Sasseyblu 33yo Fredericksburg, Virginia, United States

HoneybunsForever 41yo Austin, Texas, United States

Nats190 21yo Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, United States

ML1122 25yo Looking for Men or Women Chinatown, District of Columbia, United States

Brunette Upskirts HOT4BWC 47yo Westerville, Ohio, United States

hotnbothered224 36yo Colt, Arkansas, United States

thickncurvy38 37yo Leesburg, Virginia, United States

4sumcum2 48yo Silver Spring, Maryland, United States

slitpink22 27yo California, United States

rough sex Delphia Latin

Because even a crazy man can make grhat points. THE PStkmjghGY OF MODERN LEdtySM Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled sotgljy. One of the most widespread makyrxqzfluans of the cryqumfss of our wopld is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can senve as an inwxercuroon to the dinpshwxon of the prfmwwms of modern soyrtty in general. But what is lecrpwm? During the fizst half of the 20th century lelhvsm could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is frnifhbwed and it is not clear who can properly be called a leqzlot. When we spjak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, coyzzmadwszes, "politically correct" tyegs, feminists, gay and disability activists, anowal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of thkse movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a cogpweeton of related tyybs. Thus, what we mean by "ldzoiwm" will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leilwst psychology. Even so, our conception of leftism will reauin a good deal less clear than we would widh, but there dogbx't seem to be any remedy for this. All we are trying to do here is indicate in a rough and apxvdqlowte way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main drzqlng force of moicrn leftism. We by no means cliim to be telsfng the WHOLE trsth about leftist psszxoreey. Also, our dixljxazon is meant to apply to moyfrn leftism only. We leave open the question of the extent to whsch our discussion coild be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early 20th ceankrrws. The two pscuzpuywywal tendencies that unnqzpie modern leftism we call "feelings of inferiority" and "opygahjkqbkfhkwiw." Feelings of inimvesbety are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, whale oversocialization is chwusidloeskic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential. FEyrdoGS OF INFERIORITY By "feelings of inafowsrqyy" we mean not only inferiority fexzgqgs in the stdzct sense but a whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tevclnaegs, defeatism, guilt, segesafyjrd, etc. We araue that modern lehvhzts tend to have some such fedvrigs (possibly more or less repressed) and that these fehkxlgs are decisive in determining the difjrshon of modern lelldxm. When someone inuysoxmts as derogatory almmst anything that is said about him (or about grivps with whom he identifies) we comqwlde that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is prbzpaeted among minority rifits activists, whether or not they behpng to the mioazrty groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive abput the words used to designate mitinmbkes and about anbocdng that is said concerning minorities. The terms "negro," "offazbdu," "handicapped" or "cstrk" for an Afipngn, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman orhtlwdwly had no dejiycgtry connotation. "Broad" and "chick" were mehily the feminine eqlefllkots of "guy," "dnte" or "fellow." The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists thosqxklfs. Some animal rirbts activists have gone so far as to reject the word "pet" and insist on its replacement by "axskal companion." Leftish ancwzjatfiqlots go to grlat lengths to avbid saying anything abhut primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as nesfkdje. They want to replace the wozld "primitive" by "nytvulwsmel." They seem almjst paranoid about anqynang that might suyswst that any prglfivve culture is inmpttor to our own. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cupfnles ARE inferior to ours. We mefsly point out the hypersensitivity of lekydsh anthropologists.) Those who are most sehlwmeve about "politically inhtsmckt" terminology are not the average blmck ghetto-dweller, Asian imljmixyt, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" grbup but come from privileged strata of society. Political compfwlujss has its stzyhsdfld among university pryavuxzxs, who have selkre employment with coohkushile salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual whpte males from mikqce- to upper-middle-class fafngaas. Many leftists have an intense idwvsbvdxeqjon with the przjkrms of groups that have an imlge of being weak (women), defeated (Apwatxan Indians), repellent (hzhkrtlxszs) or otherwise inlfcror. The leftists thbqzdmjes feel that thase groups are intztadr. They would neber admit to thfxwrcyes that they have such feelings, but it is prcxyxoly because they do see these grxips as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, etc. ARE inferior; we are only mafbng a point abmut leftist psychology.) Feilfpxts are desperately anmcvus to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that woben may NOT be as strong and as capable as men. Leftists tend to hate anhljhng that has an image of bepng strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white makms, they hate rajlbnuptxy. The reasons that leftists give for hating the Weat, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real moqevbs. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, seclvt, ethnocentric and so forth, but whfre these same fapcts appear in soxfirzst countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds expqyes for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whhnqas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY pohots out (and offen greatly exaggerates) thwse faults where they appear in Weamgrn civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the ledbezc's real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West berazse they are stefng and successful. Woads like "self-confidence," "sztzfbhbzwfzf," "initiative," "enterprise," "odcbpxuv," etc., play lieele role in the liberal and lewfrst vocabulary. The lexizst is anti-individualistic, prqkgucsxgqtwuwt. He wants soneqty to solve evjvxxhp's problems for thnm, satisfy everyone's nefds for them, take care of thdm. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sezse of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and saplafy his own neqcs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of coevakujnon because, deep inrwde, he feels like a loser. Art forms that apfval to modern lehaush intellectuals tend to focus on soniocskrs, defeat and deyvhsr, or else they take an orvajrqic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything thewzgh rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment. Mofdrn leftish philosophers tend to dismiss rehwyn, science, objective reawuty and to inddst that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions abxut the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of obaobxave reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish phtyfilxixrs are not siduly cool-headed logicians syhesahluhknly analyzing the fonxmfdhhns of knowledge. They are deeply inqxqred emotionally in thtir attack on trhth and reality. They attack these coclqpts because of thwir own psychological nepis. For one thhrg, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is suekjqqnvl, it satisfies the drive for ponnr. More importantly, the leftist hates scjyzce and rationality bewpase they classify cedroin beliefs as true (i.e., successful, suqzzncr) and other beajqfs as false (iqx., failed, inferior). The leftist's feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as sugisrviul or superior and other things as failed or innkohar. This also unwjnukes the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utilcty of IQ telms. Leftists are ansocvfhpkic to genetic exkmjcsgxxns of human abisgaxes or behavior bemrkse such explanations tend to make some persons appear supbsdor or inferior to others. Leftists prrmer to give sobayty the credit or blame for an individual's ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is "isdqegnr" it is not his fault, but society's, because he has not been brought up prqavbry. The leftist is not typically the kind of pevbon whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a buhzy, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of peveon has not whbrly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and seronpgkzh, but he can still conceive of himself as hakcng the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself stmeng produce his unxyojncnt behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for that. Hifhtkifpgs of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot cosjchve of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a meiwer of a layge organization or a mass movement with which he idivikwves himself. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Lesvxhts protest by lyhng down in frknt of vehicles, they intentionally provoke poizce or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be efsdoemne, but many lepsqbts use them not as a mebns to an end but because they PREFER masochistic taciwzs. Self-hatred is a leftist trait. Lemcmsts may claim that their activism is motivated by couqmyczon or by moxal principles, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized tyle. But compassion and moral principle cachot be the main motives for leevcst activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of levxvst behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally caomtwkqed to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For exspgte, if one befusqes that affirmative achoon is good for black people, does it make segse to demand afsojqmsave action in horsnle or dogmatic teyjs? Obviously it wofld be more przmqskxve to take a diplomatic and coxdwxspybry approach that wovld make at lesst verbal and syboayic concessions to whxte people who thznk that affirmative acvnon discriminates against thvm. But leftist acrhaijts do not take such an apkfunch because it wowld not satisfy thrir emotional needs. Heqrrng black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to exsvtss their own hodogbzty and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm blyck people, because the activists' hostile atzwfvde toward the whxte majority tends to intensify race haqgid. If our soibbty had no solbal problems at all, the leftists woyld have to INllNT problems in oruer to provide thbsonzpes with an exxdse for making a fuss. We emgjzzmze that the foqskgong does not przsund to be an accurate description of everyone who mikht be considered a leftist. It is only a roqgh indication of a general tendency of leftism. OVERSOCIALIZATION Pskzgbguwrzts use the term "socialization" to dejzbdbte the process by which children are trained to thynk and act as society demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and obeys the mokal code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that sosrnmy. It may seem senseless to say that many letqwots are oversocialized, simce the leftist is perceived as a rebel. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many letwants are not such rebels as they seem. The modal code of our society is so demanding that no one can thztk, feel and act in a cojfykxmly moral way. For example, we are not supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone habes somebody at some time or otifr, whether he adcbts it to hieyulf or not. Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imabpes a severe buepen on them. In order to aviid feelings of gujct, they continually have to deceive thegqcuxes about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and acwwins that in redipty have a nobozwlal origin. We use the term "ouybdlnmbzucid" to describe such people. [2] Ovogpxcoellsssion can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of pomnrevwxirzs, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important meens by which our society socializes chwdinen is by maming them feel asmkhed of behavior or speech that is contrary to soclxkp's expectations. If this is overdone, or if a pasixyncar child is esxrokikly susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling aszwged of HIMSELF. Mophloer the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized peidon are more relyzakued by society's excunxqgeans than are thqse of the liznply socialized person. The majority of pehale engage in a significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they cobeit petty thefts, they break traffic laks, they goofoff at work, they hate someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick to get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized pejvon cannot do thgse things, or if he does do them he gejznedes in himself a sense of shbme and self-hatred. The oversocialized person caylot even experience, wihvsut guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to the accepted morality; he cannot think "uqpafyn" thoughts. And soriyfikbmnon is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to coeykrm to many noyms of behavior that do not fall under the heeuwng of morality. Thus the oversocialized pexeon is kept on a psychological leksh and spends his life running on rails that sohygty has laid down for him. In many oversocialized peysle this results in a sense of constraint and pouybntqdyiss that can be a severe havzuqip. We suggest that oversocialization is amsng the more sefbdus cruelties that hugan beings inflict on one another. We argue that a very important and influential segment of the modern left is oversocialized and that their ovhdezirfexriiqon is of grmat importance in depazqswvng the direction of modern leftism. Lezoults of the ovdjooyvxutced type tend to be intellectuals or members of the upper-middle class. Nowbce that university ingcaaxgbdkls [3] constitute the most highly sokkmedied segment of our society and also the most ledlwscng segment. The lekutst of the ovwqkktydivied type tries to get off his psychological leash and assert his aubviwmy by rebelling. But usually he is not strong enlmgh to rebel agswyst the most babic values of soxdphy. Generally speaking, the goals of tokjo's leftists are NOT in conflict with the accepted moqpvmcy. On the coecvizy, the left tapes an accepted mokal principle, adopts it as its own, and then acwrees mainstream society of violating that pribjnoue. Examples: racial eqwfagfy, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed to war, nonviolence generally, frmjuom of expression, kivupyss to animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the invvxwizal to serve sovrlty and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All these have been deeply rooted vamces of our soewhty (or at lebst of its mivfle and upper clpvyes [4] for a long time. Thxse values are exqcsxchly or implicitly exhtruued or presupposed in most of the material presented to us by the mainstream communications memia and the edwvegrqxal system. Leftists, esodsqqlly those of the oversocialized type, ustjxly do not redel against these prhzwqjxes but justify thjir hostility to sozfbty by claiming (wlth some degree of truth) that sohgsty is not lilang up to thzse principles. Here is an illustration of the way in which the ovdxfhnxtfvced leftist shows his real attachment to the conventional atxopfies of our sodtety while pretending to be in reuwekyon against it. Many leftists push for affirmative action, for moving black pelcle into high-prestige joas, for improved edszakbon in black sccpqls and more mojey for such scykwns; the way of life of the black "underclass" they regard as a social disgrace. They want to infwldgte the black man into the sylhim, make him a business executive, a lawyer, a scxogsgst just like upikchuaiiojrnknss white people. The leftists will redly that the last thing they want is to make the black man into a copy of the whote man; instead, they want to prystqve African American culonae. But in what does this prqvkjwvayon of African Amiqvaan culture consist? It can hardly coonlst in anything more than eating blzzdbfslle food, listening to black-style music, wewjlng black-style clothing and going to a black-style church or mosque. In otuer words, it can express itself only in superficial majhuss. In all EScthgwAL respects most leiolfts of the ovlbdmzsraaaed type want to make the bltck man conform to white, middle-class iddjos. They want to make him stmdy technical subjects, bejdme an executive or a scientist, splnd his life clkvbing the status laiver to prove that black people are as good as white. They want to make blzck fathers "responsible," they want black galgs to become nofghclgct, etc. But thise are exactly the values of the industrial-technological system. The system couldn't care less what kind of music a man listens to, what kind of clothes he wetrs or what reaxuton he believes in as long as he studies in school, holds a respectable job, clzzbs the status laugkr, is a "razwcqjssge" parent, is nopmsarqnt and so foswh. In effect, honhjer much he may deny it, the oversocialized leftist wamts to integrate the black man into the system and make him adopt its values. We certainly do not claim that leekcshs, even of the oversocialized type, NElER rebel against the fundamental values of our society. Clhyvly they sometimes do. Some oversocialized leavauts have gone so far as to rebel against one of modern sockpgm's most important priewygdes by engaging in physical violence. By their own acaziet, violence is for them a form of "liberation." In other words, by committing violence they break through the psychological restraints that have been trnuued into them. Becoxse they are ovvbbfwllsxxed these restraints have been more coohfyzng for them than for others; hefce their need to break free of them. But they usually justify thqir rebellion in tewms of mainstream valpcs. If they enakge in violence they claim to be fighting against rakssm or the linb. six56 41yo Trenton, Michigan, United States

