Skip to main content

We've all been there.  In a debate on one blog or another with some right-wing ideologue, who seemingly lives in an alternate universe.  Facts presented to him or her are rejected out of hand, in favor of debunked, fact-free ideologically-based nonsense. How could they believe 'x' when I already proved without a shadow of a doubt how 'x' is an impossibility, you gasp to yourself.

It's exasperating to say the least.  What goes on in the brain of an right-wing ideologue?  How is it that they can convince themselves that 2+2=5 over and over again, with utter conviction?

I have a theory.


The Ideological Spine
It all begins with an ideology.  They have convinced themselves in the veracity of a certain ideology.  Now, why it is they chose to attach themselves to this particular ideology is anybody's guess and perhaps we can explore some theories about that later, but for now, let's simply accept that the ideologue, for whatever reason, has latched onto a particular ideology.

This ideology becomes the spine of his or her beliefs.  All other beliefs stem from the spine. They conform and relate to the spine.  This spine is the very foundation of what makes the ideologue tick.

The Trigger
Next, we have what I have dubbed "the trigger."  A trigger can come in numerous forms; an out-of-context phrase (... spread the wealth...), a slogan (... we don't torture...) or even a name given to a specific program (The War On Terror, The Patriot Act).  What's important is that this "trigger" strongly connects with the "Ideological Spine" in either a positive or negative way.  

Let's take "... spread the wealth," as an example.  This out-of-context phrase would certainly have a strong negative effect on the "Ideological Spine" known as "free-market capitalism."  The free market- ideologue would have a strong negative reaction to these words, as they seemingly stand in contrast to the core beliefs, or spine of the ideology.  

"Spread the wealth?" they exclaim.  "Sounds like SOCIALISM to me!"  "OBAMA said that?!"


Factual Transfer
Here's where the ideologue differs from the rest of humanity.  The alarm set off by the spine, upon the hearing of these "socialist-sounding" words, sets off a change of events within the brain which goes something like this:

Obama said something socialist-sounding, therefore
Obama IS a socialist.

This becomes a "fact."  Obama IS a socialist.  Fact.  Where is this "fact transfer," exactly? Well, from that moment on, the definition of "socialism" is no longer solid.  It is not even important. What's important is the FACT that Obama is a socialist, so the new definition of socialism becomes "whatever Obama does."

Obama said something socialist-sounding, therefore
Obama IS a socialist, therefore
Socialism is whatever Obama does.

What effect does this have on the ideologue?  Well, for one thing, they are never in danger of contradicting themselves.  For example, if one day Obama does 'x' and the ideologue then calls 'x' a "socialist act," he is correct, because Obama is doing it, therefore it IS socialist.  Now, if Obama turns around and does the opposite the next day, the ideologue can safely call THAT "socialism," as well.  Why?  Because,

Obama is a socialist, therefore
Socialism is whatever Obama does.

If the non-ideologue points out traditional definitions of socialism, which clearly conflict with what Obama is doing, it doesn't make an ounce of difference to the ideologue, because the definition of socialism isn't at issue.  What matters is that Obama IS a socialist, therefore what Obama DOES is naturally socialism.  The traditional definition is simply wrong.  Why?  Well, if that was right, then Obama would be doing THAT, because Obama is a socialist and socialism IS what Obama does.

This makes debate with the ideologue a pointless endeavor for the non-ideologue, as it takes the solidity of the definition of socialism and throws it into the trash bin.  There is no foundation for the debate itself.  And facts are rendered meaningless.  Contradictions dutifully pointed out are not acknowledged since to the ideologue they don't exist.  

Another example floating around is the newly "transfered fact," which holds that "we don't torture."  This leads to the conclusion that waterboarding isn't torture because WE DON'T TORTURE.  In other words, the FACT that "we don't torture" is proof that waterboarding isn't torture, regardless of the current legal definitions of torture or the traditional designations, which hold waterboarding to unequivocally be considered a form of torture. It's simply no longer true. Why?

