Remorse and the AtheoLeft

I’m finally back on-line.

As I predicted, there is no remorse, no shame, no humility, no self-analysis for those who engaged in the hate-spew over Chick fil A and its culmination in gun fire.

A epiphenomenon of amorality is the complete lack of shame; if there are no actual morals, if there are only temporary predilections, there can be only dismay at not achieving one’s Consequentialist objective, but never any shame. Shame requires a fixed morality. Shamelessness is a direct consequence of amorality.

And it indicates a lack of conscience, which also is a direct consequence of amorality. If there are no moral standards, then one cannot possibly fail, morally, and the conscience withers from disuse.

On the other hand, if morals are situational and temporary, then they are violable depending upon the mood of the moral-giver, but who cares? They are completely volatile and without any force, so the conscience is once again totally disused and atrophied. The lack of conscience is common to several psychological disorders.

The outrage expressed by Leftists is not conscience based, it is fury at being thwarted in the pursuit of their utopian Savior objectives. They assert morality for the other, never for themselves: morality is just a tactic. (note 1) And morality consists of Victimhood, which is the binding principle of the Left. Blacks will always be the victims of whites (yet they will never be released from Leftist government plantationism). Women will always be the victims of men (Leftist feminism recommends lesbianism). The poor will always be the victims of capitalism (real jobs are created by the government, which prints more money to pay for them). Animals are the victims of their owners. Children are the victims of their parents who might teach them wrong ideas. The earth – Gaia – is the victim of her spawn, humans, who are torturing her to death. Victimhood is the single currency of the Left; without it, there is no purpose for Leftism.

So the status of victimhood must be celebrated and maintained wherever possible. Blacks must always be given an extra boost because no matter how many generations of freedom they have behind them, they cannot compete without the Left’s help. Women will never stop being victimized by men. The poor never seem to find opportunities and so must be maintained in their poverty forever. Etc. ad nausem. (note 2)

Leftist morality consists not of personal behaviors or self-discipline, but of redefining acceptable behaviors for the evil victimizers, a quest requiring a savior providing salvation for the victims. Without victims of persecution, there can be no Leftist saviors. The Left embodies the modern Crusades, with valiant Leftist crusaders battling for the liberation of the perpetual Victims. Life is like a video game for the Left. A video game in black and white.

Which brings us to the sources of Leftist ideology, which is a quest for the wise and kind parent-state which will allow the Leftist to remain dependent rather than competent, to assume responsibility for him rather than for him to need to take responsibility for his own issues, to equalize all things for all people with automatic fairness, to eliminate any obstacles for people to overcome. According to forensic psychiatrist, Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., the Leftist is in a state of emotionally arrested childish need for the parenting which he failed to receive in his own childhood. He presumes that everyone has the same need for a parent to care for him that he himself has, especially those who he perceives as Victims, as he understands himself to be a Victim.

Rossiter:

”Because he has not achieved competence himself, the radical liberal cannot comprehend , let alone empathize with, the autonomous, sovereign and mutual adult who joyfully embraces freedom with all of its risks and responsibilities. The radical liberal empathizes instead with a projected persona from his own unconscious: that of a neglected, deprived, envious, desperately needy, intensely dependent and bitterly angry child. The sentiments that energize this pseudo-empathy are fear, hatred, longing, self-pity and other pity. The radical liberals solution to his inner demons is to be rescued by the power of a parental government.”

…

“The radical liberal’s solution to life’s crises, and indeed to the very essence of the human condition, is to control and manipulate the world through the power of the state, not rise to the challenges of life through individual initiative.”

Unable to comprehend independent competence, he presumes that non-Victims are all parasites on the Victims, and therefore are the enemy of all victims, especially enemies of himself, his needs, and his dreams of being parented. Despite their rejection of absolutes, they absolutely believe that their concept of Victimhood, Oppressor, Savior, and the kind and wise parent-state are Truths about Reality, for which they must struggle morally and heroically. Morality becomes Consequentialist (merely tactic) in pursuit of their Utopia on earth.

