as you can expect to get with it.
Outside of actual peer reviewed scientific research, which is extensive on this issue and contradicts what he is saying.
And, as I said, if he pushed this opinion on a patient in treatment or in a professional capacity as a forensic psychologist, he would likely quickly be censured and, if he persisted, have his credentials stripped.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Here is the link to the webpage for the book, The Liberal (Facist) Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness, by Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D.:
posted
Ron, I'm glad to hear it wasn't you who inserted (Fascist) in the OP.
"...a clinically identifiable mental disorder." Just because one psychologist prints an opinion piece doesn't make liberalism a clinically identifiable mental disorder.
Where his research? Also, aren't mental disorders defined by consensus? Can one guy, shrink or not, just make up a mental disorder and expect it to be valid?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And may I remind you, Dr. Rossiter is a forensic psychologist, whose "opinion" is used to provide useful profiles to aid law enforcement in identifying criminals and tracking them down, and his testimony has been used in court to help convict criminals. Psychology may be a "soft" science, but this is about as solid with actual testing as you can expect to get with it. Dr. Rossiter's opinions have been authoritative enough to help send some people to prison.
frankly, if this is true it terrifies me...
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, aren't mental disorders defined by consensus?
In practice, yes, but theoretically anything that can be shown to meet the criteria could be considered a mental disorder.
However, nothing as broad as a liberal belief system could ever be considered a mental disorder. The best you could come up with would it as an indicator for or coincident with a host of actual mental disorders.
---
edit: For the record, although there has been research that shows that certain traits correlate moderately with styles of political beliefs and/or personal identification as a liberal/conservative or Democrat/Republican, it is very clear that neither of these can be attributed in a broad case to any sort of mental pathology. Which is one of those things that I expect people to say "Wow. And they actually spent money figuring that out." But then look at this.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You wish. That does not make it true that conditions 3 and 4 are violated.
Besides, there is a difference between proof in the rigorous scientific sense, and weight of testimony in the forensic sense.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Besides, there is a difference between proof in the rigorous scientific sense, and weight of testimony in the forensic sense.
That is certainly true. However, 1) you put this forth as science and 2) this book and the opinions in it conform to neither scientific nor forensic psychology methodology.
---
I had a thought. Ron, do you know what a forensic psychologist does? It is very different from what Dr. Rossiter did with this book.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: You wish. That does not make it true that conditions 3 and 4 are violated.
Besides, there is a difference between proof in the rigorous scientific sense, and weight of testimony in the forensic sense.
Condition 3: There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.Fail
There are no scientific papers supporting Rossiter's thesis.
Condition 4: The person in question is not significantly biased.Fail
Self-evident. He has expressed political opinions that are directly related to the subject area.
What this means, Ron, is that it is fallacious for you to keep dodging the points that people are bringing up by bleating "but he's an expert and you're not!"
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dr. Rossiter is qualified to offer this scientific opinion. No one who respects science can say it is unworthy of consideration. Some of you need to re-read what was actually said; you evidently did not get it right.
I think Dr. Rossiter is one of the few people on earth who could've benefited from science lessons from Dr. Price.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, are you talking about George McReady Price, the late creationist writer?
If a psychologist with the credentials and experience that Dr. Rossiter has said he had identified a mental disorder in me, it would certainly concern me. I would not just blithely, unthinkingly reject it. When he says that about the two main Democratic candidates for president, it is a matter for serious concern. Never mind how much you want to deny it. What if it is true!!!Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are credentialed and experienced people saying all kinds of kooky stuff. There are tens of thousands of scientists out there, so it's bound to happen. So long as it's only an occasional lone voice, it's just static. I'll worry when "liberal" makes its way into the DSM.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
