And then this is enough to make any poor trick-or-treater scared witless:
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Monday, October 30, 2006
HOW TO MAKE SURE YOU WIN AN ELECTION EVEN IF YOU LOSE ***Updated***
UPDATE 10/31/06 6:44am: In case you thought I was kidding, here are today's batch of headlines supporting the Democratic election storyline:
CNN - Poll: Stumping Not Helping Bush Popularity
NYT - Democrats Are Seen to Gain in State Races
AP - Voters Are Challenged in NY Race (those evil Republicand are already cheating even before the election!)
AP - Poll: Webb leads Allen in Va. race and Polls: Menendez leads Kean in N.J. race (AP)
NYT - A G.O.P. Leader and Star Struggles for Traction
Also, can anyone doubt that, if the story I linked to yesterday in this post "Dying to Vote", (which brought in the angry trolls even though I was being tongue in cheek) had data showing that by a 4 to 1 margin dead Republicans cast more votes than dead Democrats, that the headline of the article would have screamed that fact?
It's happening and anyone who is paying attention should be able to see it. The media have been spinning it for weeks now.
We have seen headline after headline proclaiming that the Republicans are in trouble and while there is some truth to this assertion, I am bored to death at hearing the media's broken record. Every day there is a new take on it; a new perspective we might not have thought about. A new poll proclaiming it every day and everywhere across the land. 24/7. We are innundated with stories about how everyone is deserting the Republican ship; how the Democrats are finally and justifiably poised to take back control; how the chances of maintaining a Republican majority are nil; zero; absolutely impossible.
The polls say so.
Democratic strategists say so.
The New York Times and The Washington Post say so. CNN says so. All the major networks say so. They say it every day, so they must be very very sure. which is pretty amazing don't you think, particularly since the election hasn't been held yet?
Pundits on the left proclaim that there is no way the Democrats can lose....
Except....except....
And this is where things get interesting for a psychiatrist. Because, if the red flag wasn't already waving in a psychiatrist's brain after such a sustained and straightfoward manipulation of one's opinion (ever heard of the saying that makes a person suspicious when someone dost protest a little bit too much?); then the next part of this little dance of manipulation would not be so sinister. Not only are the flags waving, but the alarm bells are going off.
The exception that the political left wants to make sure all of you retards out there are perfectly clear about is this: They want you to think that the only way the Republicans could keep their majority; the only way the Democrats would not "sweep" and take over in the 2006 midterm elections next week is...wait for it...if the Republicans cheated.
The first meme was simply annoying. The giddy self-congratulations; the constant reaffirmations by this and that poll, dutifully reported in the Democratic propaganda outlets at the Times and Post. The never-ending dissection of the public's obvious dissatisfaction with all things Bush and Republican.
Basically, I could just ignore such stupidity; particularly since I don't believe in polls, except of course for the actual election itself, which is the ONLY POLL THAT EVER MATTERS--at least in a democracy.
But now we have the second meme emerging just in time to swamp the MSM with all the allegations of future voter fraud. Here are three points:
1. We have been hearing repeatedly about how electronic voting machines can be manipulated. Now magically, days before the election, several videos have been released that show the testimony of some computer "expert" testifying before a Congressional Committee about how this could have been done in Ohio in 2004. And you know how he knows this? He knows it because the actual result of the election did not conform to the Exit Polls.
You got that? The Exit Polls are now to be regarded as more accurate than the actual election. Can anyone out there tell me the number of ways that Exit Polls might be able to be manipulated? I can think of several hundred, and not one of the manipulations would be "by changing the source code" (as the hired gun says in the video). All you'd have to do is get a few deranged leftists to interview the right (excuse me, the left) people for the accusations to start flying.
2. Then we have the demon-possessed people like Kos, who has helpfully set up a "voting fraud clearinghouse" in anticipation of all the Republican cheating.
3. Of course, there is the mandatory manipulation of Google, so that searches for "election fraud" helpfully have at the top of the page articles that assert that the 2004 election was "stolen"-- all of them notable leftist sites.
Folks, what we are witnessing is a coordinated attempt on the part of people who not only are not content to let the process of democracy unfold, but who intend to make sure that it unfolds in the proper way...or else. I am sure that the lawyers and rioters are standing by, awaiting instructions to make their moves in case things need to helped along in the correct direction.
I don't know about you, but I can't stand to be manipulated this way. I am good at recognizing it because I have worked with Borderlines, Narcissists, and Sociopaths for the last 30 years of my life in my profession. But never have I seen such a crazed and coordinated effort to make sure a particular political side wins the election, even if they lose. Because, all that will matter is their allegations of fraud. Truth will be ablsolutely irrelevant. History will be absolutely irrelevant. The left's documented election fraud in elections gone by will be conveniently forgotten, never to be mentioned--either this week before the midterms; or after the Kos Kidz make up their list of Republican evils.
No one will remember that in Wisconsin, there was documented fraud committed by the Democrats that was sufficient to throw that state to Kerry by a margin by less than the margin Bush won in Ohio. There was no outrage then about the Democrats duplicity. There will be little outrage this time around.
But let me tell you something about this clever little manipulation. You have heard me use the term psychological projection quite a bit on this blog. It is a very useful defense mechanism, especially for people who like to think of themselves as morally and intellectually superior to the rest of us mortals (as all the Cluster B personality types tend to do). This wonderful defense enable the people who use it to remain psychologically pure as they project their own deceitful intentions and despicable behavior onto someone else. You can think of it as "the best defense is a good offense".
John Fund, author a new book, Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy, released today from Encounter Books writes:
You see, both sides commit fraud and cheat. But what is so despicable and distasteful about the today's Democrats and the lunatic left that currently controls them is that they do it because they deeply and passionately believe they know what is best for this country. They do it because they are so much smarter, and know what's best for the all the rest of us. Whether we like it or not.
In fact, they do it because in their heart of hearts--deep down in the place they don't want to look at too closely-- they, themselves, are the worse kind of totalitarian/fascist thugs; but they have managed to delude themselves into believing that their virtuous and laudatory ends justify the use of any means on their part.
And, if they can't win honestly and fairly, they would just as soon drive this country into the ground if they must. But please, don't question their patriotism. They mean well.