Rossiter:

”The concept of transference is absolutely essential to understanding the radical liberal’s neurosis. His distortions of the present through the traumas of his past are evident in the childlike character of his demands. He seeks a world of unconditional love, status, esteem, and comfort. He seeks indulgence of his impulses, exemtion from risk, and freedom from responsibility. He seeks the material security of mature adulthood without the initiative and industry essential to it. Because they refuse his infantile demands, America’s liberty institutions become the object of primitive emotions always raw from childhood. The rules protecting liberty punish poor judgment, carelessness, and bad behavior with the pain of rejection, failure, public shame or imprisonment. In these stern consequences, the institutions of liberty represent to the radical liberal the cruel, withholding and indifferent parents of his childhood. He now rages against them for what he perceives to be their unyielding selfishness, the satisfaction of their own appetites to the neglect of his needs and their callous indifference to his pain. He alleges all this against a structure of liberty that refuses to adopt him, compensate him and pamper him. He rages like a child at a nation that refuses to do for him what only he can do for himself, so he vows to revise the rules that govern it. In this pursuit he demands effects without causes, benefits without costs, and actions without adverse consequences.

Thus the radical agenda is the product of a massive transference neurosis played out in the world’s economic, social and political arenas.”

(note 3)
[emphasis added]

And from Kaplan and Sadock,

”Freud postulated a state of primary narcissism at birth in which the libido is stored in the ego. He viewed the neonate as completely narcissistic, ith the entire libidinal investment in physiological needs and their satisfaction. Her referred to this self-investment as ego libido The infantile statae of self-absoprtion changes onlhy gradually, according to Freud, with the dawning wawareness that a separate person – the mothering figure – is responsible for gratifying the infant’s needs. This realization leads to the gradual withdreawal of the libido from the self and its redirection toward the external object. Hence, the development of object relations in infants parallels the shift from primary narcissism to object attachment. The libidinal investment itn the object is referred to as object libido. If a developing child suffers rebuffs or trauma from the caretaking figure, object libido may be withdrawn and reinvested in the ego. Freud called this regressive posture secondary narcissism.” (note 4)
[emphasis in original].
Kaplan and Sadock; Synopsis of Psychiatry: Behavioral Sciences/Clinical Psychiatry.

The resulting shameless, pseudo-empathetic, conscience-free Consequentialist Leftism is honestly described by Saul Alinsky, who applied Hegel’s thesis-antithesis-synthesis to socio-political Leftist theory: the only immoral action, according to Alinsky, is not to take a possible path to the achievement of one’s goal. And the goal is to be cloaked in an aura of morality in order to protect it from critical assault. (There is hardly a mote of difference between this Leftist theory and the theories of terrorism.)

Since the Left shamelessly presupposes morality for only themselves, and to be the moral crusaders and saviors of perceived Victimhood, they automatically self-endow with a religious righteousness, moral and intellectual self-superiority, and arrogant intolerance of assault on their own presuppositions. Amoralists pretending to be “enlightened moralists” adopt self-morally-authorized, self-anointed, self-justified, self-sanctified, self-righteousness. These are clinical pointers to narcissism, one personality disorder for which there is no cure because it is not a problem for the narcissist: as the narcissist sees it, the problem is with everyone else.

And the reason that Leftists eschew any concepts of character as beneficial traits is this:

”...character is shaped not by a cowering acquiescence to rules imposed externally but as conscious, directed obedience to truths authoritatively received and affirmed. In this way the imperatives of social life – both positive in obligation or negative in prohibition or repression – possess a moral power that we recognize as transcending ourselves.” (note 5)
[emphasis added]
J.D. Hunter, “The Death of Character”

For self-endowed self-moralist narcissists, there are neither truths authoritatively received outside those he makes up for himself, nor are there any powers, moral or otherwise, which transcend himself. For him, positive character traits are just whatever he does.

Diagnostic Criteria for 301.81 Narcissistic Personality Disorder

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

(1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance (eg. exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
(2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty or ideal love
(3) believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
(4) requires excessive admiration
(5) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
(6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve hisor her own ends
(7) lacks empathy: in unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
(8) is often envious of othersor believesthat others are envious of him or her
(9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.”

American Psychiatric Association, DSM-IV-TR (note 6)

Now, on to the comments which I was unable to address for my several day exile from the web:

I’ll address anonymous first:

Anonymous said:

” Stan--what is your stance on the morality of the commenter above me "Take it Back"? How would you defend a comment like that as morally good or would you decree that he/she is immoral?”

That comment came perilously close to being incitement, and it certainly is bigotry in the passive sense. There is no point in using language of denigration, other than bigotry. On this site it is most commonly from Atheists and Leftists. This example is different, coming from a troll, and highly offensive. I almost deleted it, but I will leave it for now as an example of language which proves that bigotry exists. However, I can’t help but wonder if it was real; much language like that is faked, just as some rapes are faked. I don’t know. But assuming it was real, then it is bigotry. I have left the bigoted comments from the other side intact, too. There have been more of them.

