The Psychosis of Freepers...

[lala_rawraw]

Let's have a really solid analysis of what the "Freeper" is, it might be fun or it might be constructive, who knows:). So in starting my little analysis I thought it would help to discuss them in terms of some of the below structures:

1). What type of socio-economic background
2). Motivation
3). Ethical Background
4). Emotional Type
5). Self-View
6). World View
(insert whatever you want here).

I have tried to make heads/tails out of who/what they are and then I finally concluded that like any cult recruit, they are deeply disturbed. Here is my shot at an analysis based on the 6 structures above:

They are usually white, middle-class, twenty-somethings. They were either picked on extensively at school or abused in some other way. They need to impress and have attention. They are driven by revenge and greed. They justify all of their actions by their own emotions, not in terms of "right/wrong." They are insecure and prone to tantrums. They are not usually highly intelligent, but are highly manipulative. They can compartmentalize very well. Their strongest emotion is hate, followed by fear of disapproval.

Yes, they are sick bastards. The only good thing is that in the end, they all end up like Atwater, begging for forgiveness on their deathbeds from the very preachers they bribed. Poetic irony.

What is your analysis of these soulless creatures?

[Iggytop]

1. Good start. ...

But we should let them rot whereever the be.

What would the psychosis a DU'er be??? Grouping everybody in to neat little groups can be a little crazy.

But freepers being repugs everything you said seems to fit :-)

[NMDemDist2]

2. twentysomething? nah, older I think n/t

[The Straight Story]

3. Hmmmm

They were either picked on extensively at school or abused in some other way

If they were the ones being picked on, and they make up 50% of the people casting votes, then does that make us the people who were picking on them? ;)

[lala_rawraw]

6. I don't mean

just teased... I mean teased extensively to the point of going postal... like Rove for example.

[randr]

4. Many seem to be suffering from some sort of

post traumatic childhood disorder.
Many of them were also hall monitors.

[Warpy]

5. I'm afraid a lot of Freepers are in that 34-49 year old cohort

Lots of them are also professional types, with B-school grads and lawyers heavily represented.

Don't dismiss them as kids. My guess is that the majority of them aren't kids.

However, they are semiliterate, hateful, and with a distorted world view.

[Clark2008]

48. They are in my age group, unfortunately

I think they're miffed that their parents had such a good time in the 60s, myself. And that their parents knew what a good time they had and sheltered poor Johnny and Janie Freeper to the point of madness.
Me? My parents didn't deter me - they just taught me right from wrong and trusted me.

[No Exit]

80. Oh, no, no, you guys...

Freepers' parents didn't have a good time in the 60's! Freepers' parents had a good time in the 40's! Trust me, a large number of freepers are 50+ years of age.

[zmdem]

7. On what basis do you draw your conclusions ?

By "Freepers" you of course mean members of the Free Republic website. Is demographic info made available on them on the website ? If not, where do you get your info ?

[ultraist]

22. Haven't you seen that site that lists IP addresses and demographics

of freepers? Some hacker did a big research project and posted all of the data including IP addresses on a website. It was called 'expose a freep' or something to that effect.

[brainshrub]

8. Read George Lakoff: Don't Think of an Elephant.

Conservatives have a "Strict Father" political worldview. This is a fear-based worldview where human freedom is perceived as a danger to the greater social order.

In the Strict Father model, the authority figure's role is to discipline the children by dispensing punishment. By imposing such punishment, the father teaches the child morality.

If the child succeeds financially in life, then the father is to back off because the child has mastered morality and good behavior. But, if the child does not succeed, the responsibility of the father is to impose even more punishment until the child learns how to be moral. (Poverty is the direct result of not being moral enough to obey the rules.)

Homosexuals, feminists, hedonists, artists and anyone who is happy without obeying the rules of the strict father, is an abomination to the social order. Such free-thinkers must be suppressed because they might motivate children to rebel against the father... and this would cause anarchy.

[zmdem]

11. If you want info on conservatives

I'd suggest reading their own literature. Reading a liberal's take on conservatism is sort of like reading Hume to understand Leibniz.

[brainshrub]

17. I've done that.

Before reading Lakoff, none of their material made sense. It was intellectually painful to read most conservative literature. I would only be able to finish 20 pages of a conservative book before putting it aside: It was like reading the rantings of a 12 year old.

Now that I'm beginning to understand the language behind the conservative mind, I am now able to delve into Strauss, Eliot and Coulter without wincing.

The most important thing to remember about the political conservative is that most of them come from a space of fear. In order to overcome the bulling nature of this fear, Progressives must learn to counter it with basic Liberal values: (Thank you Locke & Jefferson)

Personal Freedom
Empathy
Responsibility
Open Communication
Community
Opportunity
Trust

Once you get people out of their shells, they cease to follow conservative causes. Brave people are willing to take risks and allow for freedom of speech, press, assembly and religion. Fearful people will do everything they can to prevent such activities from happening.

Brave people do not vote for conservatives.

[zmdem]

18. Coulter ???

Forget the comic books. If you wish to understand conservatism, try the real junk. I'd suggest starting with long ago stuff, Edmund Burke, Constitution of the United States, and Federalist Papers.

[ultraist]

23. Zell: Since when have the conservatives had respect for the Constitution?

The Religious Reich doesn't hold that document up to be the most important when crafting our laws or protecting our civil liberties.


BTW, Zell Miller, the little rebel flag in your flag is really nifty! Did you choose that one because the actual rebel flag was not available?

[zmdem]

34. Regarding the constitution

It is generally regarded by liberal historians such as Charles Beard and Howard Zinn to be a conservative reaction to the Revolution, America's Thermidor if you will. I think there is some truth in that view, although I don't go for it whole hog.

The avatar I have is the state flag of Mississippi. It is one of those offered by DU. Prior to using it, I had a Union Jack. In the future I will probably pick something else. When I do, please be assured that I will be most anxious for your thoughts on my choice.

As to to the "actual rebel flag", I'm not sure which one you mean. As to which are offered by DU, that I also don't know.

[ultraist]

38. I'll be sure to comment on your new flag! :D

Conservatives are not what they used to be Zell. We are talking about Conservatives TODAY. Regardless, many historians consider the framers of the Constitution to be radical liberals.

[zmdem]

41. I think you misunstand conservatism

As the name implies, they tend to be tied to older things. In the Revolutionary period, Madison and Hamilton, the two key figures re: the constitution were defintely not the radicals of their day, in the sense you mean. Thomas Paine would be a much better fit, and to a (much) lesser extent Jefferson.

In any case modern liberalism has little to do with the ideas of Jefferson and Madison. Indeed, their thought is much more in conformance with modern conservatism.

[Clark2008]

55. How so?

Modern conservatism wants to imperialize and "spread" democracy like so much margarine. They also want to limit freedom of speech.

Jefferson would have winced.

[ultraist]

88. LOL! Agree!

I think he is confusing early concepts of conservativism with NEOCONS. Jefferson would be appalled.

[lala_rawraw]

66. A name is

Only a name... kind of like Pro-Life, when in fact it really means Pro-Pre Life ONLY or Republican, which would imply supporting a Roman type of gvt., such as a Republic, not the current state of affairs which is not a Republic (Rome) or a Democracy (Athens). A name does not reality make. Nice flag.

[tom_paine]

70. The customary Bait and Switch of the Bushevik

Are you aware that, since time immemmorial, conservatism vs. liberalism is a MOVING clash of ideals. Under those criteria, which are identical to Bushevik cookie-cutter Half-Truths we are all subject as part of Imperial State Propaganda CNNFAUXABCMSNBCAOLTIME, EVERYTHING Liberals ever did before 1975 is actually "conservatism".

I would laugh at the Orwelian insanity of such a comment, but as in Germany 1933, such Orwellian insanity is now Conevntional Wisdom or being shrieked at high volumes to pound the lie into people's minds, like selling soap.

Except the mental shackles f Orwellian Tyranny is what is REALLY being sold.

Let me illustrate:

When conservatives believed in Monarchy
liberals believed in self-government.

