Did the top lefty posters self immolate due to embarrassment?

[Redhot1960]

https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...r_science.html

Share Share | Twitter | Facebook | 24 Comments | Print | Email
May 5, 2019

Left-Wing Ideology: A Cult, a Religion, or Science?

By Gary Gindler

More than a hundred years ago, prominent Marxist Antonio Gramsci wrote: "Socialism is precisely the religion that must overwhelm Christianity. [Socialism is] religion in the sense that it too is a faith with its mystics and rituals; religion because it has substituted for the consciousness of the transcendental God of the Catholics, the faith in man and in his great strengths as a unique spiritual reality" [1]. Equalizing an ideology with religion was pretty novel back then. However, Gramsci was talking about religion not as it is commonly understood — i.e., the relationship between God and men — but as a collection of religious attributes and rituals. In his point of view, socialism was godless religion, the cult of the messianic Marx.

At the same time, Gramsci understood that socialism (and leftism in general), like any other dogma, is immune to empirical, rational challenges because, by definition, its postulates are untestable — untestable not because it is impossible to conduct such tests, but because followers of leftist ideology reject any idea of such a test in principle. (By the way, this is something leftists have in common with Muslims.) They are mostly true believers; they aggressively reject any attempts to test the foundations of their dogmatic beliefs.

Leftists' behavior is utterly illogical to a degree one might call unscientific. Their irrationality is based on illusory knowledge — i.e., knowledge acquired through a system of beliefs, expressed by well known authorities (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Bernstein, Stalin, Hitler, Trotsky, Mao, and many others). Left-wingers acquired their false, Utopian beliefs throughout the entire history of human civilization. Their undisputed belief of multiplying wealth by dividing it (i.e., by redistributing it by force) was the basis of numerous failed social experiments.

To avoid any confusion, let us provide adequate definitions of socialism (promoted by left-wing ideology) and its antithesis, capitalism (promoted by the free-market, or conservative, ideology).

Socialism is a state of society where most wealth, either de jure or de facto, belongs to a government.

Capitalism is a state of society where most wealth, both de jure and de facto, belongs to its citizens.

Communism is a Utopian state of society where all wealth, both de jure and de facto, belongs to a government.

The adherents of both left-wing and right-wing philosophy have knowledge; however, the left-wingers got their knowledge from the system of beliefs, while right-wingers got their knowledge from the trial-and-error development of human civilization. Leftism will accompany society forever because pseudo-science always runs in parallel to science. As in a social life where leftism is the ideology of mostly lumpen (lazy bums), autocrats, and elites, the pseudo-science feeds on real science as left-wingers feed on civilization built mostly by right-wingers.

There is a simple test to distinguish between scientific knowledge and the pseudo-scientific kind. The test is based on the fact that the human reaction to new information that contradicts the original knowledge depends on the method of acquiring that original knowledge.

In the real world, if new information contradicts the original knowledge, it leads to a re-evaluation of such knowledge. For example, when intuitive, widely accepted, and wrong knowledge that the sun rotates around the Earth was challenged by Copernicus, it led to a painful re-evaluation of the original idea and accepting the new, revolutionary one: that it is, in fact, Earth that rotates around the sun.

However, if the original knowledge is acquired by religious or other dogmatic beliefs, the new information does not lead to such re-evaluation. On the contrary, in most cases, it leads to the strengthening of the original belief. For example, even if it were proven that flying horses never existed on the planet Earth, Muslims will continue to believe that Mohammad flew on a horse named Buraq to an outer space where he met Allah. Moreover, any attempt to prove to any Muslim that such a voyage on a horse is impossible will not just strengthen Muslim's beliefs, but could convert some of them from a passive, indifferent follower into an aggressive religious fanatic. The reaction would be similar to the reaction of a rank-and-file Democrat if somebody mentioned that Antifa, like the Ku Klux Klan before it, was founded as a militant wing of the Democratic Party.

