The analogy I have for understanding how to analyze the mind of liberalism starts with the idea of "skynet" from the Terminator series. When people think of this science-fiction fantasy (and it is, and always will be fantasy) they typically can reason fairly well and logically about the paradigm without insisting on certain biases to protect themselves from such a reality. This is because we instinctively know it's just a fantasy and do not withhold logic from reaching its inevitability. (Note, logic does not necessitate that something is real or an event is real.) However, when we think of a human mindset, we typically project our own conscience onto the human idea and block it from continuing in its trajectory. We think there are limitations to barbarity because we, ourselves, would be morally shocked. We think morality would preclude barbarism, because we may believe all people have a deep down sense of morality. This, however, begs the question, So what?

It may be argued humans have a sense of right and wrong programmed into their conscience. This, however, is not a buffer against what humans are capable of doing that is contrary to this sense when they are convinced otherwise and believe what they're doing is right. I know this is probably commonly agreed upon, and obvious (Hitler, Stalin, Mao), but it needs to be stated. Now, with liberalism, what makes this something to really consider well is their embracing of a morality based on the relative position of a materialistic human experience (which moves towards anti-monotheism), and their reliance on a group consensus to determine what is right and wrong. That "group" is not a human, and therefore, has no innate inner conscience. It is not organic, nor living. It is a concept that can be manipulated, and that manipulation is half the key to all of this. They will obey the group think, and in this, there is warranted speculation to how they rank individual rights, based on their adherence to this groupthink-based morality.

Now, going back to the Skynet analogy, what makes us so fearful of such a creation? Why don't we assume Skynet would also evolve a conscience and heart like us, and be sympathetic? The question to ask here is, without assuming anything about your projections of the conscience at the center of a human is, what's the difference between a computer program with the functioning capability of a human brain, and a human that rejects that there is a God? Flesh and blood is the difference. And what is this, but dust. There is nothing inherently moral about flesh and blood alone. So, ask yourself, what does the liberal believe, and what is the goal? Do they not believe we are too many on this earth, that we are destroying it? Also, as sort of a tangent towards the psychology of the liberal, whereas this so far has been speaking of pathos, what is their character. This is also necessary to ask, because if you were dealing with an atheist who has always been just to you, you could very well dismiss this all, based on that character appraisal.

When you take it all together, you will find something that is very dangerous lurking at the door right now. We all see it building and losing it's human mind as it trades off for a collectivist agenda on all fronts. Do not be fooled that the seeming physically weak disposition of liberals is something to hedge on.