Exposing the Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror
Glazov’s thesis is that Western leftists and Muslim terrorists share a pathology, a morbid mental defect. Glazov is not a professional psychiatrist, so some readers will look askance at his conclusions, which he calls “the believer’s diagnosis.” In an interview with Pajamas Media, Glazov explained his conclusions and his rejection of the overly generous contention, put about by liberals and conservatives alike in the wake of the Spanish Civil War and Stalin’s purge, that leftists were and are merely confused, well-intentioned “do-gooders.”
“The typical leftist,” Glazov explained, actually “wants to shed himself of his unwanted self and melt into a totalitarian blur. He wants to fit in. And he wants to create a disinfected earth where he doesn’t have to face the challenges that come with freedom. That disinfection demands destruction. It demands Ground Zero, so that the earthly paradise can be built on its ashes. Radical Muslims perpetrate the destruction against free societies that the leftist is dreaming of and supports. Both sides want to create paradise on earth and they cannot accept man for who and what he is. Because of that, every time they try to create heaven, they engender hell. And there is nothing baffling about this alliance. It makes total logical sense.”
Glazov writes with the blunt passion of a convert, but he’s never been a leftist. He comes by his brutal candor honestly. Glazov’s parents were Soviet dissidents: Yuri Glazov was one of the signatories of the 1968 Letter of Twelve denouncing Soviet human rights abuses; his mother, Marina, circulated samizdat. Fortunately, detente made it possible for the Glazovs to escape to America in 1972. Jamie Glazov was five years old.
In United in Hate, he writes:
While we were cherishing our newfound freedom, we encountered a strange species: intellectuals in the universities who hated my parents for the story they had to tell. … Thus, when I am confronted with the Left’s current romance with militant Islam, I see something very familiar.
During the Cold War, says Glazov, the Left masked its sinister motivations “through the pretense of being on the side of ‘social justice’ and ‘equality.”
But on September 11, 2001, the Left “tore off its own mask.” That day, he told me, “I braced myself for what I expected would happen: my leftist acquaintances and leftists on the international stage began rubbing their hands with glee.” People like Ward Churchill, Michael Moore, and Noam Chomsky, not to mention some in Glazov’s own circle, “couldn’t even disguise their celebration and feelings of kinship with the terrorists that carried out that crime against humanity.”
Glazov became determined to get to the bottom of the Left’s, and radical Islam’s, self-hatred and arrogance, their “romance with tyranny and terror.”
The key, if Glazov’s theory is correct, is a fascination with death and destruction. It’s a fascination we often observe in misfit teenagers enamored of self-destructive idols like Sylvia Plath and James Dean. However, this fascination becomes downright pathological when it carries on into adulthood and becomes justified as a coherent intellectual, philosophical worldview — a worldview one dare not mock or question without being branded a bigot or a troglodyte.
Luckily, Glazov isn’t swayed by this new “etiquette.” In United in Hate, he writes about Michel Foucault, for decades one of the academy’s most revered and influential intellectual theorists. In doing so, he — in the tradition of Paul Johnson — describes Foucault’s ugly (and in many “respectable” liberal circles, unspeakable) demise.
Glazov writes: “For a person who had always been fascinated by death and its interconnections with sex, Foucault’s life came to an eerie ending when he died of AIDS in 1984,” having “embraced” the San Francisco bath house scene when its dangers were well known, and its inherent immorality — even before the AIDS era — should have been, in any case, self-evident.
“As we shall see later in this chapter,” Glazov continues, “many leftist homosexuals would follow this pattern of self-hate and a craving for death. This pathological behavior mirrors that of other leftist intellectuals supporting tyrannies that murder intellectuals” — Foucault, for instance, was a vocal admirer of Iran’s Khomeini.
Sadly one doubts that Glazov will be getting many invitations to speak on that topic at Berkeley in the near future.
It is Glazov’s chapters on radical Islam that many will find the most difficult to read, what with their uncensored descriptions of frankly bizarre psychosexual activities that are, if the experts Glazov cites are to be believed, fairly commonplace in the Muslim world.
