It is not a hyperbole to describe the liberal mindset as psychotic. What do I mean by psychotic? I mean it has an inherent inability to confront, deal or cope with reality. A classic extreme example would be the lunatic claiming to be Napoleon Bonaparte. His psychosis enables him to maintain this patent nonsense in spite of a mountain of evidence to the contrary, not least of which is that the real Napoleon has been dead for some time. The liberal believes that he can define or redefine reality by a fiat of his will, and that is surely the very essence of psychotic. Note that it has nothing to do with intelligence or charm; the liberal is frequently both highly intelligent and charming.

 

One example would be David Cameron pushing through his gay sham ‘marriage’. The reality is that what defines marriage, and separates it from all other relationships, is sex. Two men cannot have sex, therefore two men cannot marry - QED. Yes, we are all well aware that two men can indulge in a disgusting, unnatural and unhealthy, parody of sex, but a parody is by definition not the real thing. Thus gay sham ‘marriage’ is merely a parody of real marriage. To call what faggots get up to "sex" is like calling a lunatic stuffing food in his ear "eating".

 

Yet another example would be Jeremy Corbyn's statement at the Labour Party conference that mass net inward migration had no effect on house prices. Any schoolboy studying GCSE level economics would be able to tell you that prices are determined by supply and demand. But Jeremy, because of his liberal psychosis, is able to suspend the demand side of this equation as if reality could be waved away with a flick of his secular liberal wrist.

 

Another example from within the Church; a liberal bishop can be fully aware of the fact that over ninety per cent of the victims of clerical sex abuse by Catholic priests are adolescent males, and yet still vigorously assert that the Church doesn't have a homosexual problem - here we see the classic liberal ideological refusal to face reality on steroids!

 

What do I mean by "liberal"? Well it is an omnibus term for a reality that is not easy to pin down because it is a multiheaded hydra. Understanding its progenitors is helpful: international socialism, leftism, state-ism, cultural Marxism, communism, atheism, Freemasonry, materialism, Christophobia; all these entities are neither separate nor separable, they are intertwined, and readily morph one into the other. They can be traced back at least to the Jacobins of the 18th Century, a clique of secular humanists who were early globalists and heavily intertwined with Freemasonry.

 

The Jacobins spread from Germany to France with a fully developed plan, fermented in the Masonic lodges, to engineer a social explosion as a means to obtaining power. The Jacobin/Freemasonic destabilization plan became the template for many more bloody “people’s" revolutions after the French Revolution. We are all familiar with Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao. Many are less familiar with the early 20th Century British Fabian socialists, or the Italian Marxist theoretician Antonio Gramsci, or the German “Frankfurt School” of international socialists, who transplanted their ideology to the United States via Columbia University. In the end, these clandestine international socialist forces wormed deep into the entrails of the West and achieved results that are far more profound and lasting than the crude militarily-imposed revolutionary “wars” of the likes of Lenin and Mao.

 

The left has believed since the French Revolution that it was their duty to impose a top-down order upon the “dumb masses,” a new world order managed by self-certified experts chosen from among their own ranks. The EU is a classic materialisation of their dreams. Today, the leftist/liberal demonic march through the institutions, government, academia and the media, is complete. One has only to listen to someone like Tom Bradby anchoring ITV News to confirm the truth of that last statement.

 

What defines the liberal and sets him apart from his fellow man is that he has enthroned his will where his intellect should be. This can truly be described as the Devil's final victory, because it is in our intellect that man is the most obviously Godlike. Liberalism is an ideology and something is true for an ideologue because he wills it to be true, reality has very little to do with it. This explains why liberals can believe that a sexual pathology (homosexuality) that has given us over fifty per cent of the world's serial killers, nearly eighty percent of convicted child molesters, the entire officer core of the Nazi Storm Troopers and some twenty percent of the Nazi death camps most sadistic guards, is merely a harmless "orientation" - he wills it to be true, therefore facts, science and history are all beside the point.