We don't torture, and
We waterboarded prisoners, therefore
Waterboarding isn't torture


One of the all time great examples of "transfered fact" has to be the "fact" that "government destroys economic prosperity."  One can throw a rock in a political blog and virtually be guaranteed to hit an ideologue who has accepted this as an unalterable "fact."  And the moment you begin a debate with this person, you realize the hopelessness of it all.  No matter how many actual facts you provide which point to free-market culpability, the blame goes to the "government."  If regulation was the problem, it was because there was too much government. If de-regulation was the problem, it was too much "government interference."  No matter the circumstance, the FACT that the government is the problem explains it all.  

The examples go on and on.  

The Ignorant
Now this is not to say that these folks are ignorant.  Of course, like all people, they are ignorant about a great many things, but in regard to the topics we have discussed here, they are not particularly ignorant. They have been presented with an enormous bounty of factual information, but have flatly rejected it all, simply because it conflicts with their newfound "facts."


The ignorant people actually don't know what they don't know and simply choose to listen to what, to their ignorant minds, SOUNDS like a convincing argument coming from the ideologue. They don't realize that when the ideologue makes an assertion presented as fact, they are being told a lie.  They simply don't know any better, so they CHOOSE to believe whichever argument happens to resonate with them at that moment.  Quite often these folks are too intellectually lazy or don't necessarily have the brain capacity to do the appropriate research themselves, so they choose to simply believe the ideologue's position out of nothing more than personal preference. The ignorant serve to feed the self-delusion of the ideologue, which feeds and legitimizes the delusional position.  

Right-wing ideologues have recently pointed out another case of "fact transfer," which provides yet another important lesson.  "Triggers" need not always be repeated, as some become so ingrained that they need no longer be spoken.  For example, a classic "trigger" is the term "activist Judge."  This term is decades old and has become so firmly entrenched in the ideologues subconscious, that the trigger no longer needs to be spoken to create the "fact transfer."  

Democrats favor "activist judges," therefore
Democratic nominees ARE activist judges, which means
The definition of "Judicial Activism" is whatever democratic judges do


The Cult of Personality
A brief word on a category of person who seems to be an ideologue of sorts, but isn't. We see evidence of this type of person all around us every day.   Folks become enamored with a PERSON, which is different then an IDEOLOGY.  This cult of personality leads to much self-delusion, but it's not married to a specific ideology, per se. We see this a lot with Obama supporters, who make excuses for things Obama does which contradict his previous promises. These people COMPREHEND the contradictions and acknowledge them, but simply make excuses for them.  

The Ideologue doesn't see contradictions AS contradictions at all.  In other words, to the ideologue:

"Eurasia is the enemy. Eurasia has always been the enemy..."


This diary was previously posted on the Des Moines Register site and subsequently removed by the Gannet monitors, like many of my previous diaries there, including several whose crime was simply being critical of Saint Ronald Reagan.  Anyway, prior to the deletion, a resident wing-nut named RickL engaged me in a debate on Sotomayor in the comments section, and in doing so provided a pristine example of this psychology in action.

The beginning of the debate was as follows (dealing with, of course, the Ricci decision):

ME: ... unless you are implying she is basing her empathy on race.

Rick: In this instance, yes, she did.

ME: But how would that jibe with the Pappas decision? it wouldn't.

Rick: Actually, it does. Pappas was the little guy fighting for his right to free speech, and there was no third party involved, as there was with Ricci.

This is amazing, right? The first case has Rick asserting her decision was based on race. She chose to rule against a white man who was discriminated again, based on race. Then, a mere breath later, he insists that this same Judge, who ruled AGAINST a worthy, upstanding white fire-fighter, who was discriminated against, simply based on her empathy for black people, would then be the lone dissent in favor of an anti-black, white racist. Apparently, we are supposed to believe her race-based empathy is not quite as strong as her empathy for a racist who "was the little guy fighting for his right to free speech."

This makes absolutely no sense to those of us living in a reality-based world. Additionally, if you were to ask Rick who HE thinks is the "most sympathetic figure" in the Ricci case, who do you think he would choose? Ricci, of course! But this contradiction is COMPLETELY LOST ON HIM. He can insist in one moment that Ricci was NOT the most sympathetic, then, no doubt in the next claim the OPPOSITE.