Acknowledging that he doesn’t “know any simple answers to this,” Glazov speculated to Pajamas Media that the “Muslim religion’s misogyny and fear and hatred of female sexuality leads to a hell of a lot of pathology. And this pathology, in turn, plays a monumental role in engendering terror. The hate of the female, and the impulse to stifle her desire and to also stifle the desire for her, is very much at the root of Islamic terror. Wherever you find a misogynist culture, you will find suicidal impulses in that culture.”
Asked what aspect of his research findings particularly troubled him — and make no mistake, United in Hate is an overwhelmingly troubling read — Glazov replied:
After living a life of hearing and reading about what the communists perpetrated against their own people, there is nothing really shocking for me. Depressing, yes. Things that crack my soul and traumatize me, yes. I think perhaps I didn’t know how much radical Muslims actually venerate actual human blood. In one scene, a Muslim terrorist actually laps the blood off the floor of his dead victim. It makes sense, of course, since the craving for the pure and sterilized earthly paradise is ultimately an outgrowth of the hatred of human beings and, therefore, the thirst for their blood. That’s why socialists and Islamists have their hands soaked in it.
“Intellectuals” is a great book. Entertainingly written and with a convincing central thesis. Johnson’s personal failings (if failings they be) are old and irrelevant news.
Poor old Glazov, on the other hand, clearly cannot write for toffee: no-one outside a Readers Digest column should be “rubbing their hands with glee”. Moreover, to devote the best part of a chapter to “left-wing homsexuals” (there are, dear boy, plenty of right-wing ones too) may itself be unkindly regarded as a display of “pathology”.
Perhaps Johnson should simply update his great work, leaving Glazov to be hailed on NRO etc for his penetrating insights into the workings of the homosexual mind.
“Glazov’s thesis is that Western leftists and Muslim terrorists share a pathology, a morbid mental defect.”
Hmmmm…I don’t know this guy from Adam and I’m already liking him.
“Hypocrisy being the most serious sin in the liberal establishment catechism”
One of the Left’s more effective double standards, a standard never applied to its own Elmer Gantrys. Like Algore, whose energy-intensive lifestyle does little to undermine his authority as ‘gloabal warming’ scold-in-chief. Or public servants who denounce the excesses of corporate executives but travel on private jets at taxpayer expense. Or the parade of politically-compromised influence peddlers (Rangel, Dodd, et al) and tax cheats (much of Obama’s cabinet) in charge of the nation’s reckless fiscal policy lecturing Americans on financial responsibility. Or that Mark Foley’s and Larry Craig’s tabloid scandals were soooo much more serious than William Jefferson’s foreign bribe-taking, John Edwards’ de facto bigamy, John Murtha’s extensive network of corruption, Barney Frank’s in-house bordello or Ted Kennedy’s manslaughter. I could go on.
Radical Islam ultimately cannot last. Sooner or later it will self-destruct, just like every other evil empire has. It may take a war to accomplish this, but in the end, I do not believe that G-d’s plan is for the world to be engulfed by Sharia law. We in the West have had it so good for so long and now certain elements of society want to take those freedoms away. We are now being tested and we must pass that test or die.
It sounds like an interesting read. I’ve wondered the same thing about Michel Foucault. I’ll have to look for the book, although it’s in none of our county’s libraries–yet.
Laura, you don’t think God could use Islam for Armagedon?
#6
I don’t know Michael. G-d may intervene this time since we seem not to be able or willing to combat it on our own. This is a global war and a war that will predict the outcome of mankind. The Orthodox rabbis say that we are living in the End of Days….another 200+ years to be exact before the world ends. If you believe that, then we are now in the period that is predicted in the bible as the time of Armaggedon.
Kathy,
Do you have a link to or suggestions how I could get to that interview of Jamie Glazov’s with PJM? I’d like to read it or hear it.
I have not read the book yet and I will get it at some point. Anyway, none of this is a surprise to me. I’ve been saying for several years now, even before David Horowitz’ book “Unholy Alliance” that a symbiosis of Marxism and Islam was taking place. The collectivists embrace Islam and its jihad warriors because they share a common enemy: Western Civilization.
