Leftist Psychology: Delusions in Disguise

by Michael Parish

I’ve blogged on here before about the psychological inadequacies plaguing the modern Left, but I’ve never systematically analyzed them and presented a full conclusion. So, to cop a line from Lenny Bruce, I, as a “surgeon with a scalpal for false values” will dedicate this blog post to doing just that. So kick back, relax, and crack a beer as I shine a flashlight through the mothballed corridors of liberal consciousness…

The liberal mind cognizes deductively, albeit having internalized its own strawman reasoning. Expressed abstractly it goes something like this-

1.Policy A is intended to advance the interests of group B.
2.Person C opposes Policy A.
3.Therefore, Person C opposes the societal advancement of group B.
4. Person C is therefore an “ist” or “phobe” regarding group B.

This line of thinking is applied to all objects of discourse. Opposing-

1. Affirmative action = “racist”
2. Abortion = “sexist”
3. Gay marriage and/or adoption =  “homophobe”
4. Mass immigration = “xenophobe.”

These are then added together and deduced to the following equation-

1. Conservative and/or non-left thought opposes affirmative action, abortion, gay marriage and adoption, and mass immigration.
2. Affirmative action, abortion, gay marriage and adoption, and mass immigration are necessary for the societal advancement of their corresponding groups.
3. Therefore, conservatives and non-leftists oppose the societal advancement of those groups.
4. Therefore, conservatism and non-leftism are not ideologies but discursive covers for straight white males seeking to maintain their own supposed privilege while suppressing others.

This serves a dual function for the leftism, which likewise is deduced from a starting point-

1. Conservative and non-leftist views are not an actual ideology but covers for bigotry.
2. Therefore, the leftist is exempt from having to engage in actual debate with conservatives and non-leftist.


1. Conservative and non-leftist arguments against liberal positions are actually arguments in favor of restoring past bigotries and inequalities.
2. Therefore, the leftist’s positions are exempt from conservative and non-leftist criticism.

From this reductionist deflation of conservative claims is deducted the leftist’s own self-image-

1. Conservatives are societal deviants seeking to perpetuate bigotry and inequality.
2. Leftists oppose conservatives and their agenda.
3. Therefore, leftists are societal heroes fighting against societal deviants and their bigotry and inequality.

And from this we derive the leftist conception of the socio-political realm-

1. All politics is a good versus evil struggle between left-wing heroes and right-wing villains.
2. As the heroes, the Left and its policies are exempt from criticism and need not engage in actual debate.
3. As the villains, the Right and its policies deserve nothing but criticism and need not be actually debated.

It becomes obvious, then, that-

1. The modern Leftist adheres to a false paradigm constructed through the use of deductive   logic that starts with false premises and ignores all actual facts and information.
2. Adhering to a false paradigm constructed using this method is a delusion.
3. Therefore, modern Leftism is not a real ideology but a delusion, or mental illness.

It’s plain to be seen who the truly irrational, unreasoned, and bigoted folks are in this place.

Categories: Uncategorized

3 replies »

  1. One could apply the argument made in this post to anyone who is an unquestioning ideologue, and so really goes to show the problem with people who are psychologically bound to systematized worldviews.

    To wit, some far right classical liberals are well known for this. They exhibit an annoying habit of internalizing a series of straw men about how the state, the market, and the individual are all relationally conflated in such a way that capitalism in particular is the only way to maintain an open society. They reach the conclusion that an attempt to make societal rules about economic activity through the use of government constitutes an attack on their personal freedom and security.

    Now I don’t advocate any one group of people using the force of a state to push rules on other groups that don’t want to follow them, and so the underlying idea is not a bad one. However, anyone who has talked with one of these folks already knows what I’m going on about. More than likely you’ve had to cringe through some of their more tenuous sub-political and philosophical associations and assumptions, only to watch it

    1. Undermine their own argument (Some of the best anti-copyright anti-intellectual property arguments come from Austrian Economists, however many of those arguments are very Proudhonian and so actually undermine the concept of private property in general)

    2. Force them to engage in some very ugly bullet-biting and situational hand-waving (some don’t have a problem with this type of bullet biting at all, for instance Ted Nugent couldn’t give doesn’t give a shit if you can’t afford to buy food and he’s also kind of insane anyway)

    3. Have a head-on collision with the inaccurate, over-simplified, and context-deprived data which supposedly provided weight to their case.

    And again, what I’ve described above can apply to anyone with a psychological attachment to a systematized ideology. To have their opinions about the world toppled and shifted is to threaten their sense of self, and so the “internalized straw men” or much less akin to stupidity of oversight and much more akin to cognitive dissonance relief.

    An interesting right-wing theme anecdote: I once knew a right-libertarian that I had many discussions with, we sort of intellectually grew up together. Looking back on some of the arguments and ideas he would talk about, its actually quite astounding the number of egregious and obvious equivocation fallacies he would make on a regular basis, it was a chronic issue for him. What blew my mind was how he would often continue on with his reasoning as if he didn’t realize that he’s just changed the definition of a word he was using in the middle of what he was saying. I Wonder if he ever did it on purpose, as a rhetorical device. In any event we’re not friends anymore, ironically because our political differences became subtly ego-offensive to him over time, and his personal treatment of me began to degrade.

  2. Amazing! The delusional train of thought described in this article seems to permeate the author’s logic!!!

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply