The Gospel Truth

Is Liberalism a Mental Illness? Part II

February 15, 2010

So back to my original point!  Is liberalism a mental illness?  Funny thing in the late 19th century religious liberalism was considered a sin.

Father Felix Sarda Y Salvany wrote a book with that title. His focus was more on a critique of the mistaken notion that one religion is as good as another–what I call the Spiro Agnew theory of life and slums-you seen one—you’ve seen them all! I think today they call that religious indifferentism today.

His book defined liberalism as the dogmatic affirmation of the absolute independence of the individual… This sounds a lot like Existentialism and the empty substance of the pro-choice rhetoric of the last 40 years.  I would certainly agree that this is a serious sin.

Go back and read what some of the exchanges were on the Erstwhile Conservative and I think you might see what he meant.

Father Salvany also found that liberalism as such was irreconcilable with Catholicism. This could be what Pope Paul VI called the smoke of Satan.

Today liberals and many other others have denied the concept of sin…so we are back to the psychiatrist’s couch again.

Personally I believe that most people who think they are liberals or call themselves liberal don’t really understand the full meaning or the historical context of the word and are probably not part of this discussion.

The only way to find out is to  weigh your thinking against what is written here.

But for the doctrinaire liberal who places his or her faith in the never-ending progressive edict of the French Enlightenment, I believe that maybe they should think about consulting a mental health professional.

I say this because of my original definition of insanity that is expecting a different result for the same kind of thinking.

For generations, the Young Communist League, Marx and Engels and their 1848 Manifesto, socialists, progressives and now liberal have promised the world to the workers, the poor—all disenfranchised groups.

They have promised that there would be peace, fraternity and brotherhood and they have failed…dismally failed.

Joseph Sobran said Communism is “liberalism in a hurry”–a kind of  “frog in the pot” type of social engineering that seeks the same sort of social order as communism, that is a secularist, materialist society in which power is centralized and the state controls economic life.

All of these ideologies are destructive of human freedom and morality and are derivatives of the same misanthropic school of revolution that was hatched in Paris and the lodges of France in the late 18th century.

What has 18th century France given us?  Nearly 300 years of revolution!  It has overturned the basic pillars of society with its relentless attacks on the family, the church and private property.

And for what?

A heaven on earth—a kind of utopia where peace and universal brotherhood will reign for eternity!  And these are the same folks who condemn Christians for their pie in the sky nonsense?

Contrary to all their lip service about “choice” I thinks liberals are against human freedom.  To a real liberal all the banter at the EC blogsite about free will was basically just that- banter.

I don’t think liberals believe in free will.  They deny sin and even evil…with the exception of anything that a conservative says or does.  To a liberal they are the personification of evil.  Just listen to the histrionics of Keith Olbermann sometime.

To a liberal people are victims of their genes, their environment, hormones—you name it—no one seems to be responsibility for anything except Obama’s demon of the week.

Their idea of choice is a big joke and the joke has been on women for nearly 40 years now.  Abortion was “invented” for men, by men and for the pleasure of men.


Personally I think many, many women are forced into killing their unborn babies in what I call “shot gun abortions.”

Their free will probably has little to do with their “choice.”  I wonder why the liberals are not up in arms about this.

Must be the hypocrisy of their thinking because their entire movement is founded on a lie and perpetuated by lies.

10,000 women victims of back alley abortions?  Remember that canard.  No one challenged that number!

Where did they get it?  They simply made it up!

With the invention of penicillin the numbers in the 1950s were in the low hundreds–important to those women but still not the grossly exaggerated number of the ideologues.

Bernard Nathanson, the erstwhile atheist-abortionist, who later became a Catholic performed–or what is the term—, provided over 75,000 abortions in the early 1970s in New York where abortion was perfectly legal.  He was there at the foundation of NARAL, which started using that hyperbolic figure before 1973.

Back alley abortions?  About 90% of them were performed in clinics, hospitals etc. ..probably by the same doctors who would become the next abortion providers after Roe.

Their kind of thinking is all about change. Not just a change in the political regime but a change in human nature.

I used a quote from Hillary Clinton in my 1999 book, Liberalism: Fatal Consequences, where the current Secretary of State said we are not interested in social reconstruction—it’s human reconstruction.

Mrs. Clinton and her gang of ideologues want to change, not so much the way we live but the way we are…that is our natural instinct to want to make our own choices, to use our free will in line with God’s commandments and the natural law.

Ideologues, like Mrs. Clinton think they can mold people into the docile robots that she envisions that will be able to affect her utopian dreams on earth where there is no poverty, illness, war, disease or maybe even no death.

It will be a Marxist’s dream, the enlighten heaven on earth without God, sin, morality, or evil.  They will have created man in their own image and likeness.

And when the people resist this unnatural “change” that’s when unrestrained force becomes the order of the day.  This has been the case in every utopian society from Robespierre and Danton to Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Castro.

It is all a pipe dream—a pie on earth kind of dream that has substituted utopian fantasies for reality.

The legacy of the French Revolution with its trinity of virtues–Liberty, Fraternity and Equality has not given us universal peace or freedom from want.  To the contrary it has left a pernicious legacy of  the guillotine, the gulag and the abortion mill.

Their ideas are all madness and by inference I think the case can be made that liberal ideologues are mentally ill.

Blogger’s Note: On Saturday evening, March 6th between 7-9 PM, First Run Theater will present Bill Borst’s new one-act play, A MOMENT OF GRACE as part of its annual audition readings at DeSmet High School’s Thomas Hunter Theater.

It is a prolife play that centers on a random meeting in a faulty elevator where the issues of life, death and suicide are exhaustively explored.

Local professional actors Kevin Beyer and Michelle (Borst) Hand will read the parts    Admission is free.

