Are the liberal left founded on fear and immaturity?

I rarely see anyone on the right demonise individuals they don't agree with, those on the left have the dirtiest mouths I've ever come across and that only represents what's in their hearts. They are at base scared misanthropists who trust no one and believe you must curb human nature in every possible way to protect the world from humanity. They are pretty much stuck in one of Freud's earlier stages of development and see the world as a terrifying place full of potential danger while in fact most people are quite nice. This was extended even further to its ultimate conclusion in the 1970s environmental movement, led by Margaret Mead, Stephen Schneider and the current proponent still going, David Suzuki. They have refined liberal (funny how so many political labels do exactly the opposite of what they say) misanthropy to its ultimate level, seeing all humans as bad and need to curb all their power and ideally reduce their numbers to a bare minimum, as they are a threat to the planet, useless eaters (what about all the other animals I wonder) and ultimately a cancer on a planet which of course is made of inert minerals and would be like Mars or the Moon without life which we can see makes them a far less inviting place altogether as a result.

Going back to the mainstream (although it is more and more becoming infected by the environmental virus) elements of fear and loathing abound, the poor (and ironically many of the ultra-rich) despise anyone with more money than the average, see society as divided into them and us groups- black/white, women/men, bourgeoisie/proletariat etc, and then sets off a class/race/gender war as they always claim one half has the advantage over the other so must be cut down to size or the others won't ever succeed on their own efforts. That is called social engineering, which believes mankind is so awful on its own every possible part of their lives from birth to death must be uniformly regulated by the state (ironically again made up of people identical to those they are ruling), as otherwise there will be exploitation, slavery and chaos. Of course history shows such attempts such as Stalin's purges and Mao's great leap forward did nothing but kill thousands of people and imprison many more for not going along with state requirements. There is little difference between sacking a state employee for saying the wrong word for black people or women and wrecking their careers and imprisoning enemies of the state. It is the same mechanism and only a matter of degree. Bearing in mind incitement of a crime is a crime in itself, if someone uses a currently bad word or phrase it does not mean they want to hurt that group or are calling for others to do so. There is a huge difference. Similarly words used 50 years ago were the norm, and anyone of that age who still uses them does not mean anything different to someone using the current buzz word today, they just aren't under any legal duty (yet, thank goodness) to keep up. But they are treated no different to any political extremist who has just managed to be part of a group who is hateful but knows how to do it within the law. Your grandma could be treated with the same contempt as Nick Griffin for calling someone coloured, even though that was the accepted word till the 70s.

I would say taking a maybe single number percent figure (probably in the low numbers) of actual nasty people and extending them to around 90% is bound to wreck ones view of the world and humankind. They trust their own (until they go out of step), and everyone else is mistrusted, and they look for examples to prove their theory every time by scrutinising every word and action to try and catch people out. I see it every day online, idiots mining other people's pages looking for any dirt, just as the media do for politicians. This shows they expect most people to let them down sooner or later, and therefore en masse they are like a herd of wild bulls. The state must be strong and powerful to contain the dangerous mass urges of humankind, greed, the need for power, fraud, theft, slavery, you name it they'll think of it. Of course with such a fearful view of humanity, presumably everyone else except yourself as you're right on and would never take advantage of another human being, everyone else, as the feminists say, is a potential rapist or racist, or in the case of god forbid white men, the cause of all ills in the world apparently (see Monty Python's "What did the Romans do for us" for a similar accusation taken apart). Then the hard liners narrow down their fear and hate and home in on the enemies of the people, who nearly always turn out to be Jewish ('The Zionist Threat'). Then the really far gone claim because the Zionists created all our current problems they must also have invented the holocaust (never mind the bodies and death certificates connected to millions of real dead people) to gain support and carry on with their evil agendas as an apparent victim.

The anti-Zionist trope is just one (and probably the worst) example of where pure misanthropy can lead. Of course it caused the very real holocaust only 70 years ago, when we actually had films, recordings and fields full of bodies as well as the soldiers who arrived to see the camps four years after the allied powers agreed not to do anything about them, so technically Churchill was partly responsible for it as he knew about it long before then and decided to do nothing to make sure Hitler didn't realise we'd decoded their messages. But it only represents one extremely nasty branch of what are equally nasty roots, and it just depends how much fuel in the way of unfounded fear and folk tales such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion will inflame the built in fear and convert it to hate. But ultimately it is a psychological failing, a lack of maturing in individuals who still believe everyone else is potentially dangerous so needs controlling to protect them. Whether it is stopping people from putting the lights and heating on to protect the planet from global warming, or councils printing 'anti'dictionaries' with lists of A-Z words they must not use. The reason people have been tested to become less left wing with age is because they discover most people can be trusted to manage their own lives without strict rules and regulations, and only the right believe this so they literally grow out of their assumptions. Freud described such steps in development quite clearly, and psychologists have refined them ever since, including Karl Roger's ladder from blaming everyone else to taking full responsibility for your own life.