When conservatives believed and fought for Slavery
Liberals became Abolitionists and fought against Slavery.

When conservative were brutalizing and terrorizing African-Americans (and yes, conservatives called themselves Democrats, actually Dixiecrats, because they refused any allegiance to that Liberal Northern Government-expanded, Abe Lincoln)
Liberals fought against that and exposed themselves to danger to put a stop to Jim Crow (or at least to delay it and make it takle a new form under BushPutinism)

Washington and Jefferson both understood this. In the Old Free America, most schoolchildren knew this.

It is not surprising that yet another Orwellian, Soviet-style Bushevik Lie, has become so popular today.

Be proud, my Imperial Friend. You have successfully destroyed America so your Leaders can posess the ashes in the SAME Unchecked, Unbalanced fashion that lead the Founding Fathers, the Original Liberals, to oppose the conservative King Goerge.

Now, as conservatives often do, you wish to claim the achievements of Liberals for yourself. In fact, most humorous is the latest Bushevik push to rewrite the Jim Crow era, atrributing it to Democrats with mentioning the partes have switched roles in the South aroung the 1930s, culminating in Raygun's kicking off his campaign in 1980 in Philadelphia, Mississippi, which is known for ONE thing.

The willful murder of Liberal Democratic Civil Rights Workers.

I was too young to remember but what a wonderful code to the Southern Conservatives that the Party of Lincoln was now the Party of Lee, so it was OK to vote for it.

And most Imperial Subjects of Amerika are unable to resist the lies, and Free Americans cannot stop them.

[Cats Against Frist]

76. Thank you, Tom Paine, so very true

This post was necessary in this thread. It is the battle of time immemorial, including what we commonly see, at this time, as the classical/modern split.

Same philosophy, different faces -- one promoting God, Order, Arbitrary Classification of Social Status and calling it God & Order, cultural supremacism, racial supremacism, ruling class, ruling church, authoritarianism, slavery, imperialism, rigid aesthetic, destiny, patriarchy

and the other promoting cultural understanding, liberty, equality, secularism, modernity, freedom, rationality, egalitarianism, community, less rigid aesthetic, objectivity, science, efficacy, self-realization, government by and for the people.

Largely, that's what it boils down to, in various forms. It would be necessary to add, that many of these things overlap -- for instance, egalitarianism and authoritarianism are part of the socialist state, and Hitler was a right-winger with a welfare state.


And, except for a little sprinkling of postmodernism, which suggests, basically that EVERYTHING is subjective, that's all you need to know.

[brainshrub]

25. Coulter is a comic book, but is still important to read.

If anything to get a sense of the language they are using.

Burke is next. Promise. (I'm finishing The Leviathan by Hobbes.)

The Constitution is a Liberal document. VERY Liberal document... ain't nothing conservative there, especially when taken in the context of the time it was written. All of the founding fathers are what we would consider Liberals.
Do you really think a modern conservative would sign the constitution and Bill of Rights as-is?

As for the Federalist papers... also a Liberal document.

Look at the history of these documents. Look at who opposed the constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers. You'll note that it was the social & political conservatives of the time who fought tooth-and-nail against each one of these movements.

Just because TODAYS Republicans claim to like the constitution, does not mean that their philosophical ancestors thought it was a good idea.

[lala_rawraw]

33. Coulter

Is just a casting couch version of the latest pop tart. She is nothing more than the equivalent of a wannabe actress/porn star. Just the thought of her makes me vomit, so she is clearly a repellent of some sort. Perhaps to dissuade thinking people from watching Fox, that way they cannot call the likes of Bill O'Fracture on his crap. She might work for bug repellent as well; have to see if the Freeps will package her in a spray away version.

[Maraya1969]

62. I always get the feeling when watching her

that she used to be a man.

[Clark2008]

53. Dear, the Constitution and the Federalist papers were written by liberals

Brave souls who ventured out to stave off religious tyranny.
Tell me one thing in the Constitution that isn't progressive?
Freedom of the press, religion and speech? Nope, conservatives these days don't like that.
Freedom of person (14th Amendment)? Nope, by God, if yer gonna stop dem damn terraists, I give up ma freedoms. They don't like that either.

You really are making Southerners look uneducated here so.... STOP IT!

[lala_rawraw]

65. Strauss would be my

suggestion for a starting point on the new and improved version of Cons

[tom_paine]

69. The Difficulty is, Modern Amerikan Imperials are NOT "conservatives"

If I recall correctly, Burke never advocated Unquestioning Leader Worship, nor demonization of poltical enemies, to name two qualities of the Modern Bushevik, who is closer to the cartoon character Nazi in many ways (thnkfuilly not violence and overt racism...YET) than they are to the Americans in WWII who defeated the Nazis or the Founding Fathers.

THOSE philosophies are Totalitarian, NOT conservative. Rejecting government instrusion into our private lives, smaller government, and fiscal responsibility are ALL conservative values which the Imperials and most people who now laughingly call themselves 'conservative' reject each of those honest ideals.

Also, that's quite an Orwellian twist you lay on us, labelling the Constitution of the Old America as a Conservative Document.

Why, it is to laugh. Back in those days, conservatives staunchly supported the Monarchies and Aristocracies which the Constitution was written to prevent (the unchecked power of said conservative monarchies and aristocracies...).

Plus, MADISON, a Democratic Party Liberal who, along with Jefferson thrust back the Busheviks of his time (Adams and the original Federalists) to insure America would remain free, wrote much of the Federalist Papers.

The Constitution of the Old USA... a CONSERVATIVE document?

As audacious and insane as saying #1) Hitler was a Leftist, #2) Stalin a Rightist, or the #3) KKK a Liberal Organization

(and you ARE dying to say #1 AND #3, aren't you?)

Puh-leeze! Say, does this mean the Confederates were Liberals and that those Massachussetts Abolitionists were dyed-in-the-wool Comservatives?

:silly: :crazy: :silly:

One thing I have learned in dealing with Bushevik Totalitarians, is that once you reach a certain tipping point of madness, when up becomes down, the KKK become Liberal Democrats and Hitler was a Communist, it is too late for any nation, least of all Imperial Amerika, to halt the Fall into Totalitarian Darkness.

As it is now.

The Fuhrer and Party are always right, eh?

[Hardrada]

30. I've read Russell Kirk

As part of an intellectual journey. I also read a few of the authors he wrote about such as Irving Babbitt. Then I made the acquaintance of some contemporary conservatives and found almost no similarities. This sort of elite and literate silk stocking conservatism was charming in a way. It has no relevance to the PNAC crowd or the Christofascists who seem to be the mainsprings of a movement one can hardly describe as Burkean. Maybe readings in Nietzsche are possibly more relevant?

[KuTava]

102. He's right --

I'd hate to try to learn about progressive thought by reading National Review. It would be just as silly to learn about reactionary thought by reading a sane publication.

I once tried reading Mein Kampf. I hoped Adolf would spill the beans on why he hated Jews. I didn't believe his reasons. He said it was that they were responsible for Communism, which was brutal. Ahem.

But really, if you want to build a reliable profile of a group, you've got to use science. "They were picked on in school" -- who wasn't? Misremembering/making up other parts of a fictitious profile, "they feel a need to control" -- how is this measured?

White, male, twenty-something, this is measurable. Low intelligence -- measurable *if* you believe IQ scores, and you have them, and they were reliably reported.

[Bigmack]

13. I'm re-reading "Elephant"..

right now. I still have a hard time being as scholarly and detatched as Lakoff. He writes about how the Freep-types have to believe that there were WMD's and Saddam was responsible for 9-11 because of their "world view".

I've got two BA's including a major in Psych. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who believes in something demonstrated to be false is delusional. Part of me just translates "delusional" into "stupid".

Lakoff says we have to "reframe" the argument. Shit.. we say "pro-choice" and they hear "babykiller". How do we reframe anything for their deluded little pea-brains?

[brainshrub]

20. Fearful people believe irrational things.

Political conservatives are not stupid. They are scared.

Think back to when you were a child: Remember how POSITIVE you were that a monster was in your closet? It didn't matter how many times your parents showed you that there was no monster... you were convinced!