When President Trump tweets or says something "controversial," a lot of his political opponents get triggered. This "triggering of snowflakes" is a perfect example of how the strengthening of the original belief manifests itself in real life. There are numerous examples of such triggering. If we are talking about Trump, it is called Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Let us recall the reaction of people who were bombarded for months by the fake news media with reports that Hillary Clinton had a 97% chance of winning the presidency in the year 2016. The reality contradicted their dogma, and after she lost, their suffering (sometimes even physical suffering) was quite real. Or big disappointment and suffering among devotees of "Trump is Putin's marionette" dogma when Mueller's investigation proved otherwise. The attempts to paint the completed Mueller investigation as "obstructed," "not conclusive," and "not having enough authority," and the promise that "veterans of the secret wars ... understand that it will take decades, not years, for the truth to emerge here," are just variations of the same phenomena — the various (and desperate) attempts to strengthen the original dogmatic belief.

If the knowledge of people in the examples above were based not on dogma, their reaction could be quite different. For example, political opponents of Trump could just say: "OK, the better candidate won. It is good for America to have a better president. We will try again next time." That would be the proper reaction of the non-brainwashed, normal people who happened to vote for another candidate. In the case of Russiagate (or, rather, Obamagate), the proper reaction could be: "OK, this is very good that our president is not Putin's puppet. It will allow the White House to focus on the real issues of our country."

It is often said that left-wingers and right-wingers do not understand each other because they "live in parallel universes," or one side blames another for living in the so-called "alternative reality." Since core leftist belief is irrational, the right-wingers are not surprised when adherents of leftism stiffen their resolve when confronted with social and economic truth.

In other words, instead of accepting a valid argument that contradicts the prevailing dogma, the very first reaction of adherents of a dogma is to protect the dogma at all cost.

Try to tell Jews that they are not the God's chosen people, or try to tell Democrats that socialism, national socialism, and fascism are examples of the same left-wing ideology. Try to tell Christians that Jesus died and was buried in Nazareth, or try to tell the party of farting cows that "climate change" is a hoax. The resulting rage will ensure that polarization between talking parties increases due to not just rejection of non-dogma-conforming thought, but the violent strengthening of internal resolve to protect the dogma. It is a well- known psychological reaction of people who simply want to protect themselves from what they perceive as "the rape of their mind" (whatever sick mind they might have.)

On the one hand, once a person accepts a dogma, he begins to filter out everything that contradicts the dogma in any way (so-called confirmation bias, like Baader-Meinhof Syndrome). In a process, as more contradictory, non-conforming to dogma information is thrown, the belief gets strengthened. On the other hand, at a certain point, when truthful information, contradictory to leftists' irrational dogmatic belief, finally breaks through, a breaking point arrives, and the leftist is no longer able to twist the evidence in his fevered mind, forcing him to make a hard decision: either abandon the dogma and relieve the pain or become a laughingstock. They experience a mental revolution — a micro-revolution, if you will.

The good news is that such micro-revolutions on a personal level are widespread. Indeed, where did all the hippies go? Also recall the fallout from Obama's "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."

The bad news is that such micro-revolutions can take a long time; in a worst-case scenario, a micro-revolution never materializes, and a person dies as a true believer, a loyal "useful idiot." (Enter Democrat Stacey Abrams, who still believes she won the governorship race in Georgia despite losing it.)

On the surface, a cacophony of various points of view we hear from Democrats sounds like a civil war inside the left-wing party. For example, the confrontation between Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez resembles a political struggle between the "experienced, moderate socialist" Pelosi and "young, aggressive Marxist" Ocasio-Cortez. However, it is just an incoherent manifestation that Pelosi and Ocasio-Cortez currently adhere to different stages of the same leftist dogma.

In practical terms, it means that the leftists are here to stay. Forever. Just because their knowledge is acquired through dogma. As historian Lee Edwards noted, socialism is "a pseudo-religion grounded in pseudo-science and enforced by political tyranny."