CNN - Poll: Stumping Not Helping Bush Popularity
NYT - Democrats Are Seen to Gain in State Races
AP - Voters Are Challenged in NY Race (those evil Republicand are already cheating even before the election!)
AP - Poll: Webb leads Allen in Va. race and Polls: Menendez leads Kean in N.J. race (AP)
NYT - A G.O.P. Leader and Star Struggles for Traction
Also, can anyone doubt that, if the story I linked to yesterday in this post "Dying to Vote", (which brought in the angry trolls even though I was being tongue in cheek) had data showing that by a 4 to 1 margin dead Republicans cast more votes than dead Democrats, that the headline of the article would have screamed that fact?
It's happening and anyone who is paying attention should be able to see it. The media have been spinning it for weeks now.
We have seen headline after headline proclaiming that the Republicans are in trouble and while there is some truth to this assertion, I am bored to death at hearing the media's broken record. Every day there is a new take on it; a new perspective we might not have thought about. A new poll proclaiming it every day and everywhere across the land. 24/7. We are innundated with stories about how everyone is deserting the Republican ship; how the Democrats are finally and justifiably poised to take back control; how the chances of maintaining a Republican majority are nil; zero; absolutely impossible.
The polls say so.
Democratic strategists say so.
The New York Times and The Washington Post say so. CNN says so. All the major networks say so. They say it every day, so they must be very very sure. which is pretty amazing don't you think, particularly since the election hasn't been held yet?
Pundits on the left proclaim that there is no way the Democrats can lose....
Except....except....
And this is where things get interesting for a psychiatrist. Because, if the red flag wasn't already waving in a psychiatrist's brain after such a sustained and straightfoward manipulation of one's opinion (ever heard of the saying that makes a person suspicious when someone dost protest a little bit too much?); then the next part of this little dance of manipulation would not be so sinister. Not only are the flags waving, but the alarm bells are going off.
The exception that the political left wants to make sure all of you retards out there are perfectly clear about is this: They want you to think that the only way the Republicans could keep their majority; the only way the Democrats would not "sweep" and take over in the 2006 midterm elections next week is...wait for it...if the Republicans cheated.
The first meme was simply annoying. The giddy self-congratulations; the constant reaffirmations by this and that poll, dutifully reported in the Democratic propaganda outlets at the Times and Post. The never-ending dissection of the public's obvious dissatisfaction with all things Bush and Republican.
Basically, I could just ignore such stupidity; particularly since I don't believe in polls, except of course for the actual election itself, which is the ONLY POLL THAT EVER MATTERS--at least in a democracy.
But now we have the second meme emerging just in time to swamp the MSM with all the allegations of future voter fraud. Here are three points:
1. We have been hearing repeatedly about how electronic voting machines can be manipulated. Now magically, days before the election, several videos have been released that show the testimony of some computer "expert" testifying before a Congressional Committee about how this could have been done in Ohio in 2004. And you know how he knows this? He knows it because the actual result of the election did not conform to the Exit Polls.
You got that? The Exit Polls are now to be regarded as more accurate than the actual election. Can anyone out there tell me the number of ways that Exit Polls might be able to be manipulated? I can think of several hundred, and not one of the manipulations would be "by changing the source code" (as the hired gun says in the video). All you'd have to do is get a few deranged leftists to interview the right (excuse me, the left) people for the accusations to start flying.
2. Then we have the demon-possessed people like Kos, who has helpfully set up a "voting fraud clearinghouse" in anticipation of all the Republican cheating.
3. Of course, there is the mandatory manipulation of Google, so that searches for "election fraud" helpfully have at the top of the page articles that assert that the 2004 election was "stolen"-- all of them notable leftist sites.
Folks, what we are witnessing is a coordinated attempt on the part of people who not only are not content to let the process of democracy unfold, but who intend to make sure that it unfolds in the proper way...or else. I am sure that the lawyers and rioters are standing by, awaiting instructions to make their moves in case things need to helped along in the correct direction.
I don't know about you, but I can't stand to be manipulated this way. I am good at recognizing it because I have worked with Borderlines, Narcissists, and Sociopaths for the last 30 years of my life in my profession. But never have I seen such a crazed and coordinated effort to make sure a particular political side wins the election, even if they lose. Because, all that will matter is their allegations of fraud. Truth will be ablsolutely irrelevant. History will be absolutely irrelevant. The left's documented election fraud in elections gone by will be conveniently forgotten, never to be mentioned--either this week before the midterms; or after the Kos Kidz make up their list of Republican evils.
No one will remember that in Wisconsin, there was documented fraud committed by the Democrats that was sufficient to throw that state to Kerry by a margin by less than the margin Bush won in Ohio. There was no outrage then about the Democrats duplicity. There will be little outrage this time around.
But let me tell you something about this clever little manipulation. You have heard me use the term psychological projection quite a bit on this blog. It is a very useful defense mechanism, especially for people who like to think of themselves as morally and intellectually superior to the rest of us mortals (as all the Cluster B personality types tend to do). This wonderful defense enable the people who use it to remain psychologically pure as they project their own deceitful intentions and despicable behavior onto someone else. You can think of it as "the best defense is a good offense".
John Fund, author a new book, Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy, released today from Encounter Books writes:
A note about partisanship: Since Democrats figure prominently in the vast majority of examples of election fraud described in Stealing Elections, some readers will jump to the conclusion that this is a one-sided attack on a single party. I do not believe Republicans are inherently more virtuous or honest than anyone else in politics, and I myself often vote Libertarian or independent. Voter fraud occurs in both Republican strongholds such as Kentucky hollows and Democratic bastions such as New Orleans. When Republicans operated political machines such as Philadelphia's Meehan dynasty up until 1951 or the patronage mill pf Nassau County, New York, until the 1990s, they were fully capable of bending — and breaking — the rules. Earl Mazo, the journalist who exhaustively documented the election fraud in Richard Daley's Chicago that may have handed Illinois to John F. Kennedy in the photo-finish 1960 election, says there was also "definitely fraud" in downstate Republican counties "but they didn't have the votes to counterbalance Chicago."