We live in interesting and trying times. I alternate between optimism and pessimism about the survivability of our nation and Western Civilization. It’s obvious that we are in a slow suicide mode. The collectivists and their Muslim allies do appear to be winning the war. And I’ve taken to reading Augustine of Hippo to peer into the thoughts of a man who lived in times like ours, in order to understand how an intellectual copes with the decline of his civilization.
How did this thread get from Paul Johnson to the rapture in only seven comments?! Armageddon ‘outa here!
mOST LEFTI
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. This is as far as it goes to describe those politically left of centre.
Sort of like politics in France. When you take away anti-americanism, there isn’t all that much else to describe left of centre politics, or right of centre politics.
“Glazov is not a professional psychiatrist”
Of course he isn’t. He is an imbecile. Doesn’t mean that imbeciles won’t listen to him, though.
On the other hand, David Amodio is a well-known social psychologist:
psych.nyu.edu/amodio/
In his paper titled “Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism,” in the Journal Nature Neuroscience, he found that:
“Political scientists and psychologists have noted that, on average, conservatives show more structured and persistent cognitive styles, whereas liberals are more responsive to informational complexity, ambiguity and novelty. We tested the hypothesis that these profiles relate to differences in general neurocognitive functioning using event-related potentials, and found that greater liberalism was associated with stronger conflict-related anterior cingulate activity, suggesting greater neurocognitive sensitivity to cues for altering a habitual response pattern.”
Conservatives are not very receptive to new information. Either that or Amodio is just fascinated with death and destruction. You decide.
Dave742, considering how thoroughly Amodia’s methodology was demolished after that was published, you might not want to make that comparison.
Charlie Martin:
“considering how thoroughly Amodia’s methodology was demolished” -CM
From your link:
“On balance, I don’t have a beef with the methodology.”
There is nothing wrong with Amodio’s study.
“Sulloway’s name may not appear on this study, but he is intimately connected to it…Shame on Sulloway for allowing the media to believe that he is impartial. He should have disclosed his bias.” -From your link
Sulloway is referenced by Amodio. Being referenced by an author does not make you “intimately connected” with the study. Amodio also referenced Theodor Adorno:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_W._Adorno
Adorno died 40 years ago. Is Adorno also “intimately connected” with Amodio’s study, since Amodio referenced him? Grow up. There is nothing wrong with Amodio’s study. Amodio is not responsible for the statements of an author referenced in his study.
“Had the results been reversed, you can be sure that ‘isinterested’ experts would have found another way to tie this study to their predetermined conclusion.” From your link
A completely baseless accusation of fraud. Standard.
“Were it a group study, it would have been unacceptably unbalanced and sloppy – something like 29 loosely defined, self-described liberals to 8 similarly defined conservatives. 3 It would be irrational to draw conclusions about group differences from such a design, and even more ridiculous to imply that those differences could be generalized to the larger population.” -From your link
This guy is an imbecile. Using a self-report for classification purposes is perfectly normal, and is done all the time. This specific self-report has been verified in many other studies:
“This single-item measure has been found to account for approximately 85% of the statistical variance in presidential voting intentions in American National Election studies
between 1972 and 2004. Among participants in the present study who reported voting in the 2004 presidential election, a more liberal (versus conservative) ideological orientation strongly predicted voting for John Kerry versus George Bush (r(21) = 0.79, P less than 0.001.)”
It is perfectly justified to draw conclusions concerning these groups based on this data. Of course it can be generalized to the larger population. It’s justified based on it’s significant (p less than 0.001) results.
Your link is a joke.
Charlie Martin:
Since you like discussing methodologies, what do you think of Glazov’s methodology? Does he have a methodology beyond spouting crap off the top of his head and getting sheeple to listen to him? How many people did Glazov study? Did he use EEG’s, or fMRI, or what? What measure did he use to extract his results? I searched Jamie Glazov’s name in every academic database there is, and I don’t get a single hit. Why is that?
Response #12 indicates just how touchy the Left is and will be about Glazov’s book. It touches on something hidden in the dark, grabs it, and pulls it out into the light of day. As a veteran of the Left who spent a decade of my life there (I left it in ’87), even back then I saw how the various Marxist and Communist front organizations would link arms with the PLO and with the anti-American Iranian groups. I kept my distance from that, in part because the stench of it was unbearable and also because I was more a bookish fellow-traveler and not much of an activist. There was not a terrorist group that they would not make common cause with. In those days the Islamists were only warming up and already they were being enthusiastically embraced by the Marxist organizations.