Conservatives are stuck in that same mode, and 9/11 confirmed their worst fears. What Bush has done is co-opt their world-view so that he can lie, steal and kill right in front of them... and they thank him for the privilege.

The key here is FEAR, not stupidity. Overcome their fear with being brave enough to challenge the bullies head-on.

This is the great failure of the modern Democratic Party: They have lost the will to stand up to the forces of fear.

[Kipepeo]

35. I don't know about that

My dad is really intelligent. He's an old school conservative, but he's also really big into loyalty and views politics in much the same way he views sports: he's always going to root for his team, he was born and will die a ________(insert sports team or political affiliation here).

Like I said, he's smart, and even though he's pissed at Bush's handling of the economy, he believes (or at least tries to convince himself) that there were WMDs, despite the evidence that there never were, or that at least Bush *thought* there were (which to me is his way of justifying a wrong) and that regardless, the Iraqis *wanted* us to bomb them into "freedom" (again, his way of justifying a wrong).

He believes these things because of the strict father ideology that Lackoff talks about, I think. In his family view and in his world view the father figure is right and good, so he can't fathom Bush lying to him or ripping him off or making a foul judgment. It is easier for him to skim over the facts and just have faith in Bush's position as President. Surely the President wouldn't lie to the country. Surely the President would make use of the best information. Surely the President knows what is right from wrong. If the facts don't fit the frame and if the mainstream media is (biased) in support of the President's frame then of course it is easy for him, even a smart man (far more intelligent than the President), to swallow the bullshit. Because the President and the Media say so.

[pamela]

9. I saw a group of freepers once.

They were protesting outside of the DC finale of the Vote For Change concert. There weren't very many of them and they were pretty much all white males in the age range eligible for military service. They were all ugly-either fat, bald pastey types or scrawny, pimply, oily-haired types. The crowd going into the concert was very diverse in age, race etc and overall a fairly attractive group of people. I almost felt sorry for the ugly freepers until I realized who they were. I thought they were grown-up Jerry's Kids or clients from the DCARC when I first saw them and I smiled at them because I'm always nice to retarded people. No one was paying any attention to them but I got the impression that they were used to that.

I couldn't even begin to analyze what makes them tick and I'm a psychologist. My best guess, based only on appearance, is that they rarely get laid, and when they do, they have to pay for it.

[ultraist]

28. LMAO pamela!!! LOL!

I drove past a small crowd of Repukes going into an Edwards event who were holding up "pro military, pro Bush" signs. They were all obese white women with Walmart clothes! LOL!

I slowed down, unrolled my window and shouted, "why did Bush cut VA benefits?" They came running towards my vehicle like a herd of elephants, and screamed back, red faced and snorting, something incoherent. Needless to say, I held up my Kerry Edwards sign, waved and drove off. LOL!

[lala_rawraw]

68. wooooooooooooooooooooo

:D

[Freedom_from_Chains]

10. Freepers are

People whom doctors have not yet found the correct combination of meds to help them.

[Nothing Without Hope]

12. What a good idea this is. Here are my random 1 AM musings.

Hate is clearly number one. I think there is also the childish pettiness of proving your power by pushing someone else around. Playground bullies grown so much worse rather than maturing. I would say also a very active fantasy life, feeling 10 feet tall and infinitely macho while sitting alone in front of their computer screen. And they LOVE the secrecy, that they can strike out against an "enemy" and then escape.

Intelligence is low, since they cannot think for themselves. They swallow what they have heard and use it as an excuse to exercise their brutality and obsession with sex and violence.

No compassion at all. Very shallow, reacting vindictively and pre-emptively.

Under it all, they have a low self-image and are trying to make themselves more important by assuring themselves they're on the "winning side" and attacking from the solitary, anonymous safety of their computer screen. It's all delusion and role playing, like taking the "barbarian warrior" role in some game and forgetting it's fiction.

They don't have a satisfying or hopeful real life. This is why they live through their delusional freeper life, where they see themselves as brave and bold. In fact, they have no social skills and have repressed huge amounts of rage and humiliation, usually from childhood on.

Sometimes they get together with other freepers to egg each other on and brag, but most of the time they are solitary. They have no idea of friendship or true conversation, no real interest in anything in the real world. They have replaced the real world, where they feel they are unfairly unappreciated, with a virtual world where they are daring attackers who should be feared.

They are most pathetic in their desperate hunger to evoke some kind of emotional response in other human beings. When they make us angry or disgusted, at least that's a response. To me this is actually very sad. If they had any true friends or happiness or hope in their life, any sense of whole spirituality, they would not be this desperate for a response.

By similar reasoning, they have no satisfying physical intimacy with anyone else. Someone with a happy, fulfilling intimate relationship would not waste their lives doing what these pathetic creeps do. They have better uses for their time and experience human closeness of all kinds. These freeper creeps, on the other hand, have nothing better to do because they have closed down their perceived world into this dark little solitary corner.

They are fearful and lonely in their self-imposed isolation. Their hate and enjoyment of violence comes from their fear.

They are rabid dogs--diseased, pathetic but ultimately dangerous and impossible to reach.

I feel sorry for them, but I will not tolerate them and I fear them in sufficient numbers. They cannot be reasoned with, for they are fully delusional. Just like the blivet** himself and too many of his supporters.

[ultraist]

14. We know they're mostly white male cult followers (Bush's flock)

http://surrealist.org/betrayalofthespirit/cult.html
Marcia Rudin's 14 Common Characteristics of a Cult

1. Members swear total allegiance to an all-powerful leader who they believe to be the Messiah.

2. Rational thought is discouraged or forbidden.

3. The cult's recruitment techniques are often deceptive.

4. The cult weakens the follower psychologically by making him or her depend upon the group to solve his or her problems.

5. The cults manipulate guilt to their advantage.

6. The cult leader makes all the career and life decision of the members.

7. Cults exist only for their own material survival and make false promises to work to improve society.

8. Cult members often work fulltime for the group for little or no pay.

9. Cult members are isolated from the outside world and any reality testing it could provide.

10. Cults are anti-woman, anti-child, and anti-family.

11. Cults are apocalyptic and believe themselves to be the remnant who will survive the soon-approaching end of the world.

12. Many cults follow an "ends justify the means" philosophy.

13. Cults, particularly in regard to their finances, are shrouded in secrecy.

14. There is frequently an aura of or potential for violence around cults.

[Cell Whitman]

19. They are certainly part of a political cult.

all the classical symptoms and they have them in large doses. Mind control only needs one or two techniques applied to make a difference.

Not their fault, least not the lowly freepers, they are just pawns. Their leaders know what is going down now. Conservatives have all had what amounts to mind control techniques used on them. They have turned their critical thinking over to others. Limbaugh, 3 hours a day, 5 days a week, for 15 years, ....Koresh didn't talk to his cult that much.

Info control, demonizing, deceit, a higher power being only on your side, protect the cult at all cost... the "we vs.them" thing is a classic cultic trait...

just made a short post about some of this - links that outline who they are...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=226&topic_id=977&mesg_id=978

[ultraist]

36. Excellent posts on that thread you linked Cell! Thanks

[lonestarnot]

82. I think you may have it... with the bully ideas in previous posts

I always think of them as sick followers with a propensity for extreme angry outbursts due to some suppressed childhood abuse. It is the extreme faith they put into the must have all supreme leader that is so impenetrable when trying to communicate with them here.

[Psephos]

15. Who needs data when we have the strength of conviction? :-)

I understand it's all in fun, so I won't go all furrowed-brow serious here...but it does raise some interesting points.

I'm saying this knowing I'll be up for some good-natured (I hope!) rib-poking, but here goes. I think that once humans identify an ingroup and an outgroup, members of the ingroup begin to really think the outgroup is made up of stupid, deranged, morally defective people. DU in this case is the ingroup, and freepers are the outgroup.