While they have not had the control of local and administrative offices necessary to tilt the rules improperly in their favor, Republicans have at times been guilty of intimidation tactics designed to discourage voting. In the 1980s, the Republican National Committee hired off-duty policemen to monitor polling places in New Jersey and Louisiana in the neighborhoods of minority voters, until the outcry forced them to sign a consent decree forswearing all such "ballot security" programs in the future.
In their book Dirty Little Secrets, Larry Sabato and co-author Glenn Simpson of the Wall Street Journal noted another factor in why Republican election fraud is less common. Republican base voters are middle-class and not easily induced to commit fraud, while "the pool of people who appear to be available and more vulnerable to an invitation to participate in vote fraud tend to lean Democratic." Some liberal activists that Sabato and Simpson interviewed even partly justified fraudulent electoral behavior on the grounds that because the poor and dispossessed have so little political clout, "extraordinary measures (for example, stretching the absentee ballot or registration rules) are required to compensate." Paul Herrison, director of the Center for American Politics at the University of Maryland, agrees that "most incidents of wide-scale voter fraud reportedly occur in inner cities, which are largely populated by minority groups."
Democrats are far more skilled at encouraging poor people — who need money — to participate in shady vote-buying schemes. "I had no choice. I was hungry that day," Thomas Felder told the Miami Herald in explaining why he illegally voted in a mayoral election. "You wanted the money, you were told who to vote for." Sometimes it's not just food that vote stealers are hungry for. A former Democratic congressman gave me this explanation of why voting irregularities more often crop up in his party's back yard: "When many Republicans lose an election, they go back into what they call the private sector. When many Democrats lose an election, they lose power and money. They need to eat, and people will do an awful lot in order to eat."
You see, both sides commit fraud and cheat. But what is so despicable and distasteful about the today's Democrats and the lunatic left that currently controls them is that they do it because they deeply and passionately believe they know what is best for this country. They do it because they are so much smarter, and know what's best for the all the rest of us. Whether we like it or not.
In fact, they do it because in their heart of hearts--deep down in the place they don't want to look at too closely-- they, themselves, are the worse kind of totalitarian/fascist thugs; but they have managed to delude themselves into believing that their virtuous and laudatory ends justify the use of any means on their part.
And, if they can't win honestly and fairly, they would just as soon drive this country into the ground if they must. But please, don't question their patriotism. They mean well.
FIDEL OF THE DEAD
All Day I Dream About Socialism. Well, not me...Fidel. He's likely worried about what's going to happen in his worker's paradise when he's no longer around. Supposedly he has made an appearance to dispel rumors of his death in what the Babalu Blog calls a "Bionic Tracksuit". 
Or maybe he's just another zombie? Fidel of the Dead. It fits.
Or maybe he's just another zombie? Fidel of the Dead. It fits.
IT'S A MAD MAD MAD MAD WORLD...That Has The BBC In It
Honestly, the BBC is just looking out for the interests of all the oppressed people of the world! You know that. Hence the following exchange between one of the BBC "embeds" with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Yes, you read that correctly..."The BBC's David Loyn has had exclusive access to Taleban forces mobilised against British forces in Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan" (hat tip: Tim Blair):
Or, how about this:
I suppose one is not allowed to question Loyn's patriotism, or even his committment to..errr freedom, democracy, human rights etc. etc. I wonder what his political persuasion is--but, of course, that's not relevant when you are talking about objective journalism like his and the BBC's.
Read the entire piece to understand what a bunch of good and admirable people (misunderstood, clearly) we are fighting in Afghanistan. I'm sure it will make your day.
Q: Do the Taleban foresee a time when they will lay down their arms and stop fighting? What is their objective and can they see a time when there will be peace?Edward McCarthy, Edinburgh, UK
'Islam' means 'the way of peace'. That is their dream. But it may not be achievable in any normal human context, Edward. Rather like the dreams of communism the struggle may be as important as the result. They were very surprised that when they brought relative security to most of the country in 1996 the international community did not congratulate them.
Or, how about this:
Q: Do you think that the Taleban will win the war? Can Afghanistan really become a democratic country with the help of the West?
Ramon Garway, Monrovia, Liberia I am short of a perfect crystal ball, Ramon. The Taleban were under-rated by everybody in the late 90s but they took most of the country. As it stands the war is unwinnable for Nato. Afghans say the West has had five years to install a functioning democracy and Afghanistan is still waiting. (emphasis mine)
I suppose one is not allowed to question Loyn's patriotism, or even his committment to..errr freedom, democracy, human rights etc. etc. I wonder what his political persuasion is--but, of course, that's not relevant when you are talking about objective journalism like his and the BBC's.
Read the entire piece to understand what a bunch of good and admirable people (misunderstood, clearly) we are fighting in Afghanistan. I'm sure it will make your day.
DYING TO VOTE
And here is the data to prove it. Then there's the real shocker:
Or, it is just possible that there are a lot more zombies originating in the Democratic Party.... that would account for the discrepancy, I suppose.
Perhaps they are the oversampled Democrats that show up in all the polls these days.
Democrats who cast votes after they died outnumbered Republicans by more than 4 to 1. The reason: Most of them came from Democrat-dominated New York City, where the higher population produced more matches.Of course, the dead are simply one more special interest group whose rights are being trampled on by Bush et al.
Or, it is just possible that there are a lot more zombies originating in the Democratic Party.... that would account for the discrepancy, I suppose.
Perhaps they are the oversampled Democrats that show up in all the polls these days.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
PROBLEMS WITH BLOGGER
So, what else is new? I'm having difficulty posting and don't know if this will get through or not. It took over an hour to get the Carnival posted below.
I'll keep trying....
I'll keep trying....
CARNIVAL OF THE INSANITIES
Time for the weekly insanity update, where the insane, the bizarre, the ridiculous, and the completely absurd are highlighted for all to see! This has been a week of rare idiocy (as always!). So, if you want to remain sane, the best thing is to poke some fun at the more egregious absurdities.Send all entries for next week's carnival to Dr. Sanity by 8 pm ET on Saturday for Sunday's Carnival. Only one post entry weekly per blogger, please. And you might read this before submitting an entry.
Thanks for all the submissions. I try to use as many as possible! SO MANY INSANITIES! SO LITTLE TIME!!!