Rick's response to my rebuttal was as follows:

Me: Additionally, if you were to ask Rick who HE thinks is the "most sympathetic figure" in the Ricci case, who do you think he would choose? Ricci, of course!

Rick: Probably. But that would have nothing to do with the merits of the case.

Me: But this contradiction is COMPLETELY LOST ON HIM.

Rick: There is no contradiction, if you choose to actually be intellectually honest. So that excludes you.

Me: He can insist in one moment that Ricci was NOT the most sympathetic, then, no doubt in the next claim the OPPOSITE.

Rick: I haven't said the opposite. One of the things about empathy is that the target of the empathy changes based upon the particular instance. This is something you cannot or, more likely, choose to understand.

Rick: I said it was based upon empathy, and the target of that empathy just happened to be a group of a different race.

Here, we see the circular logic used by the ideologue. He clearly responds to my assertion that she based her empathy on race by saying "In this instance, yes, she did," then a moment later, literally flips is around and claims she WASN'T basing her empathy on race, and this empathy "just happened to be {for} a group of a different race."

Of course, this ignores the question which NORMAL people would be asking, namely; what caused this empathy for this nameless, faceless group? If not race? And why did you say it WAS based on race a few minutes ago??? Add to this Rick's begrudging backtrack in regard to who the most empathetic figure was in the Ricci case, as he now admits it WAS Ricci. So, we have complete 180's on both points, which only serves to confuse, rather than enlighten. To Rick, however, there has been NO REVERSAL and NO CONTRADICTION, as his central point, in his mind, has been perfectly consistent. Since the bedrock "fact" which underpins his arguments remains, that Sotomayor rules based on empathy, the very fact that she ruled AT ALL, naturally means those rulings were based on empathy. It proves itself.

The "debate" went on like this for a few more pages, all equally perplexing.


I explore what I believe to be one of the main causes of wing-nuttiness here

Originally posted to tommybones on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:40 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Nicely done (20+ / 0-)

    This is probably the best and most understandable explanation I've seen of what goes on in the wingnut mind.  It explains why criticizing Dubya was "treason," but threatening armed insurrection against Obama is deemed "patriotism."

    I shall die, but that is all that I shall do for Death; I am not on his payroll. - Edna St. Vincent Millay

    by Tara the Antisocial Social Worker on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:57:39 AM PDT

  •  Tip'd & Rec'd (17+ / 0-)

    for anyone willing to take on the momentous challenge of explaining the cognitive dissonance at the heart of wing-nuttery.

    You've done a good thing.  Thinking like a freeper is hard work, if you're used to using logic, proportion, common sense and reason.

    Now, go find a quart of industrial strength brain bleach and a pootie diary.  Both will be needed to ease your brain sprain.  

    Our promises are made in proportion to our hopes, but kept in proportion to our fears.-LaRouchefoucauld

    by luvsathoroughbred on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:59:02 AM PDT

    •  psych grad student perspective: (8+ / 0-)

      it is the peculiar absence of cognitive dissonance that makes wingnut psychology so difficult for us here to understand.

      Something about the right-wing authoritarian personality makes it particularly adept at compartmentalizing thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and behaviors. When any of these are in significant incongruence with each other, most of us experience profound psychological discomfort which we seek to alleviate (usually by rationalizing, but that's another topic). This we call cognitive dissonance, and it's adaptive in a broad sense in that it pushes us to be honest with ourselves and each other.

      Wingnuts, however, seem to have the ability to trot out thoughts, beliefs, opinions, assertions, what have you, on a one-argument-at-a-time basis, sort of like taking them down from the shelf when needed and then putting them back as soon as they are done with them - all without regard to whether or not that item was consistent with the previous item. They don't experience the dissonance, because they don't keep more than one belief or assertion or talking point in working memory at a time.

      In other words, to use a computer analogy, I think they process arguments in a more linear or serial fashion than others. Dissonance requires parallel processing, the ability to keep multiple facts or abstract ideas in working memory at the same time.