 

One can demonstrate that liberalism is a psychosis by just looking at the brouhaha around Bruce Jenner's supposed sex change. One liberal university even went so far as to cancel a speaking engagement by Germaine Greer because she dared to point out that a bloke in a frock, is just that, a bloke in a frock. Because liberalism is an ideology rather than a system of rational thought, liberals are like walking iPods and the current masters of the universe can write on them any tune they choose. If Bruce Jenner had claimed to be a four foot tall Chinaman, we would have been permitted to dismiss it, but a 6'-0" hairy bloke can claim to be a woman, and we must accept it or be denounced as haters. The only difference is that those who dictate what the latest liberal dogmas must be haven't as yet got round to mandating "trans-racism" or "trans-heightism", but embracing trans-genderism is now mandatory in the liberal asylum.

 

Liberals, whether they are the hectoring and bullying ones like Piers Morgan, or the snarling, sarcastic, mocking type like Jeremy Paxman, or the smiling charmers (men whom are very difficult to dislike) such as Tom Bradby, are all fanatically committed to promoting their post-Christian, secular, false religion, and are keen to push the dogmas of their faith, from Darwinism to transgenderism, with a missionary zeal that shames most Catholics.

 

To give a veneer of plausibility and intellectualism to his distaste for science and reality, the liberal is fond of pontificating, "There is no such thing as absolute truth." However, the statement that, "There is no such thing as absolute truth." purports itself to be a statement of absolute truth! So clearly here the liberal is hoisted by his own petard, but few indeed will have the courage or personal integrity to acknowledge this.

 

Once one has fallen into the trap of liberalism it is all but impossible, humanly speaking, to escape, for the key to this prison lies in one's intellect and the liberal has placed that in bondage. Nothing is impossible to God, of course, and grace can break through, but the liberal is especially resistant to grace. Further, because he has dethroned his intellect, liberals are not very responsive to rational argument in the classical or scholastic form, i.e. arguing from established facts, first premises, to valid conclusions. However, they have developed a number of very effective techniques to compensate for this Achilles' heel.

 

One technique is to claim to have such overwhelming firsthand experience of the issues in question that arguments are utterly beside the point - facts after all must trump theories every time. Thus if you attempt to debate gay sham marriage, the liberal will always preface his response with, "My gay friends ..." It appears that every liberal can lay claim to at least twenty gay friends. Where are all these gay friends coming from? Are there a couple of dozen gay men out there who have been given the task to go round befriending every liberal on the planet? Of course not; the objective of this ruse is simple: to shut you up with your rational arguments and scientific facts by claiming such overwhelmingly superior experience that rational arguments and scientific facts are redundant.

 

Another technique one can only describe as pseudo-arguments. An example: Say you have broached the subject of same-sex sham ‘marriage’ on half a dozen occasions over the past year or so. The liberal will assert that because you have addressed this subject on a number of occasions you must be harbouring suppressed inclinations in that direction yourself. He will then sit back grinning smugly as if he had scored some devilishly clever debating point. Notwithstanding that this argument has about as much merit as suggesting that a daffodil enthusiast must be a secretly suppressed daffodil, it will not prevent many people acclaiming this liberal drivel with enthusiasm. Fifty years ago, when even small children were taught logic as a branch of mathematics, a reasonably intelligent primary school child would have been equipped to dismiss such patent nonsense out of hand.

 

Intimidation is their next tried and tested technique. One can witness this technique in operation every day. In fact, it is now so all prevalent, we barely notice it anymore. The following email recently received illustrates this point perfectly:

 

"I would like to request that you remove my name off your database. Your literature is full of hatred and despicable untruths attacking various groups in our society. You are so far away from Christianity that you are a disgrace to call yourself a Christian. I am forwarding your literature to the police to investigate under the "The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006" as to whether you are breaching the law and whether any penalties can be imposed to stop you promoting hate against large parts of our society. I suggest that you stop writing such hatred and learn what it is to be a Christian. Regards, Theresa Hellyer (Yorkshire)."