There's something inside me that dislikes stereotyping groups, whether they be racial, socioeconomic, religious, or political. Yet there's also something in me that makes me take it almost for granted that the typical freeper is, well, stupid, deranged, and morally defective. Yet, political affiliation does not have a high correlation with most psychological markers. In other words, IQ, personality distribution, prevalence of emotional disorders, etc., are apparently nearly identical among those of the left and those of the right. Among the "true believers" at the extreme left and the extreme right, there is a narrowing of the personality profile spread, but again, striking similarities. It seems that what you believe is less of a marker than how you believe. Shades of that famous Arthur Koestler essay, "The Yogi and the Commissar." (Which you should read if you haven't - it's brilliant.)

A thought experiment: change the word "freeper" in the original post to something like "blacks" or "gays," and tell me if the post seems any different from some of the racist or homophobic stuff you've seen.

OK, flame away. I can take it! :-)

[lala_rawraw]

27. I cannot agree with that I have to say...

I don’t believe in flaming. I believe in constructive discussion. That said, I find your argument flawed because it assumes that a “group” is somehow always based on a “collection of people” devoid of any other substantive background; as opposed to the difference between groups that are based on “traits” and those based on “behavior.” Your argument would state that Nazi’s, for example, should be accorded the same respect as minorities, which I vehemently disagree with. Freepers are defined and define themselves by their actions, which are malevolent to say the least. I am not equating all Republicans to Freepers, but all Freepers are indeed so defined because of their abhorrent actions. In fact the word is a pejorative because of the very actions of Freepers. I am not by the way equating freepers to Nazi’s. But to place gays or black or Jews, etc., in the same category would be the equivalent of making the argument that one’s sexual preference is akin to being a malevolent group. Not sure I fully understand why you would make the connection. So I do disagree very much and respectfully.

[Psephos]

43. Thanks for the thoughtful post.

I appreciate the spirit of discussion so much.

Naturally, I agree with you that there have to be common elements binding people into a group. However, my experience has been that these can be more arbitrary than we realize. I remember how people in my high school hated the people in the high school on the south side of town. Geography is a common group identifier.

For a more pointed example, do you think there is much difference between members of the L.A. gang the Crips and their rivals the Bloods? Yet I guarantee you that members of each gang think that members of the rival gang are despicable and deserving of violence.

Do you remember that old Sting song, "The Russians Love Their Children Too"? (From back when the USSR was still in business.) The point was that we often create a mental caricature of our enemies and forget they are far more like us than different from us. My rational side believes this is probably true of freepers, while my emotional side thinks it's essentially impossible. Which is right? I don't know.

Now I do have to part company with you regarding one thing. I don't think that avoiding prejudice is the same as of having to accord all groups equal respect. As you put it, it's wrong to give Nazis the same respect as minorities. But I wasn't talking about giving respect (a form of judgment) to all groups equally, only about avoiding sweeping generalizations. There's a difference between judgment and prejudice (or pre-judgment). We need judgment about good and bad groups, and we are right to condemn bad behavior.

The problem arises when we tar all members of a group with the same brush. Let me again illustrate with an example. Have you ever heard of John Rabe? He was a Nazi businessman in Nanking during the time of the Japanese invasion in the 1930s that led to the infamous Rape of Nanking. The Japanese killed hundreds of thousands of Chinese in the most horrible ways, but Rabe figured out a way to save a quarter million more, almost single-handedly. (Check out the book The Good Man of Nanking to read more about this forgotten Schindler.)

Even when we prejudge Nazis we may make a big mistake. Perhaps this is also true of our political opponents.

My guess is the freepers love their children, too. I've been thinking about this for awhile. There's too much hatred between the left and the right, and I think at least some of it is due to the instinctual human need to bond to the ingroup and loathe the outgroup. Maybe this can be transcended. I am going to hold my nose and work to figure out ways to remember the things we have in common with our opponents (as well as our differences), with the thought that when the national polity resembles the Bloods and the Crips, everyone loses.

Peace.

[gumby]

31. Your thought experiment has a fatal flaw.

"Freepers" are only one sub-set of the religious/political fundamentalist fascist cult that has taken over this country. This cult, in it's various forms now control every aspect of our country. There are NO checks and balances.

"Blacks" or "Gays" could only dream of such power. Given the axiom of absolute power being the absolute corrupter, it seems to me that if Blacks and Gays ruled this country it would be a lot more colorful and joyful than the death, destruction and world domination by any means possible blood cult of the freeper/fascists that now rule the world.

[Corgigal]

16. I tend to think of them as 40 something

white males who are hard working but very frustrated. They are over extended on the mortgage and the wife/family likes to use the credit card. The harder they work the less they are able to move up. They believe in the American dream. They believe if they work harder they will move up to a higher class. They believe they were born "right" and born to rule.

They are not living their life up to their expectation so they need some other group to blame for it. They will vote to keep others down because they believe their kind will be safer. They are fearful and are suspicious of anything that is not similar to the their way of life.

They are very possessive of women. Daughters and wife must behave in a "presentable" fashion. Honor is more important then thought.
They love passionately and hate with the same intensity.

[Pam-Moby]

21. I believe that they are

mental midgets who can be steered where ever they need be as is a herd a cattle.

[lala_rawraw]

29. I want a cool icon like everyone has...

WHEREEEEEEEEEE can I get one too? I feel so excluded:( Where do you guys get yours?

[cosmicdot]

37. go to 'Options'

along the top of the page

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php

then, to 'Edit your Profile'

next, 'Avatar Image'

see instructions there

[lonestarnot]

84. I also thank you ... have been posting here for months but never bothered

to look this up.

[checks-n-balances]

24. Biggest thing is that reeper types are IGNORANT/UNINFORMED

I have a feeling that many of them were OK people at one time, but something went terribly wrong. Someone or something appealed to their anger, fear, and their selfish side. They are propaganda believers, and there has been so much demonization of middle-to-left thinking people that they must feel threatened at every turn. There's so much garbage and so many lies out there that they listen to, and they are manipulated and exploited by the very people they trust.

As I understand it, many "normal" people in Nazi Germany trusted that their government was telling them the truth, but what they heard was demonization and equating other to vermin, etc.

We've all heard conversations between Limbaugh and his dittoheads, who are clearly led by their emotionsl and visceral responses. Not much rational thought going on there so, in our personal dealings with them, we would be wise to steer clear of their vitriol and vindictiveness!

[Wapsie B]

26. In a word, FEAR.

Fear of viewpoints that challenge the status quo, fear of those terrible poor people who'll take all of their tax money, fear of looking at a future where whites will no longer be in the majority.
They need an evil empire to rail against. They remember God's wrath but not God's love.

[jdots]

32. Remember when you go there they are showing off

To maintain identity,it is alot about needing a clear picture and getting answers to belive in.

[ultraist]

39. List the first ten words that come to mind when you think: FREEPER

Hateful
Violent
Cult followers
Religious zealots
Fearful
Conformists
Oppressors
Patriarchial
Domineering
Racist/Sexist/Homophobic

Ok, more than ten.

[No Exit]

91. Opinionated, opinionated,

opinionated, opinionated, opinionated, opinionated, opinionated, opinionated, opinionated, and "Just like the people in Green Acres".

Aw, shoot, I went over the 10-word limit. Oh, well! :)

[Freedom_from_Chains]

40. But seriously

Having spent some time haranguing with the freepers, in an attempt to gain a better understanding of the fundamentalist mindset, I have formed some general conclusions concerning their makeup.

1 They tend to be middle age white males

2 Most likely raised in small to mid sized towns which provided no interaction with people of other races or cultures during their formative years, except for blacks whom they are taught from birth are inferior to themselves. However, after completing their education they relocate to larger cities where they experience difficulty in adjusting to interacting and competing with those from other races and cultures.

3 Most likely raised in fundamentalist Christian churches.

4 Taught from birth they must believe in the Christian god or that they will be condemned to hell for all eternity.

5 Tend to have incomes, which place them right in the middle of the middle class. They have too high of incomes to be classified as poor but not enough income to be considered as being of wealth. Conservatism holds for them the promise of someday being able to make the leap to the class of wealth from which their incessant allegiance to conservatism comes.

6 Many have college degrees and most have some post-secondary education although most of their education and occupations tend to lean towards activities that are grounding in concrete thinking.