1. Hey! The mufti might be on to something! What kind of creatures stalk and attack uncovered meat, after all? Sheik, sheik, sheik...sheik your booty. Case in point.
2. Men like sex?? How odd. They look at women? How bizarre.
3. "Our minds are exquisitely tuned to detect sexual opportunity - especially when it is invisible"--oh yeah, especially then. How about this quiz: Quiz: Match the porn with the politician who wrote it.
4. Everything has its price. Now we know what a major university is worth. Not much.
5. Little
6. It was mean to kill Nazis? Now they tell us!
7. The "If At First You Don't Succeed" school of global climate change theory. Shields up! Red Alert! Planetary Emergency....Captain Gore to the Bridge immediately! (The bridge to the 20th century perhaps?)
8. Out of bounds?? Remember whose set the ground rules on this playing field. But Rush is a recovering drug addict, so that makes him a member of an equivalent victims group, doesn't it? (it's in the ground rules for that playing field, I think)
9. It's probably best to avoid all bosses if you can.... But some can flourish in a worker's paradise if they have the right boss.
10. The D.C. (Dixie Chicks) gulag archipelago. They play like a cheap violin for sure.
11. Actually, Rush is a harmless, lovable little fuzzball of gay! (In the GOP some would like to see, anyway!) Let's face it, though, Republicans are just plain evil. But at least they don't use ellipses to delete 213 days!
12. The Islamic Rage Boys - just another boy band n'sync with the backstreet jihad.... Then there's the violent protester for...peace! He must be their opening act.
13. The NYT blames Israel for a lack of Palestinian moderation.... so, is anyone surprised at this?
14. 5000 years of Middle East history in 90 seconds!
15. Metalloids depose noble gasses in bloodless revolution. A Cu de Ta, perhaps ?
16. Unserious about terror indeed.
17. Paris causes Japanese tourists to go insane. Really
18. Wine tasting robots? Doesn't that miss the point?
19. Affordable health care on every corner. Doc-in-the-box, to be precise.
20. Grumpy women in the morning. When she died was she on time?
21. Slut-o-ween?
Happy Halloween, Everyone!
Carnival of the Insanities can also be found at The Truth Laid Bear's ÜberCarnival and at the BlogCarnival.
***************************************
If you would like to Join the insanity, and add the Carnival of the Insanities button to your sidebar (clicking on it will always take you to the latest update of the Carnival), click on "Word of Blog" below the button to obtain the html code:
Saturday, October 28, 2006
REALLY MOST SINCERELY DEAD ?
This sounds like good news for the world:
Imagine, if you will, the amount of brainwashing or willful blindness--not to mention the degree of sociopathic selflessness--that an individual would have to possess to consider this psychopathic tyrant a "hero". It gives nuance to meaning to the word delusional.
We have been down this road before, though. Soon, bells will ring announcing that this last of the old-school Latin-American communist thugs (as opposed to the new school being run by Chavez) is not only merely dead, he's really most sincerely dead
Last Wednesday, Cuban dictator Fidel Castro may have slipped into a coma.
On Saturday, his sycophant, Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez, flew into Havana (scroll down), possibly to bid a final farewell to his Cuban master. And Brazil’s President Lula da Silva made a slip of the tongue last weekend, saying ‘when Castro was alive…’ forgetting no one had announced that The Beast was dead. Meanwhile, Otto Reich reports that news agencies are getting visits from Castroite government functionaries regarding coming funeral arrangements, including seating, best camera angles, visas, how-tos ahead the coming spectacle…where guerrillas, tyrants, and Sandalista suckups will gather in one horrible place to mourn their hero.
Imagine, if you will, the amount of brainwashing or willful blindness--not to mention the degree of sociopathic selflessness--that an individual would have to possess to consider this psychopathic tyrant a "hero". It gives nuance to meaning to the word delusional.
We have been down this road before, though. Soon, bells will ring announcing that this last of the old-school Latin-American communist thugs (as opposed to the new school being run by Chavez) is not only merely dead, he's really most sincerely dead
A GLIMPSE OF TRUTH FROM THE PARANOID PALESTINIANS
This article says it all about the dysfunction of the Palestinian people, but probably not in the way the authors intended:
The insights offered at best reflect only a flickering, almost ghostlike wisp of truth and insight; a tiny crack of light penetrating the paranoia and dysfunction that enshrouds the Palestinians like an opaque black burqa.
Only emotionally healthy people could have a genuine--or meaningful-- "Honesty and Reconciliation Conference". Neither honesty nor reconciliation is possible as long as the essential core of the Palestinians is characterized by psychological projection, denial and distortion: blaming the despised Jews for their own dysfunction; blaming Israel for the beast that they themselves have loosed.
In this regard, the cult of Palestinian victimhood is emblematic of the distorted reality of almost all the the followers of Islam in the Middle East. Palestinians are the poster children who represent all the dsyfunctional and warped political regimes that have sprung up pledging allegiance to Allah, killing and destroying in his name. Where Allah is worshiped these days, the paranoia and projection; the denial and distortion are the everyday necessities of life, required to explain the pervasive backwardness, the poverty, the intellectual and moral wasting that afflicts most of the worshippers.
Modern Islam is like a carnival funhouse mirror that distorts and deceives those who gaze into it, exaggerating what is reflected back so that those who blissfully gaze within and contemplate their own virtue are unable to see the beasts they have become.
Victor Davis Hanson wrote recently:
Siggy in commenting on the latest insane pronouncement of yet another Islamic religious leader, starkly points out how the mufti has all unwittingly explained to us the essential nature of his religion and the people who follow it--because, what kind of creature attacks "uncovered meat" after all?
For the Palestinians to hold a conference on honesty and reconciliation; or to rally around the concepts of "love and understanding" would be similar to schizophrenic patients holding a conference on the treatment of psychosis, when they are off their medication.
And, make no mistake, despite the brief glimpses of truth that poke through occasionally in this article, it is still littered with evidence of the same unwillingness to take responsibility; the same paranoia and projection; the same dysfunctional victimhood--that have become the hallmarks of the Palestinian poster children, as well as many other adherents of today's Islam.
Why should the authors be surprised that Palestinian leaders are deceitful, oppressive and violent? Why should they be surprised that the culture of destruction and death that was crafted to externalize the Palestinians' own psychopathology would, in the end, consume those who created it in the first place?
