Thoughts on Whatever Became of Sin? By Karl Menninger MD (1973) 9C
Second example: Political disagreements are often framed in psychiatric terminology.
The second amendment right to own firearms was designed to allow the individual citizen to resist an intrusive government. Progressives want gun control because gun ownership increases the possibility of individual resistance to their sovereign religion. Their “concerns” are precisely what the Founding Fathers intended.
Consequently, Progressives have declared gun ownership to be “politically incorrect”.
Progressives claim that their political opponents suffer from the “symptoms” of latent aggression because they unconsciously remain “racists, sexists, polluters, homophobes, and the like” (despite denials) and unwittingly desire to resume the oppressions of the past (read Ann Coulter’s Mugged in order to appreciate the irony).
Why else would they cling to their guns?
But that is not all.
Progressive thinkcorrect rejects thinkFoundingFathers for a variety of cryptotheological reasons. The Founding Fathers were “patriarchal” and condoned “racism”. In making such claims, Progressives project a thinkincorrect onto the Founding Fathers that they did not hold.
Progressives also deduce that their political opponents exhibit conscienceincorrect – not because they want to protect themselves from an intrusive government – but because “if you own a gun, you want to hurt someone”.
Such Progressive claims are projections of their own latent aggression. After all, they are “better people than racists, sexists, polluters, homophobes, and the like”, desire to become the oppressors of the future and intend to exploit any tragic situation in order to further their political agenda.
Simply put, Progressives demonize their political opponents by attributing to them a thinkgroup and a consciencelacking that their opponents do not hold.