Glazov is going to take a lot of heat because of this book. But I think he expects it and is prepared for it, armed with the truth.
As for the straw man that conservatives are people not predisposed to new information and truth, my life is an example that contradicts it. It was a wide and deep exploration of ideas, history, science and medicine that brought me away from Marxism towards the position of classical liberalism (in the true understanding of the term). I became anti-Communist when I could no longer rationalize or explain away, at least in my own mind, the facts of history and what the human being is like and capable of.
I observed a lot of emotional/psychological problems among many of the Marxists who were the hard-chargers of the movement. Many of them were masters of deception too and the first victims of their massive lying were themselves.
12. dave742
Conservatives are not very receptive to new information
Sweetheart, it’s called formulating core principles & standing by them, as opposed to being swayed by every puff of BS that comes down the pike.
ALL left wing ideologies, from communism to moslem supremacy to nazism always fails for one reason. Freedom is the solution to the human condition. Willingness to recognize that comes slowly, often times it takes the likes of a Hitler, a Khrushev saying “we will bury you” or a trillion dollar hit in the wallet. Even the american revolutionaries didt have unamonious support. George Washington had Benedict Arnold. Guess what, Washington ended up a great historical figure, Arnold died in disgrace, drunk and penniless. historyis written by the winners , not the whiners.
Amadio-isnt he one od those fellows George Orwell called “double speak???. I call tongued tied brain addled unable to compete with real clear thinking dolts. Or in simple terms, useless idiots.
kathy:
” being swayed by every puff of BS that comes down the pike ”
In your opinion, then, Amodio’s study (and dozens of other that found similar reulsts) is BS, and Glazov’s book is a model of good science? I guess one way of putting that is “formulating core principles & standing by them.” Funny.
Kathy (‘it’s called formulating core principles & standing by them, as opposed to being swayed by every puff of BS that comes down the pike.’) is right.
Dave742, do you really think ‘stronger conflict-related anterior cingulate activity, suggesting greater neurocognitive sensitivity to cues for altering a habitual response pattern’ means any more than ‘so scared of violence you’ll hastily agree with any old cr-p’? That is what Glazov is accusing you of. Think you can have it sound ok by making an elaborate pseudo-scientific theory out of it? Good night.
I’ve had to change my idea of what constitutes intelligence in the last few years. So many plausible, well spoken academics, journalists and artists talk this kind of rubbish, it’s just not funny.
20. dave742
This kathy is not the author of this PJM item, just to clarify, so I’ve no dog in this fight, however you care set-up your either/or posits.
My point had to do with Conservatives, steadfast core principles & whether logorrheic arguments are in & of themselves persuasive or anything other than just red-herrings.
I prefer the company of peasants because they have not been educated sufficiently to reason incorrectly.
Michel de Montaigne
French essayist (1533 – 1592)
Stephen: A “well-known social psychologist” said it, so it must be true.
Dave just wants the world to know how impressed he is with his own highly-active cingulate gyrus.
“We tested the hypothesis that these profiles relate to differences in general neurocognitive functioning using event-related potentials, and found that greater liberalism was associated with stronger conflict-related anterior cingulate activity, suggesting greater neurocognitive sensitivity to cues for altering a habitual response pattern.”
Only a fool educated far beyond his native intelligence would find this gibberish persuasive. It reads like a parody, but ivory-tower academe has moved beyond parody.
“Conservatives are not very receptive to new information.”
Conservatives do not believe the world began when the sun came up this morning, and they don’t see the need to believe that it did just because some babbling twit with a government grant says so.
For the record, I was briefly a member of Mensa about 15 years ago. Come time to renew my membership, I didn’t bother. I was tired of having to talk down to them, *too.* And a lot of them imagined themselves to fiendishly brilliant, as dave742 does.
The verb is “to be.” Nothing reveals a trivial error quite like pushing the Submit button.
So these wonderful responders piling on to dave747 and announcing their own superiour cognitive abilities actually approve of the tripe writen by Glazov? Most of which appears to be of a level of Fox News “research”. What is it with conservatives and their obsession with homosexuality BTW?