If you compare the average lefty on Roger's ladder you will see they all share the second or third rung on average as they all see society's problems as someone else's fault, whether the rich, the bankers, Wall Street, The Zionists, or any other powerful (or imagined powerful) group they feel impotent against. Those on the right have long since worked out if a black female lesbian with cerebral palsy from a council estate (to roll every imaginary drawback to success in one) is as talented as Albert Einstein, Whoopi Goldberg, Helen Keller or anyone else in one or more similar situations, they will probably succeed as western society (unlike the third world where people are ruled by tribal or religious dictators and everyone outside that group is enslaved equally) everyone pretty much has the opportunity to convert their individual talents to results, given we have free education (although some now charge for degrees, which is a retrograde step, after abolishing grammar schools which had a similar effect in the 70s for poor talented people) and universal benefits for the sick and unemployed. If anyone genuinely believes one or more 'disadvantages' (how can being female actually be a disadvatage outside the Muslim world, where the majority of women claim to consent to being treated like slaves?) can hold back a single person whether black, gay, disabled or anything else, seeing as the most important element of success in this society is education, and they both allow readers for the dyslexic and most importanly mark papers anonymously  so officially at least the examiners can only mark the words and not the person. Once anyone gains such qualifications, which are impossible to fail eventually if you are good enough, it is an equal playing field afterwards (albeit with the best work going to Oxbridge graduates, not from bias but they only accept the best to join them initially) whatever people try and tell you otherwise. Forget the toxic positive discrimination, which is much as an oxymoron as 'happy cancer' or 'fun tooth decay', if someone is really that good then being any of the above cannot stop them succeeding and the glass ceiling is an excuse made by failures. And any glitches in the system which do exist, such as the long gone 'old boy network' had been addressed by equality legislation decades ago so are no longer possible without the threat of major redress usually in five figure sums (remember loss of an arm gains a few thousands, loss of a job you never had can be ten times higher or more).

Judge my words by your own experience. Do you really think your own failure was because of your race or gender or because you didn't try hard enough and gave up too easily? If you put an imaginary glass ceiling in front of you that is all you will see. No one else has created it but you and using auto-suggestion whatever you create in your mind becomes real to you but to no one else. Looking in reverse, very few gay or Jewish people can be picked up that easily by outsiders so 90% of the time (unless you are stuck with a very Jewish name and had the guts not to change it to prove it didn't stop you)  it can't be used against you, while if you genuinely think you have been stopped in your car (at night) or given a yellow card not because you did something wrong that would have been the same for everyone else, but because you're black, again, only you have the problem. No examiner has the genuine ability or motivation to mark anyone down whatever their race or gender, and why on earth would they? And if you are qualified, why would an employer really care what ethnicity someone was if they had a decent CV and attitude? But in fact if you are already defensive and go into an interview with a chip on your shoulder expecting to be discriminated against, you will give off bad vibes and lose out because of your attitude alone. Again a totally self-fulfilling prophecy.

So standing back from all the specific examples I could think of, the basic premise you can only believe in a powerful collectivist state if you believe individuals cannot be trusted to run very much of their own lives, and are at base dangerous to others so need strict controls to stop them taking advantage of their power. It is all a matter of degree, but if it goes from sacking people for using the wrong words to wiping out most of humanity to save the planet, anywhere on that scale is still part of the same viewpoint, and like psychopathy just a matter of where each person stops on it. In a way you can compare it with prison hierarchy, where they have all hurt someone (or themselves if in for taking drugs) but still sort out the levels of each crimes into bad and worse and attack those they see as the very worst. The fact they are no different, like the leftists are, blow me down, human as well, goes straight over their heads. Whatever they are like everyone else is different, a threat, and only trusted if part of their small tight similar group.

That is currently what the world is in the grip of, you can't reform the far gone, but you can recognise and avoid them if nothing else.