Left to their own devices; walled away from the object of their delusions, that psychopathology must turn against its owner. That is the nature of the beast. The critical mistake the authors make is in thinking that that the beast's essence can change without addressing the psychopathology that funcamentally created and motivates it.
The authors say:
Oh yes, they love that beast when it can be projected outward--onto the Jews, or America, or the West. When they can attribute their own unacknowledged bestiality onto others; when they can pretend to be the victims of the beast's aggression instead of the originators.
But once the paranoid beast is unleashed, "love, dialogue, and mutual understanding" wither away. The beast will find "uncovered meat"--and souls--to devour and it cannot be contained by "formulas" that ignore the reality of its origin. Hamas will kill Fatah; Fatah will kill Hamas; Palestinians will kill Palestinians--because that is the nature of the beast.
Love and understanding can only thrive when the beast within is acknowledged as one's own; and then chained and civilized. If you let it loose, free to spread its rabid hatred--i.e., your own rabid hatred--just so you can see yourself in that carnival mirror as the heroic victim of another's aggression, then it will always be there to turn on you; to devour and rip you to pieces when it cannot get fresh meat any other way.
"The motive behind the Fatah and Hamas leaders in these miserable moments is the chauvinistic, overbearing thought that has no room for people, country, homeland or history.The authors are so close to the truth that they must be able to feel it breathing down the back of their necks. But, as Freud might say, "Close...but no cigar."
"Our leaders have nothing to tell [us] but lies and deception, because they have become sickly, failed, and afraid of the truth, since they are subjugate to the culture of factions, of opportunism, of [special] interests... and of narcissism. Nothing interests them but satisfying their unbridled lusts and urges to rule, their madness, their self-love, and their love of power....
"The violence toys with us, leads us, and drags us into the abyss!! Even our children have lost [their] innocence and become filled with both fear and violence. It has become a terrifying nightmare that pursues us with an axe of death, dripping with blood. We have become captives in the hands of the violence that has taken the best of our children and our sons from us...
"We must call an 'Honesty and Reconciliation' conference, in which we express regret for mistakes and sins, acknowledge them, and undertake, before Allah and before our people, to abandon violence forever, and henceforth not to use bullets, shells, or disgraceful words - [and for] the spirit of tolerance and love to grow within us.
"It is thus that nations are built, and it is thus that the individual is built. Thus we will be able to move a long way ahead on the path towards independence and freedom...
The insights offered at best reflect only a flickering, almost ghostlike wisp of truth and insight; a tiny crack of light penetrating the paranoia and dysfunction that enshrouds the Palestinians like an opaque black burqa.
Only emotionally healthy people could have a genuine--or meaningful-- "Honesty and Reconciliation Conference". Neither honesty nor reconciliation is possible as long as the essential core of the Palestinians is characterized by psychological projection, denial and distortion: blaming the despised Jews for their own dysfunction; blaming Israel for the beast that they themselves have loosed.
In this regard, the cult of Palestinian victimhood is emblematic of the distorted reality of almost all the the followers of Islam in the Middle East. Palestinians are the poster children who represent all the dsyfunctional and warped political regimes that have sprung up pledging allegiance to Allah, killing and destroying in his name. Where Allah is worshiped these days, the paranoia and projection; the denial and distortion are the everyday necessities of life, required to explain the pervasive backwardness, the poverty, the intellectual and moral wasting that afflicts most of the worshippers.
Modern Islam is like a carnival funhouse mirror that distorts and deceives those who gaze into it, exaggerating what is reflected back so that those who blissfully gaze within and contemplate their own virtue are unable to see the beasts they have become.
Victor Davis Hanson wrote recently:
It is almost surreal now to read about the elemental hatred of Jews in the Spanish Inquisition, 19th-century Russian pogroms or the Holocaust. Yet here we are revisiting the old horrors of the savage past.
Beheading? As we saw with Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl, our Neanderthal enemies in the Middle East have resurrected that ancient barbarity - and married it with 21st-century technology to beam the resulting gore instantaneously onto our computer screens. Xerxes and Attila, who stuck their victims' heads on poles for public display, would've been thrilled by such a gruesome show.
Who would have thought centuries after the Enlightenment that sophisticated Europeans - in fear of radical Islamists - would be afraid to write a novel, put on an opera, draw a cartoon, film a documentary or have their pope discuss comparative theology?
...Who these days is shocked that Israel is hated by Arab nations and threatened with annihilation by radical Iran? Instead, the surprise is that even in places like Paris or Seattle, Jews are singled out and killed for the apparent crime of being Jewish.
Siggy in commenting on the latest insane pronouncement of yet another Islamic religious leader, starkly points out how the mufti has all unwittingly explained to us the essential nature of his religion and the people who follow it--because, what kind of creature attacks "uncovered meat" after all?
It is with that in mind that we ought to ponder and consider the issues of terrorism and the Palestinians, using language and ideas the mufti finds so appropriate (the following is derived from published accounts if the mufti’s own remarks, we noted in “The mufti loves women in the same measure he loves Jews”):“The Islamic savagery in Palestine and elsewhere, is nothing more than the actions and behavior of animals. The so called resistance is the work of dysfunctional wild beasts that see themselves leading herds of cattle into battle, only to rejoice and take pride in the killing of innocents. While there are international conventions to protect civilians, they are disregarded by these beasts and animals, because they believe they are exempt from civilized behavior. Only animals and beasts would hide behind children as they fired weapons. Only animals and beats would place anti aircraft weapons on hospitals and school roofs. Only animals and sub human beasts would educate their children in the ways of hate and murder and only animals and beasts would have so called‘religious leaders’ call for the rape and subjugation of women and children, and refer to that as a religious and ‘obligatory.’ These so called ‘monotheists’ are really nothing more than a so called ‘people’ that for last one thousand years have ruined and destroyed everything they have touched. They have contributed nothing but death, destruction and failure. That shouldn’t be surprising- after all, what can you expect from wild beasts and animals?
For the Palestinians to hold a conference on honesty and reconciliation; or to rally around the concepts of "love and understanding" would be similar to schizophrenic patients holding a conference on the treatment of psychosis, when they are off their medication.