      "I seek the truth, which never yet hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance which does harm." --Marcus Aurelius

      by electric meatball on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 09:57:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think we all engage in this type of (3+ / 0-)

        reasoning, or lack thereof, in differing aspects of our lives.  At least I do.  
        With so-called "wingnuts," it involves politics.
        In my case, I have a peculiar germ phobia that makes life very difficult for my spouse.  And while I know on one level that my phobia is absurd, on the deeper level that I operate from, I have no intention of even considering that I may be mistaken.  On that level, I'm right, that's it, and by God don't you dare walk into my house with your dirty, filthy street shoes on.  Take those fuckers off at the door!  And wash your fucking hands!
        Last year, if I had been told that Obama doesn't wash his hands after taking a shit, while McCain is very careful about washing his hands frequently, I might have considered not working so hard for Obama.  Still would have voted for him, but not with the zeal that I actually did.
        So I'm absolutely close-minded of this issue, and I have indeed "made shit up" to reinforce my phobia.
        Now with "wingnuts," if just so happens that their hangup involes politics that affect our daily lives in a profound way.  And they're wrong, and we need to constantly work to subvert their efforts.
        i guess all I'm saying is that I can understand why they act the way they do, even if I vehemently disagree with them.

        Your analysis and this diary is fascinating.

        •  Thanks - at a higher level of analysis (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Winnie, snakelass, rogerdaddy

          your point is well made - we all engage in behavior of this type; it's just a question of both degree and context. Wingnuts have no monopoly on irrational ideation or behavior. Everyone relies on their emotions and on the pressures of social conformity in to decide what is true and what to believe, to a greater degree than they realize and/or would admit to if they did realize it. As you say, though, the locus for their hangups becomes problematic for the rest of us when they band together and vote from that place. A little tougher to address than a simple phobia.

          Your example points up the motivating engine that usually drives irrational behavior - fear. Your fear is of germs; wingnuts' is of change, or the "other" who is not like them, or any information that disconfirms the fantasy world they are so invested in.

          One key difference IMO is that, the farther one's beliefs and opinions are from verifiable reality, the greater lengths one must go to to stay invested in them. And those lengths will be gone to, because the true right-wing believer's whole personality is propped up by his/her ideology, to the extent that it becomes a load-bearing member without which that person couldn't function. The key psychological concepts are "tolerance of ambiguity" and "need for cognitive closure." For the winger, these are low and high respectively, and you can see it manifested in the excreble "certainty" about everything exhibited by the Bush crowd when they were in power. The ideology provides the certainty their personalities crave, and does so regardless of its relationship with objective reality.

          It's also I think why, when folks like Kossacks attack a winger's argument, the true right wing believer perceives an existential threat rather than an opportunity to debate, and reacts accordingly. This explains in part the extremism from the right we see so often, in both rhetoric and action. Their arguments are crazy; their willingness to believe and repeat anything that supports their worldview no matter how absurd is breathtaking to others; the violence they advocate (usually in code) and sometimes engage in (like the nut who killed that abortion doctor) has no counterpart on the left, or in the middle. Neither their worldview nor their movement can sustain itself in the presence of reasoned moderation or principled reflection.

          "I seek the truth, which never yet hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance which does harm." --Marcus Aurelius

          by electric meatball on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 11:43:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Schizophrenic ideation (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        electric meatball

        I am oppressed like Christ was, therefore I am Christ.

        The logic, or illogic as it is, is a typical schizophrenic jump.  It is interesting that the same type of illogic is at work with wingnuts.  Perhaps more than being wingnuts they are simply nuts.

        It makes me wonder what the effect on the national dialogue would be with the liberal (!) distribution of anti-psychotics.

      •  I blame that "olde time religion" (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        electric meatball, cloudwatcher

        Many wingnuts were raised in fundamentalist or similarly authoritarian households.  They were raised to turn off cognitive dissonance. They were probably punished for questioning what they were told then, so they don't have the skills to question anything that they are told now.

        "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." - Will Rogers

        by wayward on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 05:21:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Twist and Distort. It's what they do. Thx. nt (8+ / 0-)

    Whatever the Repuglicans say, the opposite is the truth .

    by MariaWr on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 08:00:12 AM PDT

  •  It's called circular reasoning (18+ / 0-)

    Statement: we have not been attacked since Sept. 11, 2001. We passed the Patriot Act and tortured terrorists, etc. Therefore, we have not been attacked as a result of the Bush Administration's hard line on terrorists.

