Liberalism, an undocumented mental illness, part 1

In order to understand how mental illness correlates to liberalism, we should investigate and explain each.
In the medical world, more specifically, the psychiatric world, the "bible" is a book called the "DSM-IV-TR." It stands for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
Doctors use this book to diagnose certain mental diseases (most of them). There is a subset of mental illness called personality disorders (PD).
"Personality disorder is a general term for a type of mental illness in which your ways of thinking, perceiving situations and relating to others are dysfunctional. There are many specific types of personality disorders."

There are 3 major categories of PD's. They are called 'clusters.' Cluster A, Cluster B, and Cluster C. In each of the clusters, there are subtypes of diseases. Let's make this clearer. I will be very broad.
Cluster A is defined as Odd and Eccentric Behaviors: In this cluster there are the following subtypes:
1) Schizoid PD
2) Schizotypal PD
3) Paranoid PD

I won't go too much deeper because it I may loose you. However, I will tell you the specific criteria and such for the disorders as it correlates to liberalism.

Now let's talk a little politics.
In the "beginning", we, conservatives were called "liberals." Actually we are 'classic liberals.'
Conservatives believed (in the begining) that things should not change. When you discussed conservatives in the age of kings and theocracy (church was the ruler) then you were right to say that this type of 'conservatism' is evil, as the rulers wanted to conserve their rule. When you would say, "I'm a liberal" you would, in essence, be saying that you wanted to be free or liberated.
It's not complicated. Then in the time of John Locke (1632-1704), things began to change. Free men wanted to be free. Locke talked about "Natural Rights." You can translate that as your "unalienable right." INalienable rights are different, so becareful which one you use.
You are probably familiar with the term "Unalianable rights" as it is in the Declaration of Independance .
Unalienable rights are rights that "incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." This includes LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. That means that the government cannot take those away from you because they cannot GIVE them to you. Your creator has given you those natural rights, not the government. You understand this?
So when did we change? In the beginning of the 20th century in the United States (and in the 19th century in europe, which infested itself here) " liberalism began to shift its emphasis from protecting individuals from oppressive governments to using government as a device to enable individuals to achieve a more meaningful and rewarding life"

So now you have a complete shift. People did not realize (or did not care) that a government that is powerful enough to give you something, was powerful enough to take it away ( a paraphrase on the great Jefferson quote). One of the 'something' that he must have been talking about were the Natural rights. You see, if a people can be convinced that there Natural rights, were not actually "natural" or unalianable, then people would have no issues with government taking them away, which remember it can't do because it can't give them to you in the first place.
The people, liberals, believe that everything should be equal, not for the sake of bettering a person but because they feel and believe that you may have too much. This, of course, does not apply to them. They believe that they know better than you, what you should do with your natural rights.
A factor that is undeniable and cannot be disputed, but is often the focus of attack by liberals is that your labor ( the consequence of your time doing something while you are on this mortal-coil) is not really yours. Well, if the fruit of your labor is not yours, whose is it? Who gets to decide who it goes to? Who gets to decide how much goes to who? Then, what happens when it (the fruits of your labor) runs out? Who will provide more fruits? These are questions that are not able to be answered by the liberal. Instead they attack your person as "greedy" and "uncaring about the less fortunate." They call claim that if you want to keep the fruits-of-your-labor that you are just a "fat cat." Some things that the liberal does is use force, with threat of libel and reputation destruction (and perhaps physical violence) that if you do not forcibly give the fruits, on your own volition, then you will be punished. The punitive factors can be something as small as being called names, to having your business destroyed, to violence. The liberal does not care what the consequences of his action of the theft is on you (and I do mean you personally or your family or your business, etc). Instead they focus on the 'ends.' To them the 'ends justify the means.' This is of course, as long as it does not effect them in the negative light and may even make it profitable for them. In fact if it does portray them in a negative light, the liberals become full of righteous indignation. They yell from the mountain tops of how they are insulted and that the injustice of the insult, shall change the core of their inner-being. All this while they ignore the truth. The truth is a constant casualty in their assault on anyone who does not agree with them. This almost seems as though they are antisocial. This bridges perfectly into our first PD, Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD).

Let's look at the characteristics of APD vs Liberalism:
1) Drug use: APD and liberals (Obama himsself claiming to have done drugs in high school).

2) Narcissism: APD and Liberalism. They both believe they both have a sense of extreme entitlement.

3) Lying: APD and liberalism. They both lie to get what they want.

4) Remorseless: APD and liberalism. Both parties do not care who they hurt as long as they get their way. This is a key to diagnosis. People with APD are the serial killers (not calling libs, serial killers, relax), the Casanovas that leave people penniless. They just don't care, period. They have no conscience.

5) Charm (superficial): APD and liberalism. Both are very smooth talking, a la Clinton. Even Carter had a charming little southern thing going. Obama is Joe Cool.

6) Rights of others: APD and Liberalism. Both parties do not respect the rights of others.

7) Aggressive, violence: APD and liberalism. While the liberals do not, as a society, promulgate violence, they do not hesitate to use it to achieve their goals. This is the same for APD.

8) Poor behavior control: APD and liberals have poor self control. This is witnessed, in the liberal, case as them trying to shout down any conversation they do not agree with.

9) Explosive anger: APD and liberalism. Just say "abortion is murder" or "welfare mother." See what happens.

10) Persistant irritability: APD and liberals. Aren't the libs always looking for an enemy? Big oil, big pharma, etc.

This is the tip of the iceberg.