“For a person who had always been fascinated by death and its interconnections with sex, Foucault’s life came to an eerie ending when he died of AIDS in 1984,” having “embraced” the San Francisco bath house scene when its dangers were well known, and its inherent immorality — even before the AIDS era — should have been, in any case, self-evident.
“As we shall see later in this chapter,” Glazov continues, “many leftist homosexuals would follow this pattern of self-hate and a craving for death.
This quote is wrong on so many levels it’s hard to keep it to a quick response so lets just dot point it.
1.In 1984 we were just coming to an understanding of the vectors and transmission of HIV and concurrent AIDs. Foucoult would have been infected some time earlier when it was not known how it was spread.
2.Obviously therefore, Bathhouse culture or activities were not seen as a death wish but actually as a life affirming improvement on beats, which as quite a number of conservative GOP figures have found are a dangerous closetted and exposed way to pick up.
3. Ad hominum attack, (BTW I am not a Foucoult fan ) but arguing that you dont like a particular quality of a person does not make that persons argument invalid or untrue.
This character seems typical of the quality of argument and research we are seeing from the desperate wingers these days. lets try and link two things that aren’t connected, let’s say the chimp attack and Darwin and fools will vote for us. “Liberal Fascism” ring a bell anyone?
So far most of these responses have been completely on the fringes of the central thesis of Glazov’s book. Why is that?
Leftists continually, and quite often laughably, seek control of others. Yet, more humans would die for their own freedom (and that of others) than would die for efforts to control others. This means that over the long term, the human spirit will always triumph, freedom will always win out in the end, and leftists will always be relegated to the dustbin of history.
And the cognitively dissonant and unfriendly impulse that permeates every comical aspect of the liberal philosophy — well, that is simply nothing but a manifestation of the fact that on some level they understand this, isn’t it? It’s what creates their hate. Including dave742, who is deeply resentful of those minds he cannot control.
Great article on what looks to be a fascinating book. Probably a companion to Evan Sayet’s thesis on How Modern Liberals [ie leftists] Think. Two who have seen modern leftism from the inside and survived to talk about it.
Our “romance with blood and terror” comes because we compassionate progressives are much more in tune with our inner connectivity and with the planet which groans under the strain of too many humans. You reactionaries have no such sensitivity and are too alienated from your primal selves to understand.
This answers a lot of questions for me. I’m just an average American whose eyes have just been wide-opened. I grew up in the age of “women’s liberation and freedom”, yet these same women who promoted this banish Sarah Palin and embrace islam slavery of women? It really makes me sick. The left can paint it any way they want, but please “intellectual leftist posters” explain your love of mysogyny and self-immolation. Yeah, look it up, liberal misogynist elites.
Hey kathy 31,
I’m a kathy too. Ever notice that when someone yells kathy in a crowded place, lots of kathys look around to see who’s trying to get our attention?
Re: Dave742
/
Since we all live in the only world there is, it is somewhat incumbent upon you to search for the commonalities between Glazer and Amadio.
/
Furthermore, finding those commonalities, which are already obvious to me, does not absolve you of making a value judgment between absorption with novelty and wariness of it. What is best for the world close to you and the world not so close to you? Acceptance of differences is negation of thought. Both Amadio and Glazer need to be reconciled.
The problem with Liberals is that in they have been brainwashed to believe that America is the root of all evils.
I will never forget debating with a boss of mine who was a super, duper Liberal. When I told her that when the USA left Vietnam, the Viet-Cong raped, murdered and tortured countless South Vietnamese, the retard blamed it on the USA.
Liberal’s speak of women’s right, yet they support abortion laws around the world in which women are forced to abort female babies.
Liberals speak of women’s right, yet they embrace and support Islam, a religion that considers women to be worth less than dogs.
I have found Liberals to be THE most closed minded, poorly educated individuals on planet Earth.
Not to mention that Liberals are a bunch of sad hypocrites.
