The Five Points of Leftist Ideology. Part III - Cognitive Dissonance

 

Wikipedia defines Cognitive Dissonance as; In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. The occurrence of cognitive dissonance is a consequence of a person performing an action that contradicts personal beliefs, ideals, and values; and also occurs when confronted with new information that contradicts said beliefs, ideals, and values.[1][2]

    The actual mental disorder is supposed to be discomforting. 

    A cognitive person would recognize this and seek to avoid it or at least recognize it and dismiss one of the two opposing thoughts as false. 

    This is what normal people do.

    Not Leftists. Leftist Ideology demands that you hold fast to both contradictory thoughts at the same time while defending both of them at the same time.

Wikipedia goes on to state; In A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (1957), Leon Festinger proposed that human beings strive for internal psychological consistency in order to mentally function in the real world. A person who experiences internal inconsistency tends to become psychologically uncomfortable and is motivated to reduce the cognitive dissonance. This is done by changing parts of the cognition to justify the stressful behavior, by adding new parts to the cognition that causes the psychological dissonance, or by actively avoiding social situations and contradictory information that are likely to increase the magnitude of the cognitive dissonance.[1]



    In the first part Festinger posits that normal people seek an equilibrium. Find the fact and disregard the absurd. 

    The mental (and physical) discomfort experienced by some one who is cognitively dissonant will justify the psychosis. In many cases we have seen over the past decade Leftists resort to name calling, violence and a demand that the opposing thought (that counters or corrects the dissonance) be silenced. 

    Vagina Hats dress up as vaginas, gays march half dressed waving dildos at parades, actresses wear revealing dresses at Golden Globes while they decry sexual abuse via the #metoo movement. There are dozens of genders despite the fact male and female are the scientific norm. But we must believe in "The Science".  Trump (a tv celebrity billionaire with no political experience) is not qualified to be President. Oprah Winfrey (a tv celebrity billionaire with no political experience) was once pushed to be the 2020 Democrat Candidate. 

    The upside down backwards is forwards mentality of the Left requires one to carry a scorecard to keep track of the ever changing fluidity that is axiomatic of that ideology..

    Let's revisit the 11 Commandments of Lie-Awatha Warren (talk about the personification of Cognitive Dissonance). This little gem is a treasure trove of CD.

"We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement.."

    For what? 

    There are already library cart loads of fine print 3" binders full of SEC rules and regulations. Is she implying that there are NO rules presently? Remember what I said in the last piece about politicians who want ".. to do more.."? The fact that she opens this sentence with '..we believe..' is axiomatic of a Leftist's position based rather than a principle based doctrine.

     And what is cognitively dissonant about her statement is the fact that she has made millions off of insider trading. Another wonderful soundbite from her is her stance on out of control college tuition yet she was perfectly happy to teach ONE class at $300.000.

"We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth."


     It is bad enough (if we accept the absurd that humans are destroying the planet) with two genders consuming limited resources. Now there are 63 that require we cater to each and every one of their demands. We need to rewrite textbooks, hang new bathroom signs, designate parking spaces, create new forms for applications, clothing, food needs, locker rooms and educational services.. The list is endless. The carbon footprint must be astronomical! But this is necessary to be a more tolerant and diverse society.

    Science is never settled. The entirety of human history is rife with 'settled' science being debunked based on new discoveries. Interestingly, many of these new discoveries have come from accidents, catastrophes, and people who have more balls than brains pushing boundaries. 

    At the turn of the 20th Century many of the early, failed experimenters of flight were published in articles of reputable periodicals that human flight was impossible. The public absorbed this and believed that the science was settled. Fortunately for us all two brothers who built motorcycles had a different idea. 

"We believe that the Internet shouldn't be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality."

    Here we see Warren claiming that free market Capitalism should be replaced by the all knowing, all seeing eye of benevolent Government. 

Corporations bad.

Government good. 

Unfortunately, Senator Warren is forgetting one tiny fact. Government is ALSO a corporation.

    While simultaneously claiming corporations are not people Warren wants to tax them to the fullest extent and then deny them access to representation.

     Net Neutrality is based on a 1934 law regulating communications under a Public Utility. It has no application on a 21st Century market that has exploded around the world. The repeal of The Fairness Doctrine under President Reagan unleashed the cable TV industry, internet and talk radio. Under the Warren idea (while claiming we are an 'equal' society) Net Neutrality would restrict or ban the plethora of diverse voices we now see on the World Wide Web. Even those we would disagree with or find most abhorrent. 

    Net Neutrality runs counter to The First Amendment.

"We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage."

    Under economically bad conditions the cry for minimum wage increases becomes the news de-jour. Under economically good conditions the natural rise of wages is and economic benefit and no one seems to remember the gnashing of teeth over cheap wages. The need for workers becomes a demand. Companies are willing to pay more for qualified people. While this natural rise will lead to price increases the old adage of 'a rising tide' applies here. 