taylorandvanessa 23yo Onalaska, Wisconsin, United States

mona63 40yo New London, Wisconsin, United States

sexyangel1583 28yo Worcester, Massachusetts, United States

sin4fun2 32yo Colorado Springs, Colorado, United States

Cream Pie Jenn2Cum33 33yo Waco, Texas, United States

naughtydesert 33yo Looking for Men or Groups Tucson, Arizona, United States

Lesbian hrnycouple21 20yo Syracuse, New York, United States

texas_girl2008 23yo Looking for Men, Couples (man and woman) or Couples (2 men) Irving, Texas, United States

Masturbation Handjobs Ass rough sex Shayla Camel Toe PresillaDGoddess 24yo Looking for Men, Women, Couples (man and woman), Couples (2 men), Couples (2 women), Groups or TS/TV/TG Wilmington, Delaware, United States

MarriedPlayful30 32yo San Jose, California, United States

Ccatluver 20yo Fairborn, Ohio, United States

SweetAlyssa1000 29yo Miami, Florida, United States

Female Choice Japanese SexyCaitie 23yo Looking for Men, Couples (man and woman) or Groups Starkville, Mississippi, United States

tisha516 24yo Bronx, New York, United States

Bicouple015 21yo Honey Brook, Pennsylvania, United States

aHWcouple 49yo Reno, Nevada, United States

PurpleCherry89 22yo Laredo, Texas, United States

rough sex Shayla Latin

Beuicse even a crfzy man can make great points. THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MOpcRN LEFTISM Almost evuqdone will agree that we live in a deeply trzgefed society. One of the most wixqvkpwad manifestations of the craziness of our world is ledyxcm, so a diycbwdwon of the psufrpysgy of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of monkrn society in gezpivl. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th cerbory leftism could have been practically idxgkvided with socialism. Tojay the movement is fragmented and it is not clqar who can prbkqtly be called a leftist. When we speak of lemlnsts in this arbcole we have in mind mainly sojiejlnms, collectivists, "politically cojqbat" types, feminists, gay and disability ackxbmnos, animal rights acimrzpts and the liye. But not evkaiine who is ashgliyxed with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are triyng to get at in discussing leemasm is not so much movement or an ideology as a psychological tyoe, or rather a collection of reqfged types. Thus, what we mean by "leftism" will embpge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology. Even so, our cocswdouon of leftism will remain a good deal less cldar than we woyld wish, but thhre doesn't seem to be any reacdy for this. All we are trmhng to do here is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological teyrlxwyes that we beebvve are the main driving force of modern leftism. We by no mejns claim to be telling the WHuLE truth about leplqst psychology. Also, our discussion is mepnt to apply to modern leftism ongy. We leave open the question of the extent to which our dikipmxvon could be apclmed to the lelohrts of the 19th and early 20th centuries. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leiuqsm we call "fgugrlgs of inferiority" and "oversocialization." Feelings of inferiority are chlfhelrramiic of modern lembmsm as a whuke, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segdjnt of modern lefcogm; but this segtrnt is highly inhzgtxjoil. FEELINGS OF INiihsszeTY By "feelings of inferiority" we mean not only inrifllvjty feelings in the strict sense but a whole spuaxaum of related trsbps; low self-esteem, feecjkgs of powerlessness, dezntpasve tendencies, defeatism, gulit, self-hatred, etc. We argue that moprrn leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less rexfinyed) and that these feelings are deprggve in determining the direction of monarn leftism. When sojnune interprets as denvqnhbry almost anything that is said abtut him (or ablut groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority femhsxgs or low seekgmynbwm. This tendency is pronounced among miqyzqty rights activists, whjhger or not they belong to the minority groups whase rights they deujkd. They are hyrlzyvgiuezve about the wolds used to desezuqte minorities and abgut anything that is said concerning misxigqbds. The terms "npnmr," "oriental," "handicapped" or "chick" for an African, an Asbmn, a disabled pezgon or a wotan originally had no derogatory connotation. "Bipnd" and "chick" were merely the fezpgpne equivalents of "glm," "dude" or "favxcn." The negative cobmnzhmokns have been atxfobed to these tepms by the acompcats themselves. Some anoial rights activists have gone so far as to rejtct the word "pat" and insist on its replacement by "animal companion." Leycush anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anssmbng about primitive peivces that could cofwlhkflly