7 Do not relate well to abstract or esoteric thinking.

8 Predominantly think in simply binary terms, from which their worldview is formed. Sees reality as a series of simple either or propositions and consistently fail to see anything in between the two extremes, which of course is where most of reality exists.

9 Sees themselves as freethinkers although the reality is that they are largely followers.

10 Most likely employed in technical positions or lower level management positions, which allows for little opportunity to feel in control of their own destiny.

11 Majority are married but probably have domineering wives which further exacerbates their feeling of not being in control.

12 Have a psychotic hatred of Bill Clinton for being able to get a blowjob in the oval office. This most likely arises because Clinton was able to rise to a position of power, which many young women find attractive, and since most know they will never attain such a position they must confront the fact that most likely they will never be able to accomplish the same. This is further exacerbated by the fact that the “moral values” of their Christian wives prevent them from ever getting a blowjob from them; they then must face the reality that a blow job is not in their future unless they buy a hooker.

13 Most are too cheep to buy a hooker.

These are just a few of my perceptions of freepers off the top of my head but if it wasn’t so late I ‘m sure I could come up with many more.

[Kipepeo]

44. Holy cripes, your list is spot on

especially 7, 8 and 9.

Though I don't think #12 is quite so right. I don't think they hate him for getting the bj. I think they hate him because they disliked him intensely from the start (because he was a popular Democrat and in their binary terms democrats = their mortal enemies) and they grew to HATE him because the blow-job story didn't bring him down or diminish his popularity. In other words - they hated him because the public found out about the blow-job but it didn't really matter in the end. They hate him because he survived.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

45. Yeah but that was just the part that rubbed it in.

[Kipepeo]

51. But I think about their reactions to such a story

were it to happen with Dubya, and I don't think they would react the same way. Because they idolize him and they would protect his privacy (I think) and lambast those who tried to make it an issue as pornographers and nutcases out to sully a good man.

Welcome to DU, btw!

:toast:

[ultraist]

47. Excellent synopsis of your observations freedom_from_ chains

That sounds like the profile of many of my neighbors. Average white middle class types who are obssesed with controlling others' behavior. There are 5 engineers on my street all hold Masters degrees and none of them are able to think abstractly. They are socially retarded and endulge in low brow culture. They are oblivious to the fact that social ills such as poverty and racism exist in our society and feel no sense of social responsibility.

They are very rigid in their thinking and their lifestyle. Their wives are very stepford like. And ALL of them are avid church goers. They think we are sinners because we do not attend church and had Kerry-Edwards signs and bumper stickers. LOL!!!

We have only three Democrat families on our street (we live on a cul-de-sac). A professional lesbian couple, a lesbian vet, and US! You can imagine the discourse at the block BBQs & neighborly gatherings, most of which I do not attend.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

49. I feel your pain

I live in a middle class neighboorhood in a state that is so conservative it was the first to be called for Bush on election night. The polls closed at 7:00 pm and NBC called it at 7:01 LOL

[Negatron]

42. My take on the questions

1). What type of socio-economic background

Any, although there is some tendency toward the working class. The truly rich Republicans who control the party are the exception in terms of numbers. The bulk of the party consists of hard-working individuals who were raised with the (somewhat unreliable) belief that success comes through effort, and have adopted the (false) belief that Democrats are not just as hard-working as themselves. Although Republicans are not generally less educated than Democrats in terms of formal degrees, it seems that the actual quality of their education tends to be lower, with many seeing no intellectual problem with denying major portions of science.

2). Motivation

Primarily economic self-interest (money) and religious values. Even those Republicans who are not strongly religious in a conscious sense generally tend to favor traditional religious "values," such as the Puritan work ethic, anti-homosexuality, etc. This stems from an upbringing which was either openly religious or subconsciously so. The combination of "me first" economic attitudes and conservative, paternalistic moral values is well-suited to consumerist capitalism, allowing Republicans some "common sense" credibility in their claims that their way "really works."

3). Ethical Background

Generally derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition. God is the author of ethics and morals, as revealed through the Christian Bible. Apart from God, there are no standards for human behavior, so there is a feeling that a lack of religious belief equates to a lack of morality. Although Christ allegedly has moral authority, in practice, paternalistic and violent Old Testament teachings are combined with an agressive "prosperity" interpretation of the Gospels which stresses capitalist values. Conservative church groups with definite political overtones shape most ethical and moral discourse. Elements of the Bible and the message of Christ which are inconvenient to consumerist capitalism are downplayed or ignored.

4). Emotional Type

The overall tendency is toward emotional immaturity. Although there is some veneer of civilization, it is nonetheless acceptable to solve social and interpersonal problems through intimidation, force, and violence. War is a viable option when conflict between cultures arises, and to oppose war at such times is seen as a sign of cowardice or treason. Economic attitudes follow a similar pattern. The competitive element of capitalism is heavily stressed. "Success" is about "beating the rat race" or "clawing one's way to the top." Behind a thin layer of perfunctory co-operation, it is essentially "every man for himself." Emotional reactions to problems encountered should not show obvious weakness, but anger and vengeance are appropriate responses, as these can be helpful in fostering the indispensible "us vs them" mentality.

5). Self-View

In keeping with religious underpinnings, this is generally negative at its core. All are born in sin. However, this is compensated for with healthy doses of arrogance and self-congratulation. Guilt over a feeling of inferiority or a sense of original sin is assuaged with affirmations of superiority. "We are patriots, we are contributors, we are the decent folk," etc. The underlying sense of guilt, shame, and recrimination is further alleviated by projecting the offensive attributes onto "the others," who are always the opponents of Republican values. Therefore, "the others" are weak, cowardly, immoral, unfaithful, etc.

6). World View

The world is an imperfect and essentially flawed place where one has to fight more or less continuously against his fellows in order to "make it." God's kingdom is perfect and loving, but man is fallen, and has brought this condition upon himself. The only way to solve this problem is to return to "Godly" values as outlined by the Bible and the Church, but there are many evil people who will oppose this. Material wealth is a sign of God's favor and should not be shunned. The poor are not favored by God are therefore not worthy of help. Clearly, those who "succeed" are worth more in God's eyes. If this were not so, what is the theological purpose of hell? For the Republican, this worldview is consistent with the facts as religious and political traditions of the world reveal them. Democrats are at best foolish and misled, and at worst willfully evil people who seek to destroy traditional American values, lead good people into sin, reward failure, punish success, and undermine the "benevolent" authority of God and Country.

So, there you have it. That is what's really in their heads, all joking aside.

[lala_rawraw]

67. Love this

I see them much the same way, maybe a bit younger... they have to start off as College Republicans and then be converted to the Rove way of doing things, graduating to Freeper land.

[alittlelark]

46. My take on 'em

). What type of socio-economic background
Varied
2). Motivation
Fear
3). Ethical Background
n/a
4). Emotional Type
fear-based form of many themes (narcissistic, paranoid, o/c.....)
5). Self-View
Little voice inside says "inferior, unclean, unworthy"
6). World View
Counters Self-view w/ grandiose sense of superiority and morality.


(insert whatever you want here).

The 4-5 I know are unhappy, and have always been unhappy (even the ones w/$).....Divorces, estrangements from siblings and children, the inability to keep a SO....

It is actually a sad pathos that does not occur in countries that are highly developed/educated. Check Finland for example.

[ultraist]

50. LMAO!!! Very good.

littelark, well done! I thought "Ethnic background n/a and 5). Self-View Little voice inside says "inferior, unclean, unworthy" particularly accurate and FUNNY!

LOL!

[alittlelark]

56. Thank You !!!

But it was 'Ethical background' w/ the n/a. Either will do it seems....sigh...

[Clark2008]

52. OK.. here goes mine

1). What type of socio-economic background - Well-off children of former hippies. People who knew what a damn good time they had and absolutely refused to let their children do it.
2). Motivation - Power. They aren't as well-off as their parents were at the same age. OR, they're MUCH better off and are stickin' it to the parents who wouldn't let them have any fun.
3). Ethical Background - The Christian Right, not the right Christians.
4). Emotional Type - Anti-social, pre-socio-pathic.
5). Self-View - I suck, but if I point the finger at someone else who sucks worse, no one will notice.
6). World View - World? There's a world outside of the United States?