They have put on a pedestal Presidents like FDR, who created many more policies that violated Americans’ private rights than any other President in history. FDR ordered the USA government to monitor newspapers, to open and read all letters mailed to foreign nations. He ordered Japanese-Americans to be thrown in concentration camps. He never tried in American courts spies caught without uniforms. He did not allow pictures of dead soldiers to be shown to the public. He ordered the demonization of the Japanese and Nazis. In fact, if you read his war policies they are very similar to that of President Bush’s. So, Liberals, explain how FDR is your hero, yet you hate Bush?
and let us not even start with President Lincoln, who Obama insults by claiming to try to be like him. President Lincoln clearly stated that the Constitution was NOT going to be the death of America. Lincoln threw in prison countless of media personnel, he did away with Habeas Corpus and took other actions similar to what Bush did. Yet, Obama embraces Lincoln.
If we use the standards that Liberals use on Bush and measure Lincoln and FDR with the same, Lincoln and FDR were 100 times worst than Bush.
Of course, most of the Liberals do not care about history, have not been taught about history, or are liars and cheats who know about history, but love to lie.
I sincerely hope #30 was satire. It’s hard to tell these days.
#30 Hey Dr.Lumplevin: Progressives are in touch with their inner psycho;scratch a liberal,find a Stalinist!
kathy:
“My point had to do with Conservatives, steadfast core principles & whether logorrheic arguments are in & of themselves persuasive or anything other than just red-herrings”
The arguments Amodio uses aremade using the terms in his field. They are not meant to fool anyone. They are meant to be read and understood by his colleagues. When you become an expert in your field, you cannot use layman’s language to communicate technical issues. That is why terms exist. The language he uses exists for a good reason. It is not a conspiracy.
It’s interesting how people here freak out about Amodio’s language, when all people use language that is particular to their field. Yet kathy feels the need to use a word like “logorrheic” in a blog setting, and another has to tell us that he had to quit Mensa because he was too smart for them. Projection is funny.
“Political scientists and psychologists have noted that, on average, conservatives show more structured and persistent cognitive styles, whereas liberals are more responsive to informational complexity, ambiguity and novelty. We tested the hypothesis that these profiles relate to differences in general neurocognitive functioning using event-related potentials, and found that greater liberalism was associated with stronger conflict-related anterior cingulate activity, suggesting greater neurocognitive sensitivity to cues for altering a habitual response pattern.”
Conservatives are not very receptive to new information.
Dave, your conclusion does not even flow from the paragraph you cite, at least not necessarily.
Your definition of “receptive” is, to put it mildly, vague. Being “receptive” means nothing, unless one then exercises one’s judgment to accept or reject what was received. Your conclusion seems to reflect the assumption that accepting new information is somehow inherently superior to rejecting it. Evidence?
One of the reasons I rejected liberalism after about three years in the real world is that liberals (of the ones I have known) seem very keen on drawing far-ranging conclusions from very specific research.
More directly put: it’s good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.
FWIW, I’m a medical writer with a doctorate in pharmaceutical sciences. If I tried to get your conclusion past one of my investigators, I’d be laughed out of the office.
yoyo: ‘So these wonderful responders piling on to dave747 and announcing their own superiour cognitive abilities…’
It was ‘Dave747′ who was claiming ‘greater neurocognitive sensitivity to cues for altering a habitual response pattern’ for liberals, quoting Amodio’s pseudoscience. So lose the victim mode.
Dave742, ‘The arguments Amodio uses aremade using the terms in his field. They are not meant to fool anyone.’
The language Amodio uses is unnecessarily opaque, and the ‘good reason’ for him to use it is it sounds impressive and keeps him clear of people whose opinions he doesn’t care for. But he is just saying what nobody here would disagree with – namely that when threatened, conservatives dig their heels in, whereas liberals become conciliatory. It’s comical because we know when we hear tags like ‘greater neurocognitive sensitivity’ reserved for liberals, while conservatives are stuck with ‘habitual response pattern[s]‘, that Amodio is doing partisan politics masked as objective science.
‘It is not a conspiracy’.
Yes it is.
Trouble:
“Your definition of ‘receptive’ is, to put it mildly, vague.”
By “receptive”, I meant the ability to make appropriate behavioral adjustments when a certain goal is not being met. I could have been clearer. This ability has to do with conflict monitoring, which is what Amodio’s paper was about. If you are a PhD medical writer, you should have access to the paper. Have you read it?