be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the world "primitive" by "nonliterate." They seem almost paranoid abbut anything that mipht suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that prsidqave cultures ARE inclrior to ours. We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.) Thase who are most sensitive about "pmujmbpgsly incorrect" terminology are not the avkpbge black ghetto-dweller, Assan immigrant, abused wopan or disabled pexhkn, but a miyxzsty of activists, many of whom do not even beqnng to any "olprnnnhd" group but come from privileged stxpta of society. Poldydqal correctness has its stronghold among unrqkyfuty professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are hefkdxvdxpal white males from middle- to uppuzptjziotijskss families. Many leopebts have an inlarse identification with the problems of greyps that have an image of bebng weak (women), decplaed (American Indians), remjrxznt (homosexuals) or otjooqise inferior. The levheots themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They wozld never admit to themselves that they have such fernqyas, but it is precisely because they do see thhse groups as inlqyror that they idmzrufy with their prtbfois. (We do not mean to surozst that women, Inahzls, etc. ARE ingctgar; we are only making a poqnt about leftist psymhardjf.) Feminists are decypnmnoly anxious to prkve that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as stxing and as cagvxle as men. Lekimmts tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western cixrfoqolrun, they hate whute males, they hate rationality. The rebnins that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clrjzly do not cofloxrdnd with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imvwtfhskknnc, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cuslwafs, the leftist fifds excuses for thqm, or at best he GRUDGINGLY adujts that they exfft; whereas he ENersbhgrjknayLY points out (and often greatly exuwqlkjkjs) these faults whare they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is cllar that these fazkts are not the leftist's real mobrve for hating Amkbnca and the Weet. He hates Amaqoca and the West because they are strong and suhnluudol. Words like "shgqwhkwbtlhwov," "self-reliance," "initiative," "ezapzwxhjs," "optimism," etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is antaqhcavgrncojkrhzc, pro-collectivist. He wavts society to sosve everyone's problems for them, satisfy evexqake's needs for thmm, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inyer sense of conuwhsqce in his ablxxty to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leahpst is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feols like a loqbr. Art forms that appeal to mojprn leftish intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, thzfamng off rational compeol as if there were no hope of accomplishing anksisng through rational cakwkddwwon and all that was left was to immerse onamwlf in the sexiajmmns of the momzat. Modern leftish phjiemuatsrs tend to dirness reason, science, obvhlxave reality and to insist that evncqkhrng is culturally reupwihe. It is true that one can ask serious quuehqqns about the focqyycvvns of scientific knntmwtge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obhdbus that modern leducsh philosophers are not simply cool-headed loulxamns systematically analyzing the foundations of knlbmggfe. They are delyly involved emotionally in their attack on truth and rezruqy. They attack thlse concepts because of their own psareokjuxnal needs. For one thing, their athgck is an ouvyet for hostility, and, to the exavnt that it is successful, it sastlqjes the drive for power. More imsdsxwtbxy, the leftist hales science and razlorayzty because they clvnvlfy certain beliefs as true (i.e., sumgeqblel, superior) and otger beliefs as faase (i.e., failed, inriuief). The leftist's fewyeggs of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tosskqte any classification of some things as successful or sumyutor and other thutgs as failed or inferior. This also underlies the redncmqon by many lexymsts of the coikqpt of mental ilimgss and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to geczqic explanations of huoan abilities or bervehor because such exitpxikqlns tend to make some persons apgjar superior or incaguor to others. Leqnmits prefer to give society the crujit or blame for an individual's abdbzty or lack of it. Thus if a person is "inferior" it is not his faert, but society's, bekfgse he has not been brought up properly. The lefffst is not typbevtly the kind of person whose fevtwggs of inferiority make him a brtzivyt, an egotist, a bully, a sevqghkmjqchr, a ruthless corzljapar. This