And, make no mistake, despite the brief glimpses of truth that poke through occasionally in this article, it is still littered with evidence of the same unwillingness to take responsibility; the same paranoia and projection; the same dysfunctional victimhood--that have become the hallmarks of the Palestinian poster children, as well as many other adherents of today's Islam.
Why should the authors be surprised that Palestinian leaders are deceitful, oppressive and violent? Why should they be surprised that the culture of destruction and death that was crafted to externalize the Palestinians' own psychopathology would, in the end, consume those who created it in the first place?
Left to their own devices; walled away from the object of their delusions, that psychopathology must turn against its owner. That is the nature of the beast. The critical mistake the authors make is in thinking that that the beast's essence can change without addressing the psychopathology that funcamentally created and motivates it.
The authors say:
"Let us collect the weapons from our streets and from our homes, and uphold the motto: 'among ourselves - love, dialogue, and mutual understanding; towards the enemy - force, resistance and steadfastness.' This is the proper formula. Do not overturn it..."
Oh yes, they love that beast when it can be projected outward--onto the Jews, or America, or the West. When they can attribute their own unacknowledged bestiality onto others; when they can pretend to be the victims of the beast's aggression instead of the originators.
But once the paranoid beast is unleashed, "love, dialogue, and mutual understanding" wither away. The beast will find "uncovered meat"--and souls--to devour and it cannot be contained by "formulas" that ignore the reality of its origin. Hamas will kill Fatah; Fatah will kill Hamas; Palestinians will kill Palestinians--because that is the nature of the beast.
Love and understanding can only thrive when the beast within is acknowledged as one's own; and then chained and civilized. If you let it loose, free to spread its rabid hatred--i.e., your own rabid hatred--just so you can see yourself in that carnival mirror as the heroic victim of another's aggression, then it will always be there to turn on you; to devour and rip you to pieces when it cannot get fresh meat any other way.
Friday, October 27, 2006
SOME SANITY IN PARIS FOR A CHANGE
One of the members of The Sanity Squad is in France, covering the al-Durah/France 2 defamation trials. Neo-neocon, arguably the most sane member of the Squad has several postings from Paris:
Behind the facade of justice: French defamation law and freedom of what?
Paris observations
The facade: encountering the Palais de Justice
I'm off to the Palais de Justice
Check out Neo's perspective.
Behind the facade of justice: French defamation law and freedom of what?
Paris observations
The facade: encountering the Palais de Justice
I'm off to the Palais de Justice
Check out Neo's perspective.
TO THE DEMOCRATS, TO MAKE MUCH OF TIME
By Robert Herrick Karl Rove
Gather ye Gallup while ye may,
And Zogby and Rasmussen:
The same sweet polls on election day
Just may turn rather gruesome.
The glorious hopes of days gone by,
The exit polls and cheering
Have turned to dust and made you cry,
We still can hear the swearing.
That race is best when finished first,
You taste both House and Senate;
But things might go from best to worst
In just one single minute.
So be not coy, but use your time,
Get ready while ye may:
To blame, accuse and curse and whine
When things don't go your way.
Gather ye Gallup while ye may,
And Zogby and Rasmussen:
The same sweet polls on election day
Just may turn rather gruesome.
The glorious hopes of days gone by,
The exit polls and cheering
Have turned to dust and made you cry,
We still can hear the swearing.
That race is best when finished first,
You taste both House and Senate;
But things might go from best to worst
In just one single minute.
So be not coy, but use your time,
Get ready while ye may:
To blame, accuse and curse and whine
When things don't go your way.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
ALICE IN WONDERLAND or DEMOCRATS IN DENIAL ****Updated***
Victor Davis Hanson (who I already quoted this morning here) has this to say at The Corner:
I note that in the previous thread a commenter has this to say:
I would note that his particular brand of denial is extraordinary--particularly since Kohut/Kernberg suggests by his alias that he is in the mental health field, and I am always surprised when I witness colleagues displaying the same symptoms as patients (but we are, after all only too human). The following is actually what Jonah Goldberg has to say as he rationally and without the rampant psychological denial that characterizes the political left,looks at the situation in Iraq:
Of course, people like Kohut/Kernberg never get beyond the "mistake" part of any sentence when it comes to Iraq--or Bush for that matter. They stick their heads out of the sand just for a moment so they can say "I told you so!" and then they plant it firmly underground again. Just the other day I had this to say:
Another equally strong leftist meme is that, if we get out of Iraq, then all will be well! This is foolishness beyond measure. As my fellow Sanity Squad member Siggy points out:
Having acknowledged that things are going badly, what is the next step? Kohut/Kernberg does not offer a solution because his head is too stuck in the sand. He, along with others are too intent on blaming Bush, to be capable of understanding what is at stake in Iraq. In fact, his thinking remains in the "quagmire" of Vietnam and refuses to take the next logical step: we need to do what is necessary to win.
As Hanson and Goldberg both clearly state, the all-encompassing hatred of the West that lies at the core of the Islamic totalitarian ideology is what we are fighting against; and one of the crucial fronts in this war is in Iraq.
But, Iraq is also a key front on a philosophical war with today's postmodern political left, who seem to share with the Islamists that same all-encompassing hatred of the West and its values. Indeed, they share it with anyone who hates freedom and democracy (check out their attitudes toward Hugo, Fidel or Kim for validation of this, if you like).
For both of those reasons, we must develop a strategy that will "finish the job and not leave a mess"--in other words, to defeat both the barbarians from without who violently threaten Western Civilization and seek a physical return to the Dark Ages; as well as the barbarians from within who seek to undermine and destroy Western Civilization with their smarmy politically correct ideology, whose words and dogmatically righteous platitudes effectively enable and encourage the evil that threatens us.
My position is unequivocally that both ideologies must be defeated by the forces of good in Iraq and everywhere they have taken root.
UPDATE: Let me just say that I am rather sick and tired of clueless idiots like this commenter:
So I will be perfectly clear. The political left (of which I am certain that "Joseph" is a part) to the extent that they are immersed in the postmodern ideology that denies objective reality and truth are indeed supporting and encouraging the enemies of freedom. Some of them are too lazy to think about the underlying philosophical implications their behavior is based on; the others are deliberately malignant and overtly hate the values this country is founded on. The former are in psychological denial in my opinion; and the latter are not much different from any other totalitarian thugs.