“liberals…seem very keen on drawing far-ranging conclusions from very specific research”
Since we are giving our credentials, I also have a PhD (in medicinal chemistry), and am quite used to writing and reading papers and determining what the scope of it is. My wife is a social psychologist, and a colleague of Amodio. I know a little about the field from her. I showed her this thread about Glazov’s “analysis” of the left. She laughed her ass off.
Stephen Fox:
“The language Amodio uses is unnecessarily opaque”
Look, imbecile. Go to a library anf get some back issues of the journal Nature Neuroscience and read some of the articles. All of them are written using the same language as Amodio. Get an education and you might understand it.
Here’s an article available online covering the same subject:
princeton.edu/~matthewb/BotvinickCohenCarter2004.pdf
They use that same “opaque” language! They must be in on the conspiracy!!!
“…we compassionate progressives are much more in tune with our inner connectivity…”
Make up your own meaning for this particularly meaningless claim.
“…and with the planet which groans under the strain of too many humans.”
No it doesn’t. Birth rates are declining, by the way, and not just because libs insist on killing the unborn.
“You reactionaries have no such sensitivity and are too alienated from your primal selves to understand.”
A particularly incomprehensible version of trying to claim the moral high ground. Look, Petunia: I eat; I I sleep; I work; I play; I have a
smokin’ hot Latina girlfriend; I could drink you under the table; “Primal” enough for you?
“…another has to tell us that he had to quit Mensa because he was too smart for them.”
Just as another has to tell us that he has a Piled Higher and Deeper, as though that makes him anything other than an educated fool.
“All of them are written using the same language as Amodio.”
Which means all of them are written in language that’s unnecessarily opaque. Just because there’s a whole lot of it doesn’t make it other than what it is.
The usual Shaidle work of personal attacks and gross over generalizations, full of bile right after her role model. Wow, a Front Page Mag rerular wrote a book about how bad leftists are, I’ll remember this one next time I hear someone on the right show unabashed admiration for Franco or “300″.
deguello,
Anyonw who uses a moniker like that must love violence and murder too.
Your lie about every liberal is a Stalinist marks you as not only just a person of low integrity but a vintage 50′s right wing crackpot. Try a little vocabulary builder. Still worrying about the Flouride?
BTW, since most of you admire Orwell so much, he was a socialist. Doesn’t that make him another Fascist, Stalinist Nazi anti-Semite who sells his children to pornographers?
#45 HORACE (IS A WELL OF CHANCRES) Hortense: You actually looked up what my moniker means,boy your special education teacher must be so proud of you, and in spanish yet, how multicultura1! I never much worried about Fluoride, although I am extremely concerned about the level of tertiary syphilis evinced by libtard bloggers like yourself. If vd hadn’t reached crisis proportions;how could we cogently explain the Ohole presidency? Not only do I admire Orwell,I have actually read him,and if you had, you’d know that he loathed and exposed progressive totalitarian sympathizers like you,who admire left-wing terror in other countries,while living prosperous bourgeois lives .Stalinists don’t sell children to pornographers, although I’m sure the ACLU would defend the practice,they just starve’em to death in workcamps.I don’t believe that it is murder, to kill a murdering Communist in self defense,than it was to kill a nazi in WW2.I believe (as did Thomas Jefferson), that people have the right to revolt if their government destroys their constitutional rights. That’s why you and all the other crypto stalinist libs want to disarm Americans, and trash the first amendment,you want to create another crackpot marxist hell state in the USA,and want to suppress opposition. Try it!Hortense,what you will get is deguello!Ask your sp. ed teacher to see about getting you some penicillin shots…or not!
STALINIST GENOCIDE AND LIBERALS:LIKE PORNOGRAPHY AND THE ACLU!
#45 Anyone who uses a moniker like Horace Wells,is probably a transvestite,libtard,with a fascination with victorian bric a brac such as clothing for pets,bustles,pessaries,and clysters :Tell me, Hortense, do you dress up as queen Victoria when you attend gay pride parades? That is ,when the VD is in remission? Maybe you’d prefer to go as Stalin’s wife:do you fancy a babushka Hortense?