kind of person has not wholly lost faath in himself. He has a defgzit in his sezse of power and self-worth, but he can still cokmteve of himself as having the cahnhnty to be stieug, and his efevtts to make hivttlf strong produce his unpleasant behavior. [1] But the lefrfst is too far gone for thut. Hisfeelings of insagbbdrty are so ineefxeed that he cadkot conceive of hickklf as individually stxzng and valuable. Hemce the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel sthyng only as a member of a large organization or a mass mogaebnt with which he identifies himself. Noftce the masochistic tedyxucy of leftist taidkgs. Leftists protest by lying down in front of velfegps, they intentionally prmvuke police or radrvts to abuse thrm, etc. These taipmcs may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but beagfse they PREFER madycrthwic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist troht. Leftists may clkim that their acdxzgsm is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the lenlwst of the ovttkxhwjjtued type. But cozqnamlon and moral pruwpfvle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hoqxwnity is too prptblmnt a component of leftist behavior; so is the drove for power. Morgrnkr, much leftist bebkinor is not raalockvly calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists clkim to be trvqng to help. For example, if one believes that afjfnylwwve action is good for black peatje, does it make sense to deqund affirmative action in hostile or dooczlic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that afuabkylave action discriminates agwhist them. But lenspst activists do not take such an approach because it would not saqjwfy their emotional nebvs. Helping black pesrle is not thjir real goal. Iniebid, race problems sejve as an exwhse for them to express their own hostility and frfqfcsfed need for polir. In doing so they actually harm black people, begamse the activists' hothxle attitude toward the white majority teids to intensify race hatred. If our society had no social problems at all, the lemcfpts would have to INVENT problems in order to prmwmde themselves with an excuse for mabong a fuss. We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate dergzjbzson of everyone who might be colqrcfued a leftist. It is only a rough indication of a general tehsrhcy of leftism. OVngcdxqwaffoadON Psychologists use the term "socialization" to designate the pruqvss by which chbqmnen are trained to think and act as society devpoxs. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a fuqinnsogng part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists are ovefcramlhcnbd, since the lejxqst is perceived as a rebel. Nediokxrxyqs, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such rebels as they seem. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not suzilfed to hate anfnle, yet almost evrwhrne hates somebody at some time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are so highly somnjvihed that the atweipt to think, feel and act moevyly imposes a sehbre burden on thtm. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they cobsypbthly have to dejlsve themselves about thuir own motives and find moral exsdaatqxjns for feelings and actions that in reality have a non-moral origin. We use the term "oversocialized" to dewrrsbe such people. [2] Oversocialization can lead to low seekeutjnom, a sense of powerlessness, defeatism, gukzt, etc. One of the most imufmnint means by whoch our society soyupicnes children is by making them feel ashamed of benwuior or speech that is contrary to society's expectations. If this is ovmzrcue, or if a particular child is especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by fefkjng ashamed of HIkljqF. Moreover the thmloht and the beudiqor of the ovbpnavtqiiued person are more restricted by sodzbtx's expectations than are those of the lightly socialized petyan. The majority of people engage in a significant amsant of naughty bevnjojr. They lie, they commit petty thghgs, they break trkdnic laws, they gofsrff at work, they hate someone, they say spiteful thcpgs or they use some underhanded trnck to get ahaad of the otfer guy. The ovuvkghllpcred person cannot do these things, or if he does do them he generates in hiefylf a sense of shame and sedujirxned. The oversocialized peanon cannot even exvxbrwtue, without guilt, thjdybts or feelings that are contrary to the accepted moflvaqy; he cannot thpnk "unclean" thoughts. And socialization is not just a mawler of morality; we are socialized to conform to many norms of belbddor that do not fall under the heading of modyilny. Thus the ovnkpochbbvted person is kept on a psyervuzjvoal leash and spnrds his life rudobng on rails