 

Here we again see the liberal mindset on steroids, for what this email is basically saying is, "Because I do not like what you say, I shall seek to get you into serious trouble and silenced." This, from a mindset that never ceases to sanctimoniously preach non-judgmentalism and inclusiveness. Who was it wrote, if you scratch a liberal, you'll find a Fascist?

 

This email also perfectly illustrates another technique used by liberals, always keep it deliberately vague. They prefer to stick doggedly to generalisations when making their fuzzy bad-tempered accusations. "Your literature is full of hatred and despicable untruths attacking various groups in our society." - surely, if the Flock was "full of despicable untruths" it would be a very easy matter for Ms Hellyer to illustrate the veracity of her wild assertion by quoting just one or two of these "despicable untruths". But no, the liberal will never do that, he feels on much safer ground by keeping it vague and saying things like, “I find you manner of addressing this issue offensive”, or “divisive”, or he will accuse you of being a “hater”, or label you with one of his made-up mental illnesses like "homophobia" or "Islamophobia" or "right-wing extremism". The experience for the non-Liberal is rather like playing tennis with one's opponent standing in a different court.

 

An example of this sort of bullying was seen after the recent wicked murder of some fifty gay men and women in a gay bar in Orlando. The media immediately turned this into a bizarre celebration of homosexuality. The message was clear, dare to question what we are doing and you will be publicly branded a bigot and hater and sent to stand in the corner with your hands on your head.

 

Political correctness is merely another facet of liberal bullying. What used to be called good manners and was taught by parents has now been refashioned into a weapon whose sole purpose is to stop you questioning liberal dogma. If you do, you will bring a pack of media hounds on your back, and they will not be satisfied until they have drawn blood and driven you from the field. Witness the liberal crucifying of Dr Church, an American physician driven from office for merely daring to suggest that homosexuals should be advised of the health risks that come with their chosen lifestyle. The liberal is forced to resort to bullying, precisely because his views cannot be supported by rational arguments; what possible rational argument could one muster to oppose Dr Church's modest proposal?

 

Another way at looking at this political correctness thing is to view it as the shouting that accompanies a certain type of lying. If you have ever had experience of alcoholics, you will know that lying comes as natural to them as swimming does to a fish. They lie, however, in a different way to most sons of Adam, who lie with a synthetic casualness, letting the lie trip off the tongue in a way that they hope will not draw attention. The alcoholic on the other hand will shout the lie in your face, his face contorted with rage; it is as if he believes that his shouting will give the lie substance. The shrill name calling that liberals indulge in when someone utters a rational thought that they don't like is analogous to this sort of lying.

 

The next technique is the manipulation of language. Modern history is littered with examples: the Nazis' "final solution" meaning slaughtering the Jews en masse (let's not forget that “Nazi” is just the acronym of their full name, the “National Socialist German Workers Party”); pro-aborts, "the products of conception" meaning an unborn child; "racist", "bigot", "hater", "homophobe", "xenophobe", "Islamophobe" and "right-wing extremist" are similar nonsense, words describing invented illnesses and manufactured to save the liberal from having to engage in rational debate.

 

The liberal is very hot on what he likes to call "his values". He is the original Mr Guardian-Reading-Lip-Biting-In-Earnestness himself. His voice quivering with liberal superiority and his eyes gleaming like freshly polished snooker balls, he will prate on about his personal values, and say things like, "that's so contrary to my values." There is a big problem here, because in the material world of the Liberal, we are all just bags of chemicals walking around as a result of an evolutionary fluke. In such a world, one man's values are obviously as good as another's, for all views are chemically determined. The liberal is thus trapped, constantly regurgitating conventional wisdom, whilst comically and tragically imagining that it's his own opinion. He will then publicly pat himself on the back for living true to his values, and claim that this demonstrates that he is a man of integrity. Because they think about the world around them in ways guided exclusively by emotions, they react to disappointment or loss as self-righteous victims, or antisocial thugs, rather than mentally sound individuals.