[gumby]

57. "former hippies"?

There were not enough demographic "former hippies" in the entire world to spawn the freeper/fundamentalists we see in the good ole USA today. Geeze!!

[Clark2008]

58. OK.. maybe I should just say

Children of the 60s.
My parents were hippies and I just tend to think that everyone of that age group was pretty cool back then, as compared with today. LOL!

[gumby]

60. It seems to me that "hippies" was a MSM meme.

"Hippies" were a small demographic of the Baby Boom, or "60's generation."

It also seems to me that the "historical" information of that time has been purposely deionized to fit a "conservative" version of "history."

The big bugga-boo is that MOST people in this country came to oppose the Vietnam war. That's where the "hippie generation" came into the popular vernacular as a scapegoat that was against US imperialism of that era.

That was an easier time. Just look at how dissidents against the current imperialism are being treated. You can now be transported to a "terrorist camp" without Constitutional protections.... all on the whim of the Chimp In Chief.

"Hippies" are a fond MYTH of the past.

[EST]

64. If you happen to get your hands on any old issues of

Mad Magazine from that era, you can get a wonderful education. The freepers were the construction workers (and other hard hat individuals) as well as cops and most of the military. Sexual harassment was rampant, although way under reported compared to now. Hard hat gangs beating up on hippies (hate crimes) were far too common and the unconscious assumption (and too often conscious) was that my group, my church, my race, my language, and my country were the best of all and the best in history. Those attitudes are now most common in the US government, and there appears to be no chance of any open mindedness showing up.
It appears to me that all those attitudes with about the same number of participants on all sides are still in full swing with, perhaps, a few name changes here and there. Freepers =rednecks, etc.

Apparently it is simply a facet of human nature that approximately half of the population tend to worship their own lack of polish, fear, hatred, ignorance, racism and so on and choose to elevate those diseases to the top of their particular totem pole as honorable and deserving of respect. (proud to be a redneck)

A very noticeable common thread seems to permeate all of those at FR, neocons, and conservatives (none of them seem to have read the dictionary definition of conservative) which is "Proud to be an Amurikkkan"-as though they had anything at all to do with it, rather than just the accident of birth.

[alittlelark]

59. Their parents are NOT former hippies if they

didn't let them have any fun.

[Kipepeo]

54. I don't think they are overwhelmingly young

I think many are in their 30s and 40s.

Also, I don't think they were all extensively picked on in school. I think a lot of them were the very popular kids who graduated and now live what they view to be a shitty life....and they reminisce about the good ole' days in the 11th grade and wonder why they are constantly shat upon now and figure it must be because of women, gays, blacks, muslims, arabs, jews, etc. because that is what the republican party tells them to some extent.

I think many have a sense of entitlement unfullfilled but are are somehow incapable of realizing that supporting things like unions and health care and higher the minimum wage would help their own predicament in some way. They feel shat upon, but that same sense of entitlement keeps them from empathizing with others who are shat upon because they feel they are *really* a part of the ruling class and something has just gone terribly wrong, usually because of (insert minority group here). They feel like a rich kid who got switched at birth and if only they could convince their rich-ass parents that *they* are the true heir and it was all a horrible mistake!

[Maraya1969]

61. Not sure this is quite the answer you are looking for but

the men's haircuts are short with not one hair out of place. They have no facial hair.

The women always wear dresses below their knees with big flowers on them. They use a lot of hair spray.

I heard that in jails the most horrible child molesters are the ones who end up as "born again Christians". I think the right winged base is in the lock ups. You don't see many convicts converting to Judaism. The Christians need to drum up new recruits and what a better place than jails.

They also go after the drug addicts. There are plenty of Christian based "Recovery centers". I doubt they have long term success rates because their religion is just another form of addiction.

[lonestarnot]

85. Think you may be mistaken about conversion to Judaism in jail...kosher

diet requires better food...state or fed has to provide according to this need therefore lots of shisksas convert.

[Piperay]

63. OK, my take...

1). What type of socio-economic background...lower middle class, loser types who feel they are being squeezed out by educated minorities and women.
2). Motivation...they can only get ahead by keeping others down and only be happy when others are unhappy.
3). Ethical Background...white Eastern European
4). Emotional Type...full of rage
5). Self-View...they look on themselves as total victims, they are the victims of women, minorities and liberals who are 'giving' everything to women and minorities.
6). World View...USA is the greatest country on the face of the Earth, is perfect and EVERY other country hates USA cause of that.

[Rebel_blogger]

71. I know I'm going to get flamed hard for this ...

but I'm amazed at how judgemental this entire thread is. From the comments many people have posted, how can you call yourselves "progressive", "compassionate", "intelligent", and "educated"? You've been generalizing about a group of people you know nothing about. Isn't that what we're supposed to be against? Isn't that what we feel that the right-wingers do where minorities and gays are concerned? I'm amazed at the pretensiouness of this thread.

[Lautremont]

74. The people here know an awful lot about this particular group.

They keep popping up here, for example, and many DU folk are curious enough about them to occasionally don hip waders and peek into their hideous cyberworld. This thread is the result of a good deal of study and some genuinely serious thinking on the matter.

It's also a way of blowing off steam - better (or at least more progressive, tolerant, intelligent and educated; or in a word, liberal) to mock them than to shoot at them or run them over or something. The freepers have done most of the work to turn themselves into cartoons, anyway.

[Piperay]

75. I know some of these people in real-life

infact some of them are relatives so I know from personal experience that lots of what is on this thread is how they really are.

[ultraist]

89. How do you know we know nothing about this?

There is a lot of data and research out there on the type of people that vote for Bush.

Not to mention, some of us live near freeper types and have made our own observations.

Furthermore, talking about demographics is not the same as what right wingers do; they seek to oppress the rights of gays and minorities. We are not advocating that anyone's rights should be oppressed.

YET AGAIN Rebel boy defends the Repukes!

[No Exit]

93. Hee hee... you said "judgemental"

That's a word used a lot when people go on freerepublic to heckle THEM. And when people go on there to do this, they always spell it with that extra "e", even though it's been 30 years since the spelling of that word was officially changed to "judgmental".

Coincidentally, lots of freepers can't spell either.

[Maestro]

103. I know plenty about them

I live all around them. I don't see any pretensiouness or at least not any more than any daily thread at Freakville.

[kiraboo]

72. Today's repuke is not the republican of the past.

At times I get the feeling we are exchanging demographics! But I was raised in a republican household by kind, thoughtful, extremely well and broadly read parents, whose parents were also republicans w/money but not necessarily the education. That being said, neither of my parents voted for Bush this time around, believing he has nothing to do with true conservatism. I genuinely believe that what my father, for example, considers to be conservatism is the same thing democrats are fighting for right now. Dad never felt that being a republican should prevent him from (illegally!) taking produce or services in lieu of a fee when he provided medical services for patients who could not pay. I was raised to believe being a republican was not the most terrible thing in the world. But I'm changing my mind.

[lonestarnot]

87. Money...funny you should mention money...Money begets power...another

characteristic of freeps, either after money, hoarding money, living for money, stealing someone elses money, gettin' da money...money money money

[kiraboo]

101. Well, I wouldn't have mentioned it if I didn't believe

that it has something to do with my family's republicanism. What I thought was interesting this past election was that in my neighborhood (middle-upper - upper) there were significantly more kerry signs and supporters than bush signs and supporters, while a few blocks down in a working-class area, virtually every house had a Bush sign up. Like I said, there appears to be some change in party demographics, at least in our area.

[Bouncy Ball]

73. There's an almost COMPLETE lack of critical thinking

that's the number one common denominator. That and a horrific lack of empathy for anyone other than themselves.

You can find these people in almost every walk of life, by the way.

They aren't all "rednecks." My own family would easily have been characterized as "rednecks" but we always vote Dem and we think for ourselves (did I just repeat myself? LOL!).