I assume that if a poll was taken that showed a majority (or "64%" or any other number plucked out of the blue) that black was white or right was wrong, that Joseph would cheerfully rally 'round it. Good for him--he gets the "Postmodern Award for Most Relativistic Nonsense".
Here's a novel concept: Let's do what is right and accept the burden and responsibility that goes along with such behavior; and damn the polls--and anyone who needs polls to be their moral compass.
I hope I make myself perfectly clear so that "Joseph" and others don't waste anymore time annoying me with their poll-driven and completely worthless belief systems.
[You may notice from the above that I am rather irritable today as well as extremely busy, so don't mess with me :-)]
In the last 24 hours I have heard some of the craziest things of this entire war.
The Palestinians are complaining about the Israeli security fence on grounds that it perpetuates "racial segregation" — in a way perhaps suicide bombers do not? Or the state-run Palestinian megaphones with their usual "apes and pigs" rants?
At a meeting the other day with some political scientists, I was lectured by some that there was nothing such as jihadism in the comprehensive sense. That is, that Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc. simply have entirely separate agendas, understandable (i.e., Israel, "occupation" of Arab lands) and particularist grievances, etc. rather than a deeply shared anger at the West that originates from a common sense of lost pride and frustration, brought on by recognition of failure when zeal and religious purity do not restore honor or influence in the age of globalization.
I thought these who advocated such nonsense might at any second suggest that because Mussolini's fascists, Hitler's Nazis, and Tojo's militarists all had quite different agendas, separate racial ideologies, and particular aims in WWII, then, they could hardly be lumped together as the Axis that threatened Western republics and needed a generic anti-fascist response. All during the Vietnam War, we were lectured daily about the intricacies of Vietnamese, Russian, and Chinese Communists — their rivalries, hatreds, and quite separate aims-as they combined to defeat the United States, and trumped their own tensions with an all-encompassing hatred of Western democratic capitalism.
There is also an Alice in Wonderland flavor to the current Democratic response to the Korean and Iranian crises. We talked to the Koreans all during the 1990s as they prepared nuclear materials.
And now are told that we have a catastrophe since we have not recently talked to them. We talked all during the 1990s with Syria — and got nothing. Bill Clinton has always praised Iranian democracy; so, we talked to Tehran too, both stealthily and overtly.
So what is this obsession with talk, talk, talk? It reminds me of all those discredited British empty-headed pacifists and aristocrats who wanted to keep talking to Hitler after the fall of Poland, even after the fall of France, right up to the Battle of Britain.
I note that in the previous thread a commenter has this to say:
I had to check in to see if Dr. Sanity has posted the new column from one of her favorites, Jonah Goldberg. I guess I shouldn't be surprised she hasn't, since what he says here requires common sense and a relationship to reality, not massive ideological wish-fulfilling distortion. In his own words: "The Iraq war was a mistake."
[article here]
Kernberg/Kohut
I would note that his particular brand of denial is extraordinary--particularly since Kohut/Kernberg suggests by his alias that he is in the mental health field, and I am always surprised when I witness colleagues displaying the same symptoms as patients (but we are, after all only too human). The following is actually what Jonah Goldberg has to say as he rationally and without the rampant psychological denial that characterizes the political left,looks at the situation in Iraq:
We are in Iraq for good reasons and for reasons that were well-intentioned but wrong. But we are there.
Those who say that it’s not the central front in the war on terror are in a worse state of denial than they think Bush is in. Of course it’s the central front in the war on terror. That it has become so is a valid criticism of Bush, but it’s also strong reason for seeing our Iraqi intervention through. If we pull out precipitously, jihadism will open a franchise in Iraq and gain steam around the world, and the U.S. will be weakened.
Bush’s critics claim that democracy promotion was an afterthought, a convenient rebranding of a war gone sour. I think that’s unfair, but even if true, it wouldn’t mean liberty isn’t at stake. It wouldn’t mean that promoting a liberal society in the heart of the Arab and Muslim world wouldn’t be in our interest and consistent with our ideals. In war, you sometimes end up having to defend ground you wouldn’t have chosen with perfect knowledge beforehand. That’s us in Iraq.
Of course, people like Kohut/Kernberg never get beyond the "mistake" part of any sentence when it comes to Iraq--or Bush for that matter. They stick their heads out of the sand just for a moment so they can say "I told you so!" and then they plant it firmly underground again. Just the other day I had this to say:
Today, there is much to be grim about if you are a person who thinks that the continued appeasement of regimes like North Korea; and the refusal to stand up against Islamic fundamentalism are strategies that are likely to get us many of us killed in the not too distant future.
George Bush started doing what needed to be done in both areas. After decades of appeasement and ostrich-like behavior, he has boldly changed America's stance in dealing with these growing threats. For that he has been excoriated, demonized and unceasingly attacked.
But there is really only one reason to critique Bush, in my opinion. And that is because, while he clearly sees what needs to be done, even he has not had the strength or ability to break out of the politically correct mindset that keeps this country time and again from acting decisively or making difficult choices. At every turn, Bush has pulled his punches, limited American capabiltiy and been conciliatory when strength and determination was called for. He has tried to coax the opposition in this country into taking their heads out of the sand only to be rebuffed again and again. I suspect he has given up and is now willing to let things slide until the end of his term.
And that is precisely what he must not do if he is serious about protecting this country. Yet, it is precisely what the Democrats demand that he do.
Not only has he been rebuffed by the opposition by trying to be conciliatory, his attempts to bring them onboard have only strengthened their psychological denial and made them more ferociously attack him. Democrats are convinced that Bush is the real enemy; hence their only strategy for dealing with the world's problems is to get rid of Bush and all will be well.
Another equally strong leftist meme is that, if we get out of Iraq, then all will be well! This is foolishness beyond measure. As my fellow Sanity Squad member Siggy points out:
The war in Iraq is going badly. Not because we aren’t doing the right thing- clearly, we are. The war in Iraq is going badly because we aren’t saying the right things.
