THE PSYCHOLOGIST : Leftists supporting terrorism

Leftists supporting terrorism

Back in comments of this thread a new commenter named Mondo Rock took issue with my statement that leftists are holding rallies in support of Hezbollah and other terrorists in their efforts to destroy the Jewish state.

There are no rallies from the Left supporting Hezbollah, nor are there rallies from the Left supporting Hamas. You're taking rallies that have been held in support of Palestine and pretending that they were actually intended to support the armed militants operating within Palestine.
...
For example you seem to hold the preconceived view that rallies supporting Palestine are rallies supporting terrorism, that rallies opposing the Iraq war are rallies supporting Saddam, and that anyone who does not rally in support of Israel, or specifically against terrorism, doesn't qualify as a genuine opponent of terror.

I never got a reply to my retort as the topic was pushed off the front page, but as Mondo is back, allow me to re-post it here:

Yep. Sure. In support of Palestine.

Go have a look at http://www.zombietime.com

Go through and get a good look at the leftist fuckheads and their peaceful

"Smash the Jewish State"
"Avenge Yassin"
Protestors dressed as terrorists
"Death to America"
"Support Armed Resistance in Iraq"
"Long live the Intifada"
"The Jewish State is a Criminal Entity"

Nope. No support for terrorists/no wishes to destroy Israel there. Or are you going to do a Lefty and say those people aren't really leftists?

Fuck the left. The left as it stands is not worthy of debate or understanding.

I said elsewhere that I probably wouldn't have a problem with the left if they would just fuck off and leave me alone and stop trying to inflict their fucked up world view upon me.

But no. Leftist fuckheads won't even admit that their fucked up world view is the problem - not the way it's been implemented (though that too was seriously fucked up)

Now you can ignore those last three paragraphs if you wish (though they are entirely true and correct), but get back to zombietime and his photos. Click on the Hall of Shame link for a good summary of it all. Scroll to the end of it for a lovely sign "The Left Will Rise"

But that is not all. Head over to LGF and look at the lovely signs featured. Nope. No support for terrorists or desire to destroy Israel there, either. And of course a leftist student's love poem to terrorists. Still can't see any support for terrorists there.....

Also take a look at Andrew Landeryou's slideshow from the Melbourne pro-terrorist rally.

Now are we supposed to believe that all those leftists, and all those leftist groups like ISM, ANSWERS, the WWP, the various Socialist Groups/Parties/Alliances are not really leftists just because some leftists say "that is not what the left is?"

Much like we are supposed to believe the Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pot, Castro et al were not leftists either just because leftists say they weren't? Every leftist regime has ended up the same way and yet we are supposed to believe that that result is not indicative of leftist regimes?

Come off it. We have history as a guide to what the left is. And that history (some of it as recent as last Sunday) paints a more truthful picture that any number of leftist lying here about what the left is.

(edit: sorry about the fucking around with the post. I guess that is what I should use the previwe button for...)

No comments:

Background

The essence of conservatism is caution. The essence of Leftism is anger

This blog is written solely by John Ray, who has a Ph.D. degree in psychology and 200+ papers published in the academic journals of the social sciences. It does occasionally comment on issues in psychology but is mainly aimed at giving a conservative psychologist's view on a broad range of topics. There are very few conservative psychologists.

The blog originated in Australia and many (but not most) posts discuss Australian matters. Australians have an unusually good awareness of events outside their own country. Australian newspapers feature news from Britain and the USA not as an afterthought but as a major part of their coverage. So Australians do tend to have a truly Western heart, which is the reason behind the old name for this blog. So events in Australia, Britain and the USA all feature frequently here, plus occasional coverage of other places, particularly Israel.

A primer in American politics for non-Americans:

SCOTUS is the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest court in the land

The "GOP" stands for "Grand Old Party" and refers to the Republican party. The GOP is at present center/Right, while the Democrats have been undergoing a steady drift Leftwards and now have policies similar to mainstream European Leftist parties.

The ideological identity of both parties has however been very fluid -- almost reversing itself over time. In the mid 19th century, the GOP was the party of big government and concern for minorities while the Democrats advertised themselves as "The party of the white man" -- an orientation that lasted into the mid 20th century in the South. The Democrats are still obsessed with race but have now flipped into support for discrimination AGAINST whites.

Was Pope Urban VIII the first Warmist? Below we see him refusing to look through Galileo's telescope. People tend to refuse to consider evidence— if what they might discover contradicts what they believe.

Global warming

Calibrated in whole degrees. Larger graph here

Climate scientist Lennart Bengtsson said. “The warming we have had the last 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have meteorologists and climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all.”