Now I’ll address 61 itllto’s comments:

” Right-wing gunman murders sixteen people. No reaction from Stan.”

a) If you are talking about the Sikh murders, then not Right-wing: Nazi-psycho. Your attempt to slur the libertarians/conservatives as Nazi-psychos is false.

b) The discussion is the homosexual AtheoLeft, and their program of hate incitement and resultant violence due to their hate incitement. Not loner psycho mass murderers.

c) Your lack of remorse is apparent in your attempt to deflect responsibility for your own actions.

” Several cases of Bible-waving Christians threatening to rape and murder equal-rights protesters? Doesn't warrent a post from Stan.”

You just didn’t look. Those guys are Black Liberationists. A perversion of actual Christianity. Still an attempt to deflect attention from your own culpability.

” Gay-friendly centre defaced with slogans like "fags deserve to die"? Nothing.”

More deflection, more dodging. I also didn’t comment on the hate message painted on the Chick fil A store, nor the Southern Poverty Law Center, the failed Great Kiss-In, nor a great many other outrages.

” People standing up for equal-rights for minorities? Stan thinks the world is ending!”

No one here including you is standing up for equal rights for pedophiles, or any other minority. Homosexuals are the current darlings of the Left. Just one favored group, a minority due to their disorder. And they don’t even want equal rights, they want government normalization and sanction of their behaviors, and that is what you are standing up for. They turned down the civil union contractual arrangement that would have given them the same rights as marriage. That’s not what they want. So your accusation is false.

” The "rules", sorry I mean "THE RULES", change slowly over time. From being executed if you work on the Sabbath to slavery to interracial marriage. Some people don't think "but this is how it has always been done!" is a good enough reason for discrimination.”

That you say such a thing indicates that you have either not read or at least not internalized anything I have said. Your projection of ignorant obstructionism is your own fantasy, not reality.

Further to compare women and blacks who are normal humans to the perversion of sexuality which is homosexuality is an insult to women and blacks.

Some people think that rejecting rules because they have morals themselves that no one else has, is a good enough reason to change the rules to their all-new morality.

” There's a war going on alright; and the LGBT community has been falling on the front lines of that war for decades.”

And there is also homosexual violence including murder, also. Even against themselves. And there is considerable fraud. The actual death rates of homosexuals has been greatly influenced by their behaviors and susceptibility to AIDs which has killed millions of them. Their behaviors and denials are their own worst enemies.

” when these people talk about the transgender girl who was found stabbed to death on the west side of chicago (the second transgender girl found dead there in two month), when these people talk about those victims of the war the same way they talk about this security guard that was working for a hate group - then I'll believe that they are being genuine. Until then they are bloviating.”

Until homosexuals quit violating and attempting to violate First Amendment Rights to silence free speech and hatefully inciting to violence using the national media and using governmental positions, then they are without any defense for their actual position. The homosexual hate groups are now obviously understood for what they are by what they actually generate.

Using Victimhood as the leverage to attain marriage rights is disingenuous: even though they actually are victims in the physical sense, that doesn’t convey any rights other than the right to protection, which they have.

Bill said,

” I'm going to go out on a limb and say the "consequences" will be that gay people get married. What's wrong with that?”

Very short term myopia. The consequences are the official installation of amorality codified into the culture.

PM said,

” there is no consideration at all of the consequences of their push to CHANGE THE RULES.

That is actually the complete opposite. ALL that matters are the consequences. That's the AtheoLeft position.”

We’re probably talking about different degrees of consequences. Yes, the Left is focused merely on short term consequences… while ignoring long term social consequences... unless of course the Left actually wants social decay. But they discuss only the short term.

What I meant is that the AtheoLeft refuses to acknowledge (or discuss) the ultimate antithesis as they demand their synthesis. They insist that the synthesis is the consequence, when it never, ever has been in the past. When they get their synthesis, they will declare that to be the new thesis, and push for yet a further removed antithesis, ever forward on their Hegelian march to amorality and top down control.

” Objective morality is an oxymoron. Morality is necessarily subjective as it is a judgment. If morality can be objective, than beauty is objective, which is absurd.”

That is not the case. Subjective morality does not exist: it is merely a rationalization of preferred behaviors. If morality exists, then it must have a source which is endowed with moral authority. Atheism denies an authority or absolutes totally, as if that were an absolute truth. So the AtheoLeft merely considers their own concocted personal theories as “morals”, and they wish to subject everyone else to them. The perversion of Equality is an example, where the AtheoLeft has an all-new concept of equality which they demand that everyone else accept or be vilified as immoral. That’s where power comes into play. They cannot get their personal theories accepted by rational means, so they assert the power of charges of immorality as a first wave assault. Then there is judicial activism. And there will be more. And more.