Is Liberalism A Mental Illness? Part I

February 11, 2010
1 Comment

The above title is a staple attention-getter I often use more in jest than anything serious.  My quick draw addition to a recent blog response to the Erstwhile Conservative prompted a hit a serious nerve, an end-of-debate kind of response that made me consider the gravity of such a charge.

Now I am not a doctor, let alone a psychiatrist. I haven’t stayed at a Holiday Inn in over 35 years, so I do not pretend to know or understand anything much about mental illness.

I seem to get in trouble every time I try to use such terminology in my writings.  For example in an article for the St. Louis Review a year or two ago, I used the term spilt personality with regards to the Catholic Church and Vatican II in the early 1960s.  I got a few hostile comments as to my equating it with schizophrenia.

I do have three History degrees and have taken a couple courses on philosophy and psychology.  I do know that mental illness is intimately tied to reality and the perception of reality.

In my opinion those perennially optimistic or pessimistic people are borderline people who are susceptible to going over the edge when it comes to reality.

My glass is neither half full or half empty.  The reality is that it is at 50% of its capacity.  If I am thirsty than it is half empty.  If I am near the satiation point–well you get my drift.  It is a subjective decision that should be made where all such choices present themselves.

Insanity has been described as trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.  This is a sign of a mind that has a very weak perception of reality and could lead to a complete divorce from the real world.

Now as for liberalism as a way of thinking or even as a way of life let me first add that in real terms both liberal and conservative are basically meaningless terms.

I use them only because it takes too long to explain the changes that history and current events has enacted on their original meanings.

Liberalism has had a number of different meanings since the 19th century when it was mostly used in reference to economics.  My astute late roommate at Holy Cross told me that Barry Goldwater, the avatar of 20th century conservativism was a 19th century economic liberal.

Based on the word for “free” it heralded the virtues of laissez faire or government “hands off.”  That is a very good description of what the Ron Paul kind of conservatives want and maybe even Sarah Palin.

Political liberals today with the sole exception of abortion, want as much control as they can get by hook or by crook.  Big Government is their means to affect a social and economic revolution that wishes to concentrate power in their hands in perpetuity.

Members of the court have been citing it for years now as precedent, implying that its tenets can never be changed.  I think that makes them conservative in that regard.

People, who oppose this blight on the nation’s conscience that has far surpassed the Dred Scott decision in its entrenchment of man’s inhumanity to members of the human species, cannot be called conservative—perhaps moral traditionalists is a better nomenclature.

Those who want to conserve this alleged right do so in the name of progress, not tradition.  They want their reforms to be the orthodoxy of the present and future.

When I was in college, I visited a friend in Virginia.  He gave me a great tour of the nation’s Capitol.  On the way out of the Senate building, I bumped into a Catholic priest.  I don’t even remember how that happened or where he was from but in the course of our brief conversation, he gave me a motto, which I carried around proudly for several years.

My attendance at the Cross worked itself in the conversation somehow…it always does even this day…and I told him how I have heard lectures by Barry Goldwater and Father Hans Kung, the erstwhile German theology professor.

My enthusiasm for both speakers prompted him to say, “Oh you must be conservative in politics and liberal in religion.”

I thought for a second and then nodded in polite assent.  That’s what I was and tried to be until I started to understand the painful realities of Vatican II and Kung’s heterodox positions on a number of issues.

Conservatives are very good on precedents when it comes to law.  Roe v. Wade has been regrettably the law of the land since 1973.

As the abortion debate heated up for me in the mid 1980s I realized that it was impossible to have a bifurcated approach to issues from both perspectives.  That’s where the schizophrenia I mentioned early started to breed its toxic cells.

There had to be a consistent strain of thought that saw things through the prism of reality based on reason. With that I will leave yet begging for an answer to my original question:

Is Liberalism a Mental Illness?

Blogger’s Note: On Saturday evening March 6th between 7-9 PM, First Run Theater will present Bill Borst’s new one-act play, A MOMENT OF GRACE as part of its annual audition readings at DeSmet High School’s Thomas Hunter Theater.

It is a prolife play that centers on a random meeting in a faulty elevator where the issues of life, death and suicide are exhaustively explored.

Local professional actors Kevin Beyer and Michelle (Borst) Hand will read the parts    Admission is free.

About author

After graduating from Holy Cross, Bill Borst earned an MA in Asian History from St. John's University and a Ph.D in American History from St. Louis University. (1972) A former New Yorker, he taught for many years in the St. Louis area, while also hosting a weekly radio show on WGNU from 1984-2006. He currently is a regular substitute for conservative Phyllis Schlafly on KSIV radio. (1320) He is the author of two books on social history, "Liberalism: Fatal Consequences," and "The Scorpion and the Frog: A Natural Conspiracy." He just retired as the Features editor of the Mindszenty Foundation Monthly Report. In his 11 years from 2003-2013 he wrote nearly 130 essays on Catholic culture and world affairs. Many in St. Louis also know him as the "Baseball Professor," because of a course that he offered at Maryville College from 1973-74. It was arguably the first fully-accredited baseball history course in the Midwest.The author of several short books on the old St. Louis Browns, he started the St. Louis Browns Historical Society in 1984. In 2009 his first two plays were produced on the local stage. "The Last Memory of an Ol' Brownie Fan," ran six performances at the Sound Stage in Crestwood and "A Perfect Choice" ran for two performances at the Rigali Center Theater in Shrewsberry. His third play, "A Moment of Grace," ran six performances at DeSmet High School in January of 2011with First Run Theater in January of 2011. He is currently working on a 4th play, "A Family Way," which is a comedy about a happy dysfunctional family. He can reached at