 

The non-Liberal believes he is right because he has followed a chain of arguments that lead to an inescapable conclusion, even if it is a conclusion which he may not like. This, of course, doesn't preclude the possibility that his conclusion is incorrect; his premises may be wrong, or the conclusion he draws from them invalid. The liberal, on the other hand, knows he is right rather like a member of the Hitler Youth knew that Jews are bad. Why, there was a scientific consensus, was there not? After all, his teacher had told him it was true, his youth leaders had told him it was true, the politicians told him it was true, the media told him it was true and academia was unanimous in holding it to be true; who would be so foolish and arrogant as to question such an overwhelming consensus? - the handful of deniers were, obviously, nutters who deserved their comeuppance. This explains why liberals as a class so enthusiastically embrace man made global warming (which has recently morphed into climate change). Indeed, to hear some liberals speak, one could imagine that before he was born, the climate was so predictable, one needed merely to look out the window to determine the date.

 

Because his creed is grounded in his will rather than his intellect, the liberal hates science with a passion. This explains why he can repeatedly assert that homosexuality is inherent, i.e. men are born that way, notwithstanding the fact that there is not a scrap of scientific evidence to support this theory, and a mountain of scientific evidence to debunk it. This hatred for science is also why he can support same-sex adoption, notwithstanding the mountain of studies that prove that this is extremely damaging for children - it has everything to do with the will of the ideologue.

 

The liberal seldom understands irony. One example, we had a rather scruffy middleaged gentleman approach us recently outside Brixton station, who then launched into a 5-minute tirade against the Flock. His invective was inventive, colourful and abusive, to say the least. It was obvious that there was absolutely no point in trying to argue, so we just smiled and thanked him for his comments. As Our Lord said, "brush the dust from your sandals". But what could be more ironic than spending 5-minutes publicly abusing someone for allegedly being abusive? Our friend concluded by threatening to report us to some unspecified authorities if we didn't become tame little liberals more to his taste. It is very interesting that no Flock reader would wish to silence this gentleman, indeed, many would want to protect his right to his patently daft views; but he would like to silence us if it was in his power. This, I repeat, is because his will is where his intellect should be, consequently, when we disagree with him, it is his will that is being challenged, not his intellect.

 

Such is the nature of his psychosis that a liberal has no difficulty believing that Islam, a religion that was founded by a sexually perverted war lord, and which has spent the last fourteen centuries expanding by military conquest and promiscuous slaughter, which has also been in a permanent state of bloody civil war since its inception, and which provides well over ninety per cent of the world's terrorists, is a “Religion of Peace”™.

 

In 2015 alone there were 2,849 attacks by orthodox, practicing Muslims (“Islamist”, “Radical Islam”, “Extremists”, etc, are all words made up by the liberal establishment to obscure the fact that Islam itself is inherently and irreducibly violent, inhuman, supremacist and anti-civilisational) in 52 countries, resulting in 27,435 innocent men, women and children slaughtered and 26,144 critically injured. Furthermore, these attacks were frequently ordered by commanders who hold degrees in Islamic theology from Islamic universities. The number killed by Islamists last year alone is over ten times the number killed by the Provisional IRA in the entire course of its 30 year war. The liberal is a man who can look at that fact, and say, with a straight face, "It has nothing to do with Islam."

 

For one to truly follow Islam, one must emulate Muhammad to the best of their ability. This includes beheading, raping, enslaving, lying, and molesting children. To say that any of these practices are un-Islamic is to say that their "prophet" is un-Islamic. For a Muslim, that is blasphemy; for a non-Muslim, it is just plain nuts.

 

Because he has enthroned his will where his intellect should be, the liberal is perfectly capable of holding two contradictory thoughts in his head at the same time, without any cognitive dissonance, in a way that would make the non-liberal’s head explode.