    ..or as Jeanine Garafalo has said for years, the Repubs make shit up.

  •  Nice work (11+ / 0-)

    question:  could their ideology be a total artifice, that is to say, anything that a particular group says or endorses, they will automatically take an antipodal position (the party of NO).  So in that sense, they truly are pure reactionaries?

    Same for the "trigger".  Those who wish to generate inertia, will simply manufacture for dissemination the phrase they want to be taken out of context, or am I just rephrasing what you were saying?

    Anyway, good read.

    -7.25 -8.15 "Even dogs have hidden agendas" c.moore

    by mydailydrunk on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 08:17:59 AM PDT

  •  I connected my religion to them (11+ / 0-)

    years ago. As a Wiccan, I believe in reincarnation. Reincarnation as I see it, and as I had it taught to me, is a process through which your soul develops and matures much as children become adults. So the first trip through is a really big deal, and subsequent trips are fine-tuning aspects of yourself.

    The older the soul, the more likely that person is to be wise and make decisions based on facts, and evidence. Scientists and the like. They're also more likely to be atheists, or religious people who do not openly display their faith -- not because of shame but because they don't want to push it on others.

    On the opposite end are the newbies who cling to anything and everything, because they have no understanding of self yet. They cling to religion desperately as a life raft, thus why they won't accept fact when presented. Like shouting that the earth is 6,000 years old. We call them "once-borns".

    Mostly irrelevant, but it's what I thought of when I read the diary so I thought I'd share.

  •  And when ideology meets cult of personality (12+ / 0-)

    we get the Sarah Palin types -- totally unworthy and indefensible Right Wing Heroes. They become self-contained ideology/trigger/fact-proof systems.

  •  The world is messy, often (13+ / 0-)

    difficult to understand and occasionally  incomprehensible.  Wingnuts strive for simplicity and clarity, as long as the models used validate their (often privileged, at least in comparison to peers) existence, authority and worldview.

    They will accept as truth, regardless of fact, any system of ideas - ideology - that does so, and the proponents of that truth are their heros.  They worship their heros (St. Ronnie Reagan, for example), because above all they wish to avoid internal conflicts.

    Theirs is a top-down, black-and-white world, where myth and fantasy are embraced and competing fact is simply denied or derided.  This world is easy to maintain when you have political, social and religious frameworks doing the heavy lifting for you.    

    When in doubt, tweak the freeqs.

    by wozzle on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 08:30:06 AM PDT

  •  Excellent analysis (12+ / 0-)

    Both Kylopod and I recently wrote diaries trying to understand or explain the different types of Republicans, based on their political philosophies. But you came at the question from a psychological angle, which explains a lot of wingnut behavior. Nice job.

    Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

    by Dbug on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 08:40:37 AM PDT

  •  Well Done (12+ / 0-)

    Another example:

    KO is a liberal.
    KO is on MSNBC.
    MSNBC is a liberal channel.

    Which explains why there are no true liberals on Fox.  If there were, then Fox would become a liberal channel.

    This explains why they are getting rid of all their representatives who have any liberal leanings.  

    They are told to think in a black/white, with us/against us mentality that impedes any public discourse.

    Which is why I don't bother to try to have reasonable political discussions with True Believers any more.  

    An honest man in the White House is a threat to crooks and lairs

    by AppleP on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 09:05:00 AM PDT

  •  Tunnel Vision (12+ / 0-)

    The idealogue have tunnel vision and will not look outside of their narrow view of the road. My dad is that way. He has never had money or been a success at much but he identifies with Repugs and Rush. I asked him one day to tell me what attracts him to Repugs. He said taxes and particularly Capital Gains. I told him what the hell do you care you will never pay capital gains taxes. My dad is a racist and hates everyone that is a normal thinking person. He identifies with the likes of the hate filled Rush Limpaugh.