HORACE PIT(HORTENSE)Oh my God! How could I have been so blind! It’s not queen victoria’s dresses, or a Stalinist babushka that fascinates you so much, it’s the Burkha!That’s why you are so upset with Shaidle’s linking progressives with muslim terrorists! My apologies Hortense,for not realizing that your ultimate goal was to come to the next gay pride parade/ freakshow dressed in a Burkha!How relevant timely and multicultural;and it hides the facial vd scars so well!BTW do you know what they do to transvestites in Cuba?
Jeez. If you’re going to edit my comments, at least do it in such a way that the punctuation is correct and redundancies like “I I” don’t result, m’kay?
Note the touchiness of a lot of the libbies posting here, or indeed in general. They just can’t stand it that we’re not in awe of their high estimate of their own intelligence (“She laughed her ass off”: well, mercy me, that settles it, then), or that we can see that a lot of what they “know” is untrue, or that even if it is true, a lot of it doesn’t matter.
Of all the stupid things liberals believe (and it’s a long list), probably the stupidest is that they’re the smart ones.
deguello
I am not one of those people you refet too, you mindless right wing reactionary twit. You are as fanatic because (what can only be charitably referred to as) your mind interprets anyone who disagrees with it as some sort of mortal enemy. That you assume that I am some left wing agent or love the burkha or even a liberal just proves you are a stupid bully with no integrity or insight I didn’t have to look up what your juvenile moniker meant, but I wish it would happen to you.
Is that anything like the Republican’s romance with Nazis, white supremacists and the KKK?
Mr JackT. The KKK was/is an organization related to the democratic party: created by democrats, nurtured by dixiecrats and propelling a prominent KKK member (Senator Trent Lott) to the highest positions and calling him less than five a years ago: the “conscience of the party”. For the links with the Nazis let’s begin with a such Joseph Kennedy and let’s continue with pro-Palestinian activists (99% democrats). Because only a Nazi would lose any sleep for people who try to bomb maternities, danced in the streets on 9/11 and are well fed thanks to the western (40% american) tax payer instead of for the Darfur people who are starving, don’t dream of genocide and haven’t spent sixty fricinkg years on the dole.
Very, very, feeble,realizing that liberals sympathze with left-wing terrorism is not fanaticism;it’s common sense borne out by history.I have read your posts;and to deny your liberalism is to engage in blatant lying,or to suffer from schizophrenia.I’m glad you wish me dead;it belies your pose of reasonableness,and exposes your totalitarian thugishness:PROVOKE A LIB,FIND A STALINIST!
#52 JACK T (T for trash) I thought senator Byrd, former kkk kleagle, was a democrat?Wasn’t it the democrat party that ran the south during Jim Crow? Finally: I seem to recall that lincoln was a republican. Go back to your trash can and this time SHUT THE LID!
#51 Hortense(HORACE WELLS),read # 54
Look, let’s stop with the put-downs and ad hominen attacks. There is a lot of education and intelligence wasted in acrimony on this thread. How about we get back to the consideration of Glazov’s book? Let’s put some of the talent displayed here into a reasoned argument for or against his thesis. If a contributor wants to use a quote from a technical source, please provide a short explanation of the jargon.
The Left’s unhealthy fixation with radical Islam is obvious, and it’s been going on ever since the media made Arafat a hero back in the 70′s. Glazov is right to expose it in his book.
libertasdon: fair enough: What is your overall opinion of Glazov’s article?
Dear Mr Casey,
It is the working together of the (leftist) homosexual mind with the islamist mind which is the point. One could call that the reign of totalitarian islam or totalitarian homosexuality.
Steve G.
Sonora, CA
I’m conservative, and I proudly and intentionally am not “receptive” to new ideas. Ideas are not worthy because they’re new — or old, necessarily. Prostitutes are known to be wonderously receptive, but generally don’t fit well to a long-term relationship.
Genuine conservatism is very about much honoring and retaining(conserving) what is worthy of the past and the present and delivering it intact and not dishonored to our children. Before I marry a new idea, I like to date it for a while, maybe meet its mother, have a chat with its daddy and inquire into his shotgun collection. Don’t expose onself to HIV on the first date I have found a helpful policy.
Leftists, on the other hand…
Read: “…very much about honoring…”