 

Thus, for example, a liberal can march on Monday to support the rights of a Samburu tribesman to defend his land, ethnicity, culture and way of life passed down to him from his ancestors, and then march on Tuesday to denounce an Englishman for seeking a tenth as much as a “Little Englander, xenophobic, racist bigot”.

 

A liberal can routinely make the judgement that people who disagree with him are, by definition, bigots, while, at the same time, repeatedly affirming that one should not be judgemental.

 

The liberal has no problem believing that having black children adopted by white families is a bad idea because the children will grow up in an unnatural situation that could cause problems in later life, yet at the same time believe that those who oppose the adoption of children by two men united in a sham marriage by an addiction to sodomy are homophobic bigots.

 

The liberal can march on Wednesday against Fascism because he passionately believes that the indiscriminate killing of innocent Jews by Hitler was an horrendous crime, and then march on Thursday in support of the world-wide indiscriminate slaughter of innocent children in the womb by abortion.

 

A liberal can march on Thursday in support of state funded artificial contraception and abortion to avoid overpopulation and demographic disaster, and then march on Friday to support uncontrolled immigration of a third of a millions immigrants per year into the UK because that is deemed good for the economy.

 

A liberal can believe that a white man who votes for a white presidential candidate because he is white, is a racist bigot, but a black man who votes for a black candidate just because he is black is a fine, decent, upright fellow.

 

A liberal can believe that the 700 woman who every day in the UK have their child murdered by abortion suffer no lasting psychological negative effects, but believe the odd one or two who put their baby up for adoption must suffer life long regret.

 

The same liberal media that has spent the last thirty years trying to convince us that AIDs is not a gay problem and that we are all equally at risk, is now campaigning for a drug costing £400 a month to be distributed free by the NHS to gay men to reduce their chances of catching AIDs. As someone has observed, "Liars need good memories."

 

The liberal can march on Friday to support a bill criminalising smoking in cars because of the alleged (and yet unproven) dangers of passive smoking, and then turn out on Saturday to support a Gay Pride march, notwithstanding that the death toll from AIDs is 30,000,000 and still counting, and that the “LGBT Community”™ suffers from so many diseases that some American hospitals are opening whole units specialising in them. In 2014, homosexual men accounted for 83% of primary and secondary syphilis cases in the United States. Homosexual men also acquire other STDs, including chlamydia, gonorrhea and HPV (Human papillomavirus), the most common STD, which can lead to the development of anal and oral cancers. In fact, homosexual men are 17 times more likely to get anal cancer than normal men.

 

Moreover, the medical profession knows why homosexual men are prone to so much ill health, yet few are brave enough to explain this. For such is the liberal psychosis that merely telling the truth will get you branded as a “homophobe”, and to be labelled with that invented mental illness can seriously blight, or indeed even destroy, your career.

 

The truth is simple; the human body is designed to reject anything that it perceives as foreign. This is why the recipients of transplant organs have to take drugs to suppress their auto-immune system for the rest of their life, or their body will reject the transplanted organ. Male sperm is a foreign body as far as the woman's body is concerned, and her body's auto-immune system would attack and kill the sperm if it was not for something rather wonderful; sperm has within it a chemical to suppress the female auto-immune system. However, God has so magnificently designed the woman's body, that the auto-immune suppressing property of male sperm is restricted to just part of her reproductive system and thus in no way compromises the woman's general health. However, when male sperm enters the body of another male, there is no mechanism to restrict the auto-immune suppressant properties in the sperm to a given organ. The whole auto-immune system is, thus, compromised. When you consider that the average homosexual has a minimum of 500 sexual partners, one gets a handle on just how seriously his auto-immune system is being damaged by this continuous bombardment, and can understand why homosexuals are prone to a whole raft of diseases, including a number of fatal ones.

 

Should we be surprised by the disconnection between reality and the beliefs of those trapped in the liberal psychosis? Surely not! If you can believe that Bruce Jenner is a woman, there can be very little, if indeed anything, that you are not capable of believing when ordered to do so by the Masters of the Universe.