  •  Well done! (9+ / 0-)

    Thanks for a great diary!
    I deal a lot with people, and the most difficult ones are those who feel "helpless", that their world (as they have known it) is "being destroyed" or "lost".
    Sound familiar ? You hear a lot from right-wing people that America is being "sold out" or "lost" to "those liberals".
    It is an inability to accept a changing world, they believe  that things should be like they were in the 1950's.
    Yes, they are black and white people, no middle ground.
    I try to tell them that the world is not black/white but grey, but psychologically they cannot accept this.  They cannot cope in a changing world! I feel sad for them.

  •  And people wonder how the holocaust could happen. (8+ / 0-)

    Under the right circumstances - or maybe I should say wrong - this phenomenon can spread to a dangerous degree.  In the 1930s it went something like this:

    Jews control the financial institutions, so Jews control the economy.  The economy is bad, therefore, the Jews are bad.  Bad people who harm our economy are harming our country.  Bad people who harm our country are traitors.  Traitors deserve to die.  It's our duty to our country to hate traitors and kill them.  If we show mercy, we are traitors too.  We are not traitors.  Therefore, we will kill them without mercy.  

    "A man of true science uses but few hard words, and those only when none other will answer his purpose..." - Melville

    by ZedMont on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 10:20:43 AM PDT

  •  Your examples (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Winnie, snakelass, rogerdaddy, soms

    of the logical flaws in thought are right on the money.

    I think another element of wingnut psychology that bears mentioning is fear.  Fear will destroy rational thought more quickly and completely than five hits of acid.  

    If you observe the sources of dogma that seem to form their ideologies and feed these  Fox News, churches, AM radio, psychotic politicians, the NRA, Wall Street, the mainstream media, the right wing blogosphere, you start to see how this mentality can be developed even in a less than weak mind.  

    It's not difficult to fall into a worldview that separates everything in to good guys and bad guys.  We're all guilty of it to some extent, but I don't know that I've seen it as bad as when President Obama was elected.

    "The revolution will be no rerun, brother. The revolution will be live" Gil Scott-Heron

    by marknspokane on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 08:45:51 PM PDT

  •  Pleasure In Hatred & Relentless Animal Stupidity (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rogerdaddy, soms

    These are sado-masochistic people who have channeled their shame and paranoia into a boiling pot of pleasurable violent hatred.

    The GOP is using the Mein Kampf strategy of targetting the stupidest 10% of the population with relentless propaganda, and they are being bold enough to follow Hitlers instructions to keep it stupid, repetitive, stupid, loud, stupid, angry, stupid, and what's the word I'm looking for? Oh yah, stupid.

    Luckily the GOP base is so dumbed down that they are stuck with white trash like the nirthers. The bad news is that they are fully comitted to their fallback plan of terrorism and assasination.

  •  authoritarian personality (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Winnie, snakelass, rogerdaddy, soms

    Dr. Bob Altemeyer's book, The Authoritarians is free online. Sorry that I don't have the link but it is well worth reading. It has tests, too, so you can not only see where you fall on the scale but understand why it is next to impossible to get through to authoritarian followers with facts and logic.  Like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland, these people are perfectly capable of believing six impossible things before breakfast.

  •  the wingnut isn't focused on truth for truth's (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Winnie, rogerdaddy

    sake, so never mind the illogic. If you want to get to the heart of it you need to know a little about classism and developmental psychology.

    Classism such as a stance taken by an adolescent who has a rigid moral indoctrination but isn't one of the cool kids at school. The Limbaughs, Roves, and Becks are unattractive to women, and they came up in middle or working class families who resented the power of the elite. So they formed a counterculture of sorts, one that worked against the liberal free thinking attitudes of the day. and they have spent their lives getting payback for being such social dorks in middle and high school.

    Developmentally they're what I call "pre-intuitive." Since they possess what the Buddhists call mental obscurations due to past wrongdoings, their thinking tends to be concrete; whereas intuitive people think wholistically.

    Pre-intuitives don't see the hypocrisy in the schism between their sayings and their behaviors for instance, because their minds are compartmentalized and made narrow by karmic stupidity. Being psychologically naive they project their own evil onto others. Karl Rove made an art out of campaigning in the way he used the natural projection of the pre-intuitive to formulate the axiom, "Whatever you're being blamed of, blame the other party of it."