    The Laffer Curve is a principle. It is based on a fundamental truth. More people working means higher wages, means higher prices, means more growth demanding more high paid workers.


    Again, pointing to research and past blogs I have written; forcing an artificial raise in wages does not eliminate poverty (a fact). It only pushes that low skilled, low paid worker into a higher tax bracket (a position). The imagined raise in pay is taxed at that higher rate. Subsequently the prices of essentials rises also (to pay for that wage increase) and the low paid worker is no better off. What brings about a full and extensive economic rise for people is the unfettered growth of Capitalism and a standard of taxation that is representative, fair and equal. This is also a principle.

    Cognitive Dissonance is ever present in our news feeds today. Almost each day one story contradicts a story from last week while at the same time holding onto both stories to explain whatever the hell it is the corporate media is presenting to us. 

    It matters NOT what facts are presented. Agenda is the main driver. 

    It is point # 3, Conviction of Position, that is the main driver of Cognitive Dissonance.

    President Trump once called certain countries 'shitholes'. A normal person would agree. 

    They are shitholes! Because a normal person connects to accept this fact while disposing of the absurd. Leftists do not. Both thoughts exist at the same time. These countries are NOT shitholes despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And the idea of it is racist. 

    Many of these 'immigrants' have no intention of assimilating and any demand they do so is (in and of itself) racist. It is not like we are importing the next Einstein or Fermie or DeSousa. Somehow America must change while these countries do not have to change. In fact, the entire concept of 'Sanctuary Cities' does not just apply to Illegals. It applies to any group of people. Come to our cities to escape your shithole country and we will work to accept, assuage, adopt your culture thus turning our city into the very shithole you emigrated from. The adoption of Sharia Law in many communities to appear more diverse. English as a 'second' language (God forbid it should be first), no-go zones. Islamburg in upstate NY and Dearbornistan in Michigan. Kate Steinly murder in California. Islamic rape gangs in Oslo, Cologne, Paris and Nice.

    And as we have recently discovered, the massive influx of 'immigrants' to these virtue signaling cities of sanctuary are now inundated with social service systems breaking down. Mayors and a few Governors have requested help from the Federal Government..

    .. Wait a minute....

     I thought there was no such thing as an 'illegal'? I thought you were a 'Sanctuary City"?

    Even when the Cognitive Dissonance hits you square in the face the Leftist still continues down that path,

    Remember the definition from earlier:

 

.....by adding new parts to the cognition that causes the psychological dissonance, or by actively avoiding social situations and contradictory information that are likely to increase the magnitude of the cognitive dissonance.[1]

    It is here all Five Points come into play. It is a closed loop system.

    Any attempt to point this out runs counter to the;

 Acceptance of The Absurd. 

 It Compartmentalizes the Outrage,

 Leftists are Convinced of their Position. 

 It is Cognitively Dissonant.

 And none of it is based on any Principle.

　
.... And That Is The Diatribe....

　
According to cognitive dissonance theory, there is a tendency for individuals to seek consistency among their cognitions (i.e., beliefs, opinions). When there is an inconsistency between attitudes or behaviors (dissonance), something must change to eliminate the dissonance.

For more on Cognitive Dissonance and Leon Festinger,
https://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html

The Five Points of Leftist Ideology - Part II- Lack of Principles

　

A quick Google Search defines Principle as:

A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning... a rule or belief governing one's personal behavior... morally correct behavior and attitudes...

(late Middle English: from Old French, from Latin principium ‘source,’ principia (plural) ‘foundations,’ from princeps, princip- ‘first, chief.’)

　
    The foundational principles this nation was based on are Judeo-Christian. These principles have been repeated for as long as I can remember. Mention that to any modern day millennial and they will have an aneurism. And because we have lost the 'principle' of a well balanced education our young people are quick to claim their 'position' on an issue as a 'principle'. 

    The two are unrelated.

    Positions can change according to new data (or at least they should). Principles are unwavering. They only change if a monumental, colossal shift occurs, either in one's personal life or society writ large. 

    Both Principle and Position are nouns, so they are things, tangible and usable. As stated, a principle is foundational, fundamental.    

    A Position (if you do that same Google Search) is defined as more of a strategic place to be. However, as the definitions are spelled out and defined we can see how position and principle are confused as one and the same: 

...a person's particular point of view or attitude toward something.... (Logic) a proposition laid down or asserted; a tenet or assertion... synonyms: viewpoint, opinion, outlook, attitude, stand, standpoint, stance, perspective, approach, slant, thinking, policy, feelings.. "the government's position on the matter".

    It is that last synonym that sums it all up. Feelings. 

    Listen closely when some one tries to define their 'position' on something. They always ".. feel as if...", or ".. I feel that it was unfair..." 

    Feelings have no place when it comes to principles. Facts couldn't give a rat's ass about how you feel.