” Why is it immoral to object to it?
It's not immoral; it's irrational (assuming we are still talking about homosexuality...)”

Charging irrationality without making a rational, disciplined logical case can’t be accepted.

” It is obvious that the NEW MORALITY is really just Nietzsche’s Will To Power in action, where changes in morality go to the most powerful.

Quite the opposite. Homosexuals have always been the weak ones... the ones who are pushed aside, shunned, ridiculed when not molested, attacked or killed. Sometimes it's not homosexuals but guys who look too much like "fags".”

And that is not only illegal, it is uber-illegal and has special punishments. Now it is the homosexuals who are doing the same thing, when they don’t get their way (Prop 8). Case in point: the homosexual lobby attempted to destroy Chick fil A by charging it with a moral accusation: hate. That’s because of their donations. Amazon has donated a lot of $ to LGBT causes without any sort of equivalent attempt to punish or destroy it from the other side. The reaction has the same short term consequences: support Chick fil A and support Amazon. It is the AtheoLeft which is making the power play and attributing morals to it, when they have no moral theory at all other than Consequentialism.

”’...discrimination against the OLD, FIXED MORALITY.’

It's quite fascinating that someone who pretends to be rational and logical can make such a broad ignorant statement. History teaches us a complete different picture of what morality means for individuals, families and societies as a whole. It changes from time to time and person to person. We have conventions, laws and shared values, but in the end, we all make our own judgment based on our context.”

That is easily disproved; there are fixed moral codes, and the code which led the immigration to the new world is easily determined, as is the code which formed this nation. Behavior which cannot be compared to a code is not just amoral, it is not just situational, it is reduced to personal aggrandizement and personal power. That is exactly where the AtheoLeft dwells today, as they seek to control more and more of the culture with their own self-elitist self-perceived-superintellects determining what is moral for everyone else and what is not. The first immorality is to disagree with them.

When there is no moral code, there is no way to determine what a person will do next. His motivation cannot be tempered by moral considerations because there is no moral code (or like Obama said, his idea of a moral failure is not to live up to his own code [whatever that is]). There is no possible way to trust a person who has no self-discipline toward known moral responses. That is why it is rational not to trust an Atheist. Or a Leftist.

” You seem to simply misunderstand the issue and the arguments. Pedophilia is the same as homosexuality in the sense that people don't choose to be attracted to kids, nor do people choose to be attracted to people of the same sex. The difference is that we have good reasons to prevent pedophiles from acting on their urges, while there is no reason to stop homosexuals based solely on the gender of the two people involved in the sexual action being analyzed.”

And you do not acknowledge the lists of assaults on your presumed “good reasons” for stopping pedophiles, using the same identical tactics which homosexuals used to convince you that there are no “good reasons” to prevent marriage from going from a moral basis to an amoral basis.

” “Left handedness was once discriminated against but now is not.”
If that is a satisfactory argument against any discrimination, then no disorder may be discriminated against, including pedophilia.

The choice of word is improper. There is no reason to discriminate against the 'disorder', but we have good reasons to discriminate against the behavior.”

The choice of that word is exactly proper: It is the behavior which is the disorder in the newer DSMs, not the mental condition. For homosexuals the behavior was delisted as a disorder, again not due to science in favor of delisting but in sympathy for the plight of the homosexual. That led to not being able to help homosexuals with their homosexuality including acting on it, but only with relationship issues, by fiat.

The idea that gender should not be considered in marriage because there are no actual morals is exactly what this conflict is about. If there are no morals, then there are no limits outside of what I set for myself, if any. Denying that to be the case is where the actual irrationality lies.

” But why Stan, for frack sake, why do you care about X = GENDER?

Because I believe that morality has bounds and that homosexuality doesn’t actually need to destroy those bounds in order to get the rights they claim they can’t get. They can get them via contract law; they reject that. Their assault is on the concept of traditional marriage, and morals in general.

You, for example, absolutely are engaged in personally defining what is moral and not moral, and you did it in your comment. So from my perspective, you have no actual moral boundaries and are willing to do whatever you are comfortable with. And that includes ignoring whatever I say, and continuing to shout at me, a trait that is outside the bounds of civility yet you are obviously comfortable with it. You will accept no answer from me that does not conform to your own personal morality du jour. That is the road to bigotry. It is precisely there that the country and world is being relentlessly driven. Only total capitulation is acceptable. That is why I see this as a war: I refuse to capitulate just to satisfy you and homosexual advocates.