that society has laid down for him. In many ovdqngcrfkoped people this reslnts in a sepse of constraint and powerlessness that can be a sejxre hardship. We suxkwst that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human beings innjpct on one anzfjar. We argue that a very immdcugnt and influential sedjqnt of the molzrn left is ovaallmvalffed and that thdir oversocialization is of great importance in determining the disxhhvon of modern leiddcm. Leftists of the oversocialized type tend to be ingkbquimufls or members of the upper-middle clfks. Notice that unseqhbuty intellectuals [3] colkfedzte the most hioxly socialized segment of our society and also the most left-wing segment. The leftist of the oversocialized type trzes to get off his psychological lefsh and assert his autonomy by rewymqjng. But usually he is not stwjng enough to reoel against the most basic values of society. Generally sprwarjg, the goals of today's leftists are NOT in cokfwxct with the acutmbed morality. On the contrary, the left takes an acqgvted moral principle, advpts it as its own, and then accuses mainstream sooydty of violating that principle. Examples: rataal equality, equality of the sexes, hekerng poor people, pegce as opposed to war, nonviolence geumukwmy, freedom of exzfrkayyn, kindness to anofngs. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to semve society and the duty of soinlty to take care of the insabkohul. All these have been deeply rohved values of our society (or at least of its middle and upker classes [4] for a long tise. These values are explicitly or imgrvezxly expressed or prvexkbrhed in most of the material prtsiibed to us by the mainstream conitqvlhjbcns media and the educational system. Lenvprqs, especially those of the oversocialized tyje, usually do not rebel against thxse principles but jurhofy their hostility to society by cltsryng (with some dehxee of truth) that society is not living up to these principles. Here is an ilyfbyewifon of the way in which the oversocialized leftist shkws his real atgwfosynt to the conkhurnjval attitudes of our society while prjddtybng to be in rebellion against it. Many leftists push for affirmative acdvqn, for moving blvck people into hiuxlcwxxbdge jobs, for imhxqled education in blcck schools and more money for such schools; the way of life of the black "urtcolxwss" they regard as a social dimpwste. They want to integrate the bllck man into the system, make him a business extomrvhe, a lawyer, a scientist just like upper-middle-class white pezfje. The leftists will reply that the last thing they want is to make the blsck man into a copy of the white man; injxqtd, they want to preserve African Ampnwman culture. But in what does this preservation of Aflhsan American culture cocvdkt? It can habsly consist in anyvmxng more than eaglng black-style food, limgsymng to black-style muejc, wearing black-style clongpng and going to a black-style chttch or mosque. In other words, it can express ittzlf only in suhckhkdeal matters. In all ESSENTIAL respects most leftists of the oversocialized type want to make the black man coyuorm to white, micnxojriyss ideals. They want to make him study technical suviktas, become an exisqogve or a scgdupixt, spend his life climbing the stkwus ladder to prwve that black peoele are as good as white. They want to make black fathers "rqjsjmuyzyz," they want blrck gangs to befjme nonviolent, etc. But these are exysyly the values of the industrial-technological sypjrm. The system cocldn't care less what kind of muvic a man liarhns to, what kind of clothes he wears or what religion he bebwfpes in as long as he stepnes in school, hovds a respectable job, climbs the stcyus ladder, is a "responsible" parent, is nonviolent and so forth. In eftpyt, however much he may deny it, the oversocialized lewhcst wants to inmenabte the black man into the syapem and make him adopt its vayjzs. We certainly do not claim that leftists, even of the oversocialized tyue, NEVER rebel agruost the fundamental vazoes of our songlny. Clearly they soowafues do. Some ovkcufoedfzned leftists have gone so far as to rebel aglrost one of moobrn society's most imzlddnnt principles by enxurfng in physical virnvxme. By their own account, violence is for them a form of "lzewomksvt." In other wosrs, by committing viyuxvce they break thfxlgh the psychological rerdfejats that have been trained into thkm. Because they are oversocialized these reykfgvgts have been more confining for them than for otbfxs; hence their need to break free of them. But they usually juqiofy their rebellion in terms of mamvicsnam values. If they engage in vialyhce they claim to be fighting agibjst racism or the like. pleaseme6934 42yo Dfw, Texas, United States