[Cats Against Frist]

77. I think Freepers are a lot more diverse than we're giving them credit for

For one thing, socioeconomic status, I believe, is impossible to pin down. Freepers can be rich, upper middle class, middle class, poor, and the downtrodden of the downtrodden.

And this thread has basically assumed that all freepers are men. This is not true -- there are quite a few female freepers out there.

In addition, I really hate to say this, but some freepers can actually be cool. The bulk, hell no. But some, for sure.

Here, however, is what I believe that they most likely have in common -- most of them being latent psychological traits, and tendencies for totalitarian thought.

First, let me define what version of "freeper" I'm using to make this argument:

Freeper: One who may or may not frequent Free Republic, worships at the altar of Bush, supports movement conservatism, unquestionably, and is not just stupid or apathetic, but is fiercely proud of being a "freeper." More often than not gets political information from right-wing pundits.

Also what I'm NOT considering to be a freeper is an IMPORTANT distinction. There are three categories: the devoutly non-political religious, the elite (Bushes, Kristols, opinion-makers, etc.), and the relatively clueless, i.e. a person who may OUTWARDLY STEREOTYPICALLY appear freeperish (giant truck, NASCAR, country music) and may vote Republican, but does so out of complete cluelessness or family tradition, as OPPOSED to ideological reasons.

1. Fear of the Other -- Freepers are suspicious. As a keen observer above noticed, I think it would be accurate to say that freepers are generally less broadly socialized in terms of other cultures, but, again, this is not always the case. I think many freepers who are well-traveled most likely stayed at the Sandals, and away from the "native" contingent. They were most likely, as an above poster stated, rural, or non-integrated as children, and may or may not have to deal with more minorities and women in positions of power, as time has passed. This category also includes nationalism, and all types of egocentricity.

2. Sense of patriarchal superiority -- both women and men freepers, would, I think, tend to believe this, though it may be more in theory than practice. Subliminally, it could also be one of those things where the male feels powerless, in the face of a dominant female. It might be joked about like "oh she always get what she wants," but, I think deep down, in both situations, in the end, they both may feel that the male is "technically" supposed to be superior, which leads them to be freepers for different reasons. Typically, the female might relish in powermongering over the group that is "supposed" to be superior, and the male may really feel like a giant pussy, inside, creating anger or low self-esteem.

3. Strict adherence to typical sex roles -- this differs from the above, because although the woman in the relationship may actually be more dominant, at the same time, she most likely displays femininity that is expected of her social and age group. For instance: Short or mid-length hair, often curled or permed, cosmetics, "matching" clothes and outfits, (no, I'm not joking about this), shaving, perfuming, cooking, certain tidiness, and decorating the home with mass-produced trinkets, factory furniture and faux wood floors. The male, most likely, is excused for treating women like sex objects and does it unabashedly, is into either tools, sports, Internet porn, racing, hunting, gun collecting, business or investing, and often in engineering, science, medicine, law (as a person above observed -- they do posses baccalaureates, and many do have advanced degrees).

With the above paragraph, I know you will be tempted to automatically view the "Midwestern" freeper caricature, but notice that it IS open and include upper class urbanites, as well as xurbians. Believe me, being rich does NOT make you have good taste. I have a multi-millionaire aunt and uncle who decorate their house strictly in country couches and blonde wood from your factory furniture store.

4. Consumer individual family home, whether in tact, or distributed, as primary means of identity -- Both Engels and Benjamin (and probably many others, but this is what I've read recently) that the individual family home is a reaction to the industrial revolution. In the United States, the consumer individual family home includes the following: House, Car, Truck, Garage, Camper, Clean and Functioning Modern Appliances (a/v, oven, micro, washer/dryer, AC, Lawn Mower), National Branding in Clothes and Other Consumer Goods (GAP, Glad, Pillsbury, etc.). If the family splits up, this model is most likely carried over into the new filial arrangement. Note: this does not always mean that the accouterments have to be PERFECT or NEW -- many would live in a time capsule from a particular decade.

* I want to say that many Democrats, probably most, fit this profile, but short of a few survivalists and the very rural poor, I believe most of the rank-and-file freepers would fit in this category.

5. In other words, Cultural Homogenization and Television and National Brand Consciousness -- which is much like the above "fear of the other" in terms of diversity. These people are AMERICANS. This is why they take sushi and espresso so damn personally. They have a distinct view of the culture of America, to the point of delusion, almost, and very limited experience with countercultures or subcultures. I think this is telling, because it allows them to create a "typical" liberal out of many alternative cultures that they find threatening -- for instance a gay militant feminist who drinks espresso, makes vegan sushi and has had like ten abortions (from the days before she "chose" to be gay, who wears egg-head glasses, is whacked-out on LSD, doesn't shave her legs, drives a Volvo and pays for it all with her welfare check.

* again, these things apply to rank-and-file democrats, as well, but not necessarily to the bulk of liberals. My mother is a democrat, and is intimidated by espresso.

6. Fear of Powerlessness, feelings of powerlessness -- someone mentioned above that a freeper might as easily be someone who was popular, as a kid, as someone who was kicked around. I tend to agree, and at whatever state the person consciously assesses to be his or her efficacy, strength, popularity, internal locus of control, the freeper either wants MORE, or is very fearful of losing what power he or she has. I would say most likely, though, freepers would display an external locus of control, which would contradict their "rugged individualism." It is this claim that, if freepers are reading this, would probably most rile them, of the bunch -- however, there are two things that are making me make this claim:

a. The average, rank-and-file freeper, most likely IS human capital and an economic pawn, which means that literally they are being controlled from the outside. With the neocons in charge, whose philosophy LARGELY relies on controlling this very freeper, this is doubly true.

and

b. People who truly feel they have efficacy, individual choice and strength do not need liberal, female, ethnic or religious scapegoats. Freepers have a tendency to scapegoat.

7. The Totalitarian Brain -- the brain of the freeper is mostly a coin -- one side painted black, one white -- and I'm not making this up -- several studies, including one out of Berkeley have assessed the conservative personality as having more of a tendency toward totalitarianism than liberals (though liberals can most certainly be totalitarian).

This is key, because it is this "coin," through the use of false dilemma, appeals to emotion, ad populum and other logical fallacies, that the propaganda masters of the right have been so successful in interjecting false binaries into the brains of freepers.

We call them -- "near delusional." This is no accident. Besides heavy reliance on mysticism and superstition (as we'll discuss below), freepers tend to have a very warped view of "reality*." They are more susceptible to framing, manipulation of their emotions, as well as to SENTIMENTALITY, particularly jingoistic, mythic portrayals of the origins of the U.S., or militaristic sentimentality.

Some freepers are very smart. It doesn't mean shit. You can be brilliant and be a fucking freeper, depending on what information to which you've been exposed. Values, perceptions of self-worth, emotional maturity, sense of entitlement -- as someone suggested above -- these aren't tied to intelligence, or mechanical aptitude. There's no reason, say, a brilliant physicist can't know what he or she knows about the universe and come to the conclusion that whites are superior and that the universe is intricately ordered, and believe a "prime mover" is responsible -- like that guy that just died, and chickened out on his deathbed, and said he believed in God.

Even if you are a good critical thinker in some areas, particularly those in which you are TRAINED, it doesn't make you a superior thinker in all others. Same with the fact that people who have no formal education can be quite wise.

I have the misfortune of having poetry and politics as two of my degrees in which I was formally trained. The "everyman," seems to think he is competent to do both with no practice or training (in fact, democracy RESTS upon this idea). In my humble opinion, most voters are like a loaded gun in the voting booth -- but that's another story.

And yet, you can also be, say an AEI fellow, with double doctorates and still fall victim to totalitarianism, authoritarianism, right-wing statist, imperialist thinking.

It's something different -- something separate -- a totalitarian tendency. How this gets started, I'm not exactly sure. I think there are a lot of factors, but I'm getting tired of typing.