Right-wingers, the creators and multipliers of wealth, are condemned to an agitated coexistence with left-wingers, the dividers of wealth, forever, just as Good is continually confronted by Evil.

As followers of the semi-religious Cult of Victim-Seekers, leftists will always find a way to recruit new followers, who get tricked by the "take away and redistribute" mantra. However, there are plenty of solid reasons to consider the socialist Obama presidency the highest peak of the centuries-old semi-religious Utopian movement. This peak is well behind us, and we all know that the only direction from the peak is down.

[oeb11]

Thank You - red-hot.

Good article and accurate description of DPST "pseudo-religion". And, why they hate Christianity to embrace radical terrorist Islam - another Cult.

The DPST's are unable to swee themselves described - they are blinded by their "Belief's" - similar to the flat-earthers.

[dilbert firestorm]

great article. I'm saving it. only problem is stupid firefox broke my web edit addon with an expired certificate which killed most of the addons I had.

[TheDaliLama]

I was hoping to have YR and TM around for the Barr investigations

[gnadfly]

I'm sure they're around but not able to post under those handles.

That makes it sweeter.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

I was hoping to have YR and TM around for the Barr investigations

I can envision the Barr prosecutions to last well into latter part of Trump's second term and around the time that Pence's campaign for a first term cranks up. I'm sure the SocialistLiberalAntiTrumpers won't have a problem with that since they like to bump bad news as close to the upcoming POTUS elections as possible, even if they have to lie about the "bad news"!!!!

The sentences should come down in midsummer are the time of the DNC cryfest ... in anticipation of them to begin on hammering on Pence for NOT GRABBING STRANGE PUSSY and for NOT GETTING SHITFACED DRUNK AT HIS COLLEGE PARTIES AND/OR FOR NOT ATTENDING THE COLLEGE PARTIES ... accusing him of being anti-female and anti-fun!!!!

I mean ... who on here doesn't believe hot-babes like pussy-grabbing bad boys who get drunk?

I thought YR was taking ThongRemoval 101 Practicals!

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

I stopped posting because there is a right wing jerkfest going on in here. No one wants to argue the merits of an argument they just want to fight and abuse each other and get off on it at the same time. Why would I want to be a part of that?

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

This attitude is why nothing ever gets done. One side has to win and the other has to lose. Compromise usually means that both sides win and lose at the same time.


Take abortion for instance. I think most liberal and right leaning people could agree to ban all or most late term abortions (after 16 weeks). But there will never be a consensus because for some people on the right it's an all or nothing proposition.


Politicians need to work together but if the last 10 years has taught me anything the republican party in the senate wouldn't compromise to save their own lives. And they've convinced the democratic party in both the house and senate that they should do the same.

Yes, this place is getting boring with no left wing posters around. Yssup, WTF and Mystic didn't get deep into the issues, but they would put up a fight and that kept things interesting. Mystic in particular I'll miss because he'd have me ROTFLMAO from time to time. Some of the other posters on the left who were more substantive weren't banned but have pretty much disappeared, possibly for reasons you describe.

As to your second point, I'd argue that the Republican Senators didn't start this. They couldn't even get a repeal of the Affordable Care Act through because of Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and John McCain. Altogether, they're a reasonably moderate bunch, although certainly there are exceptions among the individual Senators.

The last time one party did pretty much what it wanted was in Obama's first two years, when Democrats controlled the works and didn't have enough moderates around to temper their leaders. As to to requiring that judicial appointments get a filibuster proof majority, Harry Reid started that.

[oeb11]

NoOne - especially TM-would be able to find a thong on Yuccko OhNo's forest!

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Here is your chance. Pick a topic, post your comments along with a rationale (or defense) and the we have at it without any name calling...

Trump, you hate him

While I'm not Txdot-guy, and I agree with you wholeheartedly on socialism and more or less on climate change, I'd like to take you up on the "Trump you hate him" part if he actually does put 25% tariffs on another $525 billion of Chinese goods like he said he would today.