” ”homosexuals are nice, regular people”
So are pedophiles.

If they force themselves on kids, no they are not. Why is it so hard to understand?”

I understand just fine that you have personal morals that currently draw lines in the moral sands. What you refuse to address is that those moral sands, once they are made into amoral sands, will not stop where you draw your personal morals du jour. The foundations are already being laid, you have not addressed that, it’s like you don’t care about consequences of changing to amorality at all. Your single-minded drive to change marriage into an amoral union is a view into your actual moral state.

” In practice however, we only use the term pedophile to identify those who actually acted upon their urges, so we are justified to discriminate against them.”

The only justification is your current personal moral line in the sand. Like others are saying above, morals change. If so, then your discrimination is not really justified, except by your personal opinion.

And if the DSM is changed out of sympathy for the poor pedophile as it was for homosexuals, then "acting on the urges" will not be a criterion for discrimination, of course.

” So is your entire discussion on homosexuality; it demonstrates a lack of ability to support a position. The only things that come out of it are insult directed at the "others" who do not adhere to the "old morality". Tough questions are avoided, emotional reactions generate a long post void of any constructive points, etc...”

My position is clear: either there are morals or there are mere personal opinions based on personal proclivity. Dispute it, go ahead. The latter is what your position and that of the entire homosexual advocacy community are based upon. When you advocate for fluid or nonexistent rules for behavior, then that is what you will get.

“Constructive points” is an interesting complaint. Since there is no middle ground possible for those who reject actual rules for self-disciplined behavior, there can be no constructive points being seen. The only thing being seen in this fracas is the histrionic hatred of those who would deny random sexual behaviors as a social standard... to the point of denying rights to the traditionalists. There is no more obvious declaration of totalitarianism and war.

Even you want to assert that your new line in the moral sand is fixed, right where you fixed it, for the reasons you wanted to fix it. But it is arbitrary. Even so, to question it is “immoral”, despite its arbitrary selection.

So it is a matter of power. When you have enough power to force the others to accept your new arbitrary line in the sand, then you have shifted, by force, the values of the nation. You should not be surprised when an even more powerful arbitrary amorality supersedes your own, and you will be “immoral” if you do not accept it. Your own position of power-makes-morality will be in play.

I have pointed all this out before; you don’t want to discuss this. What you want to discuss is “what difference does gender make”. Well, this is the difference it makes. Once aberrational amoral behavior is sanctified and normalized by the government, there is no limit on the ultimate amorality which is loosed. Deny it all you wish; denialism is part and parcel of the push for amorality.

And again:
To claim a moral or physical or any kind of equivalency between women, blacks and aberrant sexual drives and practices is sexist, racist and wrong in all categories including moral. It is an offense against normal human beings. Not to mention irrational (Category Error).

NOTES
Note 1: If morality continues to be culturally recognized as an objective set of higher principles with a higher authority than Leftist opinion, Leftism will continue have very little leverage, ex judicia. The entire thrust of Leftism, then, must be to destroy all traditional/cultural moral principles. If they succeed in creating a moral void, only then can they assert their own moral opinions, and then only top-down. If there is no moral void into which to assert their own self-derived morals, then they will have failed to gain control, and their progressivism could not progress. Hence, the war on morality is an essential element in the Leftist “progress”. (As is the seizure of the judicial branch).

Note 2: It should never be forgotten that Democrats fought to preserve slavery; Democrats ruled the “Solid South”, and insisted on “separate but equal” discrimination, separate water fountains and restrooms, white-only schools, restaurants and other facilities, Jim Crow, and manned the KKK. Democrats did not pass the Civil Rights Legislation, Republicans did with some Democrat help, and some Democrats fighting it. Democrats merely took credit for it. Then they immediately flipped over to the welfare state maintenance of poverty in the ghettos, defeating self-reliance and initiative amongst the new economic slaves.

Note 3: Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D.; “The Liberal Mind: the Psychological Causes of Political Madness”; Free World Books, LLC, 2006; pgs 337 – 8.

Note 4: Benjamin James Sadock, M.D. and Virginia Alcott Sadock,M.D.; “Synopsis of Psychiatry: Behavioral Sciences/Clinical Psychiatry”; Lippincott, Williams & Williams; 10th Ed, 2007, pg 199.

Note 5: James Davison Hunter; “The Death of Character: Moral Education in an Age Without Good or Evil”; pg 17.

Note 6: American Psychiatric Association, DSM-IV-TR, 4th Ed, 2000, printed 2010; pg 717.