You can’t win if you fight “science.” After the Second World War, the intellectuals belonging to the Frankfurt school and other post-Bolshevik leftist groups, who were identifying as liberals, developed the strategy of using Freudian psychoanalysis, which they touted as infallible science, to disarm their political opponents.
They created the image of a normal personality-type which was of a prototypical liberal—and they started using words like “deranged,” “racist,” “infantile,” “fascist,” “neurotic,” “nazi,” and “warmonger” to denounce those whose opinions did not fit the liberal personality-type. You had to be a liberal in order to be regarded as “normal”—if you were a conservative or an independent thinker, then you faced the risk of being branded as “abnormal.” Since this branding was being done in the name of science, it was incontestable.
In the twenty-first century, this supposedly Freudian but essentially liberal method of analyzing and depicting personality-types has become the widely accepted norm in the intellectual establishment (the mainstream media, academia, and the arts and entertainment industry). Those who reject the liberal view on the hot-button issues—global warming, climate change, sexism, minority rights, feminism, multiculturalism, economic policy, foreign policy—are routinely depicted as “abnormal” in the newspapers, magazines, books, TV news, movies, and serials.
The call is often made that the “abnormal” personality-types should be tarred and feathered, and driven out of the media, academia, the arts and entertainment industry, and most importantly politics. Having been inundated with such opinions from a variety of intellectual resources since the 1950s, the masses are convinced that the liberal way is the only way of being “normal.”