The term "Fascism" is mostly used by the Left as a brainless term of abuse. But when they do make a serious attempt to define it, they produce very complex and elaborate definitions -- e.g. here and here. In fact, Fascism is simply extreme socialism plus nationalism. But great gyrations are needed to avoid mentioning the first part of that recipe, of course.

Two examples of Leftist racism below (much more here and here):

Beatrice Webb, a founder of the London School of Economics and the Fabian Society, and married to a Labour MP, mused in 1922 on whether when English children were "dying from lack of milk", one should extend "the charitable impulse" to Russian and Chinese children who, if saved this year, might anyway die next. Besides, she continued, there was "the larger question of whether those races are desirable inhabitants" and "obviously" one wouldn't "spend one's available income" on "a Central African negro".

Hugh Dalton, offered the Colonial Office during Attlee's 1945-51 Labour government, turned it down because "I had a horrid vision of pullulating, poverty stricken, diseased nigger communities, for whom one can do nothing in the short run and who, the more one tries to help them, are querulous and ungrateful."

Defensible and indefensible usages of the term "racism"

The book, The authoritarian personality, authored by T.W. Adorno et al. in 1950, has been massively popular among psychologists. It claims that a set of ideas that were popular in the "Progressive"-dominated America of the prewar era were "authoritarian". Leftist regimes always are authoritarian so that claim was not a big problem. What was quite amazing however is that Adorno et al. identified such ideas as "conservative". They were in fact simply popular ideas of the day but ones that had been most heavily promoted by the Left right up until the then-recent WWII. See here for details of prewar "Progressive" thinking.

R.I.P. Augusto Pinochet. Pinochet deposed a law-defying Marxist President at the express and desperate invitation of the Chilean parliament. He pioneered the free-market reforms which Reagan and Thatcher later unleashed to world-changing effect. That he used far-Leftist methods to suppress far-Leftist violence is reasonable if not ideal. The Leftist view that they should have a monopoly of violence and that others should follow the law is a total absurdity which shows only that their hate overcomes their reason

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a war criminal. Both British and American codebreakers had cracked the Japanese naval code so FDR knew what was coming at Pearl Harbor. But for his own political reasons he warned no-one there. So responsibility for the civilian and military deaths at Pearl Harbor lies with FDR as well as with the Japanese. The huge firepower available at Pearl Harbor, both aboard ship and on land, could have largely neutered the attack. Can you imagine 8 battleships and various lesser craft firing all their AA batteries as the Japanese came in? The Japanese naval airforce would have been annihilated and the war would have been over before it began.

FDR prolonged the Depression. He certainly didn't cure it.

WWII did NOT end the Great Depression. It just concealed it. It in fact made living standards worse

Joe McCarthy was eventually proved right after the fall of the Soviet Union. To accuse anyone of McCarthyism is to accuse them of accuracy!

The KKK was intimately associated with the Democratic party. They ATTACKED Republicans!

People who mention differences in black vs. white IQ are these days almost universally howled down and subjected to the most extreme abuse. I am a psychometrician, however, so I feel obliged to defend the scientific truth of the matter:

The average African adult has about the same IQ as an average white 11-year-old and African Americans (who are partly white in ancestry) average out at a mental age of 14. The American Psychological Association is generally Left-leaning but it is the world's most prestigious body of academic psychologists. And even they have had to concede that sort of gap (one SD) in black vs. white average IQ. 11-year olds can do a lot of things but they also have their limits and there are times when such limits need to be allowed for.

America's uncivil war was caused by trade protectionism. The slavery issue was just camouflage, as Abraham Lincoln himself admitted. See also here

Did William Zantzinger kill poor Hattie Carroll?

Did Bismarck predict where WWI would start or was it just a "free" translation by Churchill?

Leftist psychologists have an amusingly simplistic conception of military organizations and military men. They seem to base it on occasions they have seen troops marching together on parade rather than any real knowledge of military men and the military life. They think that military men are "rigid" -- automatons who are unable to adjust to new challenges or think for themselves. What is incomprehensible to them is that being kadaver gehorsam (to use the extreme Prussian term for following orders) actually requires great flexibility -- enough flexibility to put your own ideas and wishes aside and do something very difficult. Ask any soldier if all commands are easy to obey.

A good article on Leftist hate

The real history of social Darwinism

Some personal memoirs

Memoir highlights

THE PSYCHOLOGIST

Leftists supporting terrorism

No comments:

Post a Comment

Blog Archive