    Our Declaration of Independence opens with these words, ".. We hold these truths to be self evident.." The Founders didn't 'feel' these 'positions' as self evident. That would have been an impossibility. Feelings and positions are by no stretch of the imagination self evident. Principles are!

    Issac Newton's Laws of motion were not based on how he felt. They were based on exhaustive inquiry, testing and a realization that there were certain things a person cannot change no matter how they felt about it.

Sir Isaac Newton first presented his three laws of motion in the "Principia Mathematica Philosophiae Naturalis" in 1686.

His first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force.

The second law explains how the velocity of an object changes when it is subjected to an external force. The law defines a force to be equal to change in momentum (mass times velocity) per change in time.

The third law states that for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction.

    Since Leftism requires one to not have any principles then the first law does not apply to them. No matter how hard one tries Leftists cannot be moved from their positions. Nor does the second law apply. Leftists never change their zeal, tactics or penchant for subterfuge to gain power. 

    Possibly the only law that applies to Leftists is the third one.       Usually when a person offers an opposing viewpoint or fact the Leftist inevitably loses their minds.

    The abortion debate is a perfect area to define by example what a principle is. People are always asked what their position is on abortion. 

    I have NO position. My principle is that the Government should not be involved in people's private lives. Nor should you or I.

    If Government held steady to that 'principle' then the debate over taxpayer funded abortion would evaporate. And if it is your 'position' that women should be allowed access to abortions then YOU pay for it!  Compete in the open market. If the idea of Planned Parenthood is so fantastic then why can it not stand on it's own principle?

    Because the killing of an unborn child is not a principle, it is a position.

    Most government agencies, programs, entitlements are not principle based. They are there to provide assistance in regards to an ongoing societal problem such as poverty. In fact the vast majority of social programs are rooted in the position of managing poverty. Certainly not to eliminate poverty. If that were the goal of these agencies then after awhile that agency would cease to exist because the principle would be to eliminate poverty. Once the job is finished, pack up shop!

   Welfare in general would no longer have a leg stand on. Agencies are never working towards a principle based goal. It is always a 'position' based on manageable data.

    Author and economist Loren Spivak (euphemistically known as The Free Market Warrior) has spoken eloquently on the concept of Leftists having no principles.  The first one is Free Speech. Under no uncertain terms is anyone to be denied the right to speak, publish, report or assemble to speak what they hold as a principle or a position. Leftists think decidedly differently on this subject. They have no problem employing the thug tactics of ANTIFA to shut down any group they deem offensive especially on college campuses where the Liberal Free Speech protests of the 1960's began. That is because ( as Spivak says at the 5:10 mark) ".. Liberals have no principles at all because they are a movement of power..."

 In the video below Spivak outlines a few more principles that are held sacred by Conservatives.

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUlcbGijDTE&list=PLU_Z4p-v1UQZZVdA3KEseIx4en1nBv6Lv&index=1&t=526s

    If you google "The 11 Commandments of Progressivism" you will see the tenets espoused by Leftist Elizabeth Warren. The humorous part of all this is that none of them are principles. They are just feelings about various issues. The most interesting one being #11; 

"And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!"

    That cannot be a principle because it is an oxymoron and none of what Warren states is even related. If corporations are not people then why do we tax them? And what do women's bodies have to do with Hobby Lobby? The other ten are just as all over the map as this one is. 

    You see, a principle is simple, usually a single sentence. If you go through the Warren list every "principle" contradicts itself. She claims "..equal means equal.." but is going to deny Hobby Lobby equal representation and treat them as unequal simply because the executives hold an opposing opinion than hers. She claims to believe in science but will equally disregard any scientist who questions the  Climate Alarmism narrative.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/elizabeth-warrens-11-commandments-of-progressivism/455955/

    Like the useful idiots of the Communist Revolution once a person is no longer of use to the Party they are discarded. Just as a position is discarded in favor a new one, especially one that gets you elected.

    Leftists are always holding up a wet finger to the political wind to determine what position they should take on the current issue.

    A common saying of the Left is; "Speak truth to power". This is a dubious statement. Unfortunately it is used ad-nauseum. It is substance-less. It basically states that whatever it is YOU believe should be the truth. It claims that whatever your position is on an issue should be empowered. Not the facts of an issue but, your position on that issue.

    Speaking with the power of truth is principle based.

    Truth (in and of itself) is very powerful. There is no way around it. It simply just is. 

    If Leftists accepted this simple axiom their entire agenda would be in jeopardy. You can take any Leftist position, apply truth to it and the entire argument dissolves. This simply cannot be allowed because speaking truth to power allows flexibility. It allows you to hold two diametrically opposed thoughts in your head at the same time while accepting both of them as true. This is psychotic.

    Principles are unwavering. They are based on fundamental truths. They do not oppose one another and require no mental gymnastics to justify.

.... And That Is The Diatribe....