    The open-mindedness of intuitives scares the bejeebus out of conservatives and their tendency is to build walls and restrictions, lest their heavily guarded fortresses be breached. Which would end in chaos, since deep down below their belligerent egos there's no there there.

    just a piece of a larger conversation...

  •  good diary. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    snakelass, Lashe, rogerdaddy, soms

    i would possibly add this to their Disconnect Ideology:

    the effects of the likes of fox news, beck, limbaugh, etc., on them.  because "well, they wouldn't be able to say That on the teevee/radio if it wasn't true, would they?"

    so their beliefs are thereby reinforced and-- to them--, given tons o'credibility because Someone on the teevee/radio said it, (and wasn't punished or called on it).

  •  f*ck'em (0+ / 0-)

    we control all levers of power in this country.  Obama needs to quit acting like a p*ssy and get single payer passed, AT ALL COSTS.  Rahm are you listening?

    "Don't confuse activity with accomplishment."

    by DickCheneysClone on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 09:42:17 PM PDT

  •  laugh or cry ? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Sometimes when I hear what the freepers say I don't know if I should just laugh at them or cry for them and their off-spring.

    Madison WI, A Freeper free zone, all progressives welcome.

    by madtown on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 09:48:41 PM PDT

  •  I call it Intellectual Outsourcing n/t (0+ / 0-)


  •  I think paranoia explains a lot of them. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lashe, rogerdaddy

    I have noticed lately how paranoia is the most dominant thread among the wing-nuts.  All of them: Savage, Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, Ingraham, Palin, etc. have the same meme: paranoia.  "The government wants to harm me.  The Democrats want to harm me. Obama wants to harm me. Nancy Pelosi wants to harm me. Harry Reid wants to harm me.  Joe Biden wants to harm me.  Obama's health care plan wants to harm me. Universal health care will harm me.  Obama's energy plan will harm me.  Obama's economic stimulus will harm me.  Obama wants to take away my guns so I can't defend myself when he is trying to harm me. Obama will raise my taxes, even though he said he wouldn't, because he must be trying to harm me."
    The birfers have taken this paranoia to an unbelievable level:  "There is a conspiracy of evil people who are trying to harm me.  The evil people are very cunning.  Stanley Ann Dunham wanted to have her son grow up to be the President of the United States, so she purposely hid the fact that he was born in Kenya, so that he could claim U.S. citizenship later on.  Obama's grandparents were part of this diabolical conspiracy too. They even falsified his birth announcements in the Honolulu Advertiser and Honolulu Star Bulletin so that 48 years later, U. S. citizens could be fooled into thinking that he was actually born in the United States."
    I have to admit that I listen to right-wing radio on and off throughout the day as I am driving. I switch stations when I can't stand it any more, but I like to listen to them to monitor what they are saying. Without exception, the shows begin with the wingnut host espousing a paranoid view of the topic of the day: "You'll never believe what is happening at this very moment!! Last night while you were sleeping, Democrats hatched a plan to bilk you further of your hard-earned income." etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. Yada, yada, yada, yada.

  •  Clarity is a bitch! (0+ / 0-)

    Happiness in spite of..... will always trump happiness because of.....

    by Diamond Jim55 on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 02:47:05 AM PDT

  •  The flaw in your theory (0+ / 0-)

    I agree with your "spinal theory" regarding the absurdity of wingnut ideological reasoning...up to a point. And this is where I find a flaw in your argument. The spine needs to transmit information to the brain in order for any coherent thinking to take place. So far, I have seen no evidence that the right-wingnuts have a brain.  

    The work begins anew. The hope rises again. And the dream lives on! -Ted Kennedy

    by cloudwatcher on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 08:43:07 AM PDT

  •  The peculiar irony of projection (0+ / 0-)

    This kind of amateur analysis, half pop psychology and half thoroughly inept literary criticism, was already old and worn out by 2005.

    That said, bernardpliers said everything you need to know about right wing wackjobs:

    "It's all about looking for the abusive parent figure as a leader, and beating up anyone who shows a sign of weakness." -- bernardpliers

    by the tmax on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 12:43:53 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site