[the_real_Barleycorn]

Here is an example of the problem, I don't know whether you are sincere or being sarcastic. Maybe you don't understand that I was actually casting some earned shade at liberals. They do think in lock step. Deviate from the "norm" and they'll take you apart. Another standard tactic in here, clearly take something out of context, copy only part of a quote and make the claim that the original poster said something they didn't.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Here is an example of the problem, I don't know whether you are sincere or being sarcastic. Maybe you don't understand that I was actually casting some earned shade at liberals. They do think in lock step. Deviate from the "norm" and they'll take you apart. Another standard tactic in here, clearly take something out of context, copy only part of a quote and make the claim that the original poster said something they didn't.

1. I'm not being sarcastic or criticizing you. Trump tweeted today he's putting 25% tariffs on $525 billion in Chinese goods, and if he's not bluffing, I will hate him.
2. I'm not a liberal, unless you're talking about classic economic liberalism, as practiced by Adam Smith and Milton Friedman.
3. Here's your post in its entirety. I included only the relevant part earlier:

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Here is your chance. Pick a topic, post your comments along with a rationale (or defense) and the we have at it without any name calling. Now I call naming making negative statements that have no basis in fact. Only for the purpose of rankeling someone. That would not count saying someone is ignorant, foolish, or being obtuse...if you can demonstrate the fact. The stage is all yours.

I can recommend some topics because all libs are required to march in lockstep.
Abortion, you're for it
Gun control, you're for it
Trump, you hate him
Socialism, not so bad
Climate change, the world war of our times

And yes, I agree completely that less name calling here would be a good idea, if that's what you're saying. Also that there are some on the left who think in lock step and don't seem to be able to accept anything that's not in accordance with their leaders' pronouncements.

[friendly fred]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

This attitude is why nothing ever gets done. One side has to win and the other has to lose. Compromise usually means that both sides win and lose at the same time.


Take abortion for instance. I think most liberal and right leaning people could agree to ban all or most late term abortions (after 16 weeks). But there will never be a consensus because for some people on the right it's an all or nothing proposition.


Politicians need to work together but if the last 10 years has taught me anything the republican party in the senate wouldn't compromise to save their own lives. And they've convinced the democratic party in both the house and senate that they should do the same.

The right has been giving in and compromising since the 1950's and it has ruined the country. Now that Trump sez enough is enough, the left hates him.

So the right either does what it is told or gets hated and abused.

It is a no win situation complements of the left.

We must fight on.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by friendly fred

The right has been giving in and compromising since the 1950's and it has ruined the country. Now that Trump sez enough is enough, the left hates him.

So the right either does what it is told or gets hated and abused.

It is a no win situation complements of the left.

We must fight on.

that would be the "go along to get a long" gang.


or "i'm not a meanie"

[rexdutchman]

Yeah more of a cult , Idiot follower that drink cool aide

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Yes, this place is getting boring with no left wing posters around. Yssup, WTF and Mystic didn't get deep into the issues, but they would put up a fight and that kept things interesting. Mystic in particular I'll miss because he'd have me ROTFLMAO from time to time. Some of the other posters on the left who were more substantive weren't banned but have pretty much disappeared, possibly for reasons you describe.

As to your second point, I'd argue that the Republican Senators didn't start this. They couldn't even get a repeal of the Affordable Care Act through because of Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and John McCain. Altogether, they're a reasonably moderate bunch, although certainly there are exceptions among the individual Senators.

The last time one party did pretty much what it wanted was in Obama's first two years, when Democrats controlled the works and didn't have enough moderates around to temper their leaders. As to to requiring that judicial appointments get a filibuster proof majority, Harry Reid started that.

Don't miss them at all. YR and themystic are trolls. They aren't posting arguments they believe in, they are posting to elicit outrage. Never found TM funny. Which posts where you reading? At least WTF tried to post honest arguments but eventually everything devolved to his go to issues: Politicians lie and Bush spent the money. Those and his reading comprehension issues aren't missed.

I like Speedy. I don't agree with his POV much but I believe he is earnest.