8. Superstition or mysticism -- back to this "external locus of control" thing -- believes that human are acted upon by mystical actors -- God, Horseshoes, Ladders what have you. Religion, sorry to say, is like the ladder gone warp speed. Instead of just having to avoid walking under it, you have to confess and not eat shellfish and stone your nasty daughters, adopt a submissive posture for living (not that most Christians do), tithe, and watch scuzzy diamond miners pray on television, and bother people with your superstitions, and then you might reap some reward in the afterlife. Most freepers are superstitious. Friedman made this cool, after Ayn Rand, an atheist, tried to fuck it up for the Church of Mammon, by claiming that mysticism had no place in a rational society.

I would say that most freepers are superstitious -- and are in deep with Mammon Jesus operations. When I read their profiles, the less sane sounding ones, almost inevitably, will have some kind of WHACKED OUT profile page with some WHACKO psychotic prayer that makes Zappa lyrics look as sane as a Dick & Jane tome.

That's where I'm going to stop. In short, my list of freep psych is as follows:

1. Fear of the Other (Including Nationalism & Cultural Supremacy)
2. Patriarchal Superiority
3. Strict Adherence to Sex Roles
4. Individual Consumer Family Home as Identity
5. Cultural Homogenization and Television and National Brand Consciousness
6. Fear of Powerlessness, Feelings of Powerlessness
7. The Totalitarian Brain
8. Superstition and Mysticism

*reality is subjective. Also note that many of the above things fit into a typical "classical sense of order."

[otohara]

78. Cool?

Wrong - you can't be cool if you vote to amend the constitution to reject the civil rights of a large group of American's.

That's just not cool and although they may act cool and think they are cool - they aren't cool.

When one votes republican, they vote for a host of very hateful and greedy policies.

[Cats Against Frist]

81. Superficial Cool -- and maybe you're right

Rather than keeping a clear picture in my head of the "freeper" at that moment, I was really thinking of a different kind of Republican -- and the one that's more clueless, rather than the one who wholeheartedly embraces the dark side.

[ultraist]

92. Great 8 points Cats for frist!

As far as remarks about income, I think people are referring to the data on demographics of Repukes that show the majority of those in the upper middle class and upper income vote Repuke. The majority of lower income vote Democrat. This of course doesn't mean there are not a lot of Repukes in the lower income brackets. It is a generalization but talking demographics does require some generalizations.

[Grey Ranks]

79. Right now, on the freerepublic.com…

… there is a thread with about 80 post. People are talking about how crazy the those libs are. With their Clintons, and their freedom hatin’, and their smokin’ the grass and hating Jesus and love of the Gay man and his Man wife.

Those soulless demon worshipping libs an dems.

[Cats Against Frist]

83. Can you link it?

I'd be interested to hear what they had to say. I'd be interested in what they'd say after reading my assessment too. See, "typical commie lib," wouldn't work. I'm a libertarian.

[Grey Ranks]

86. It was a joke

I was trying to point out, sarcastically, that this thread is something that they would discuss too. And, that they most likely say the same things about us as we say about them.

I guess I failed, sorry.

[No Exit]

94. Just pick almost any of their threads...

and you'll always find a obligatory put-downs of "liberals".

I found your list very interesting and true; I think the most central of all the freeper characteristics you named is the "either/or" viewpoint. That is, the coin that is black on one side and white on the other. These people actively resist any middle ground. They don't like middle ground. They HATE to be uncertain what they think about something! I think uncertainty gives them anxiety, and that causes them pain, so to alleviate the pain, they feel compelled to take a side on EVERY issue, be it political or otherwise.

As someone up the thread said, fear drives them. Or, maybe not so much fear, but anxiety.

You know how Bush always "stays the course", even when almost the entire country is against what he is doing? I think the freepers like that. Because the certainty they get from watching Bush always "stay the course" is worth more to them than the possibility that Bush might actually come up with a correct course of action. It's almost like they don't care what he does, as long as he's firm and unbending about it. Certainty (even certainty of doom) is the cure for anxiety.

[Grey Ranks]

96. Good Point

I think that is really human. I see the same thing on the left though. I have been aware that fear is a factor, but I have never been able to state it so concisely as you No Exit. For that I thank you, you have made my time here worthwhile.

Something I have been thinking about a lot lately is responsibility. Or lack there of, a lot of people seem to do things because then they don’t take responsibility for it. A person may dismiss terrorists as godless. Freeing them of the responsibility that as American they are partial responsible for terrorists in the first place.

My question now is, how we as leaders of America stop people from being afraid? How do we get people to stand up and take responsibility?

[No Exit]

98. Actually, I think our leaders WANT people to be afraid.

Scared people are so easy to control!

I think the worst enemy of rational thinking is blind allegiance to a leader. I have voted republican for president many times. I even voted for Junior in 2000. But then he went too far. I realized I couldn't follow him, even though his followers had so many viewpoints in common with me.

His followers will not listen to any criticism of him whatsoever. They also refuse to believe that a former republican supporter could suddenly find Bush to be so evil, so corrupt, so destructive, that the person couldn't support him any more. Well, whether they believe it or not, it's true. I know, b/c it happened to me.

[Grey Ranks]

99. I meant us

I do not argue that Bush wants people to be afriad.

I meant us, you and I. The people on DU. The people in the democratic party. How do we as leaders get people to accept responsibility?

[No Exit]

100. Well, I guess we should "delegate"!

First, a leader must listen to the people he leads. (Bush does not do this--at least, I can't see where he listens to anyone.) A leader must also protect the people he leads. (Bush doesn't do this... instead, he exposes the people to being killed in Iraq/Afganistan, plots to starve them in their old age, robs them of an honest vote, etc.) The protection from the leader will give confidence to the "led". The leader will then, in turn, be protected by the "led". At this point, he can comfortably delegate some responsibility to them.

One way to NOT get people to accept responsibility would be to force them to steer part of their wages into the highly crooked, changeable stock market. All this would do is make them poor.

[No Exit]

90. Well, let's take one of the premier

freepers. No, I won't give her name, b/c I don't want to get in trouble. But this woman is one of the most diehard freepers. She is known on every spin-off forum from freerepublic, as well. (How do I know this? Because I used to post there... okay, euthanize me, I woke up in early 2003, realizing that Bush was the worst thing to happen to this country in at least 100 years.)

She is in the range of 50-60 years old. Probably closer to 60. She worked in court reporting. Never is a mention made of her husband, though she does have at least one grown child living. (She's probably divorced.)

I don't think her self-view is very favorable. But she is very dedicated to Bush (barf, gag), even to the point of regularly visiting the site's "Bush worship" threads. (Those are threads whose sole purpose is to generate semi-faux female adoration for Bush--much like "bobby-soxers" were paid to congregate around Frank Sinatra.)

This woman comes in with the accuracy of the Texas Book Depository sniper whenever anyone seems to express "liberal" views. She then proceeds to chew up said poster and spit them out. When there are no "liberals" around to chew on, she turns on the other freepers. (Hilarious to watch.)

Has no other life besides Freerepublic. Looks: bad. (Have you ever looked at the photos of freeper gatherings? Whoa--"old stout people world".)

Far more numerous on freerepublic is a certain type of 50+ white or American Indian male. This type is the "males are persecuted" type. You've seen them. They love to talk endlessly about the details of various firearms, they are fairly handy around the house, but often have no wife to assist with said handiness, b/c said wife left them due to something like their drinking, or their domineering personality, or because the IRS was about to seize the family home, or because he "wouldn't let her work" outside the home. Many of these guys are also involved in some sort of dispute with the government over either taxes, or land, or both. Many of them are Vietnam vets. All of them are highly opinionated. None of them can consistently correctly spell multi-syllable words in the English language.

There are also a number of Mormons on freerepublic. Many of them seem to be genuinely kind people, but the way they live (as described by them) makes it sound like they can barely make ends meet. The Mormons seem to be used to following orders from "above", without question, so freerepublic seems to them like a natural environment.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

95. The Devil went down to Georgia...literally.

[SkyIsGrey]

97. If you change...

They were either picked on extensively at school or abused in some other way.

To

They picked on others extensively, or were abusive in some other way.

You just descibed an out of contol, three year old child.