Liberating a nation that was brutalized under the iron jackboot of a tyrant who also funded global terror, was a good thing to do. Attempting to instill a pluralistic democracy in Iraq was a good thing to do, is a good thing to do- for Iraq and for the region.
Having acknowledged that things are going badly, what is the next step? Kohut/Kernberg does not offer a solution because his head is too stuck in the sand. He, along with others are too intent on blaming Bush, to be capable of understanding what is at stake in Iraq. In fact, his thinking remains in the "quagmire" of Vietnam and refuses to take the next logical step: we need to do what is necessary to win.
As Hanson and Goldberg both clearly state, the all-encompassing hatred of the West that lies at the core of the Islamic totalitarian ideology is what we are fighting against; and one of the crucial fronts in this war is in Iraq.
But, Iraq is also a key front on a philosophical war with today's postmodern political left, who seem to share with the Islamists that same all-encompassing hatred of the West and its values. Indeed, they share it with anyone who hates freedom and democracy (check out their attitudes toward Hugo, Fidel or Kim for validation of this, if you like).
For both of those reasons, we must develop a strategy that will "finish the job and not leave a mess"--in other words, to defeat both the barbarians from without who violently threaten Western Civilization and seek a physical return to the Dark Ages; as well as the barbarians from within who seek to undermine and destroy Western Civilization with their smarmy politically correct ideology, whose words and dogmatically righteous platitudes effectively enable and encourage the evil that threatens us.
My position is unequivocally that both ideologies must be defeated by the forces of good in Iraq and everywhere they have taken root.
UPDATE: Let me just say that I am rather sick and tired of clueless idiots like this commenter:
So 64% of America hates freedom now? And our "values" are lying, corruption, cronyism, irresponsibility, and imperialism? Wow.
So I will be perfectly clear. The political left (of which I am certain that "Joseph" is a part) to the extent that they are immersed in the postmodern ideology that denies objective reality and truth are indeed supporting and encouraging the enemies of freedom. Some of them are too lazy to think about the underlying philosophical implications their behavior is based on; the others are deliberately malignant and overtly hate the values this country is founded on. The former are in psychological denial in my opinion; and the latter are not much different from any other totalitarian thugs.
I assume that if a poll was taken that showed a majority (or "64%" or any other number plucked out of the blue) that black was white or right was wrong, that Joseph would cheerfully rally 'round it. Good for him--he gets the "Postmodern Award for Most Relativistic Nonsense".
Here's a novel concept: Let's do what is right and accept the burden and responsibility that goes along with such behavior; and damn the polls--and anyone who needs polls to be their moral compass.
I hope I make myself perfectly clear so that "Joseph" and others don't waste anymore time annoying me with their poll-driven and completely worthless belief systems.
[You may notice from the above that I am rather irritable today as well as extremely busy, so don't mess with me :-)]
LIVE FROM THE MIDDLE EAST! It's The Dark Ages Again....
Victor Davis Hanson writes about how easily our pre-modern enemies from the Middle East have brought a stunned postmodern world back into the Dark Ages:
In the last two days, I have been writing about just one aspect of how the modern-day barbarians would like to take us back to the Middle/Dark Ages--and that is on the issue of women's pervasive oppression under Islam (see here and here). Let me make one last point that even a ditzy former feminist like Yvonne Ridley should be able to appreciate.
That issue for women is freedom of choice (surely even a former feminist and current dhimmi can appreciate the irony here).
It is too true that many Islamic women like Ridley happily defend their oppression and defend their oppressors. This is not a phenomenon that is exclusive to the situation under Islamic shar'ia and Arab misogyny; and I have witnessed the same psychological defense in battered women who ferociously defend the men who abuse them, even unto death. (I recount a personal experience with this in this post)
The only response to women who enable and support not only their own oppression, but that of other women, is to remind them that, how they live and under what conditions, is clearly their own free choice -- at least in the Western world.
However, as long as there are other women in their society who do not voluntarily choose to live that way, or are forced to continue to live that way when they have changed their mind; who are forced to wear certain clothing; prevented from driving or acting independently and freely of their own choosing---then the protestations of happiness and contentment have no validity whatsoever and cannot possibly be binding on anyone else.
They are only exhibiting the same symptoms of "identification with the oppressor", denial, and reaction formation that almost all battered women display --even toward those who would help them.
When women (and men for that matter) are free to choose or not to choose Islam; free to leave Islam; free to discard the restrictive clothing; free to move about independently and without fear of reprisals; free to achieve their own individual dreams and aspirations--then it will not be any of my concern that some women appear to enjoy the subjugation and humiliation that is institutionalized under Islam.
I'm sorry, but you will never convince me that this subjugation and second-class citizenship is what all women in Saudi Arabia; or under the Taliban; or even in an Islamic "gilded cage"-- truly desire.
Even if there is only one single woman anywhere under Islam's tyranny who desires to be free to live her life as she chooses, then I am completely, totally, and irrevocably on her side.
The attacks we are witnessing against not only freedom of choice, but also freedom of speech--indeed, freedom with all its blessings and challenges--clearly represent a return to the dark ages of mankind.
That is what Ridley and her "progressive" ilk are really arguing for.
Who would have thought centuries after the Enlightenment that sophisticated Europeans - in fear of radical Islamists - would be afraid to write a novel, put on an opera, draw a cartoon, film a documentary or have their pope discuss comparative theology?
The astonishing fact is not just that millions of women worldwide in 2006 are still veiled from head-to-toe, trapped in arranged marriages, subject to polygamy, honor killings and forced circumcision, or are without the right to vote or appear alone in public. What is more baffling is that in the West, liberal Europeans are often wary of protecting female citizens from the excesses of Sharia law - sometimes even fearful of asking women to unveil their faces for purposes of simple identification and official conversation.
Who these days is shocked that Israel is hated by Arab nations and threatened with annihilation by radical Iran? Instead, the surprise is that even in places like Paris or Seattle, Jews are singled out and killed for the apparent crime of being Jewish.
Since Sept. 11, the West has fought enemies who are determined to bring back the nightmarish world that we thought was long past....
civilization is forfeited with a whimper, not a bang. Insidiously, we have allowed radical Islamists to redefine the primordial into the not-so-bad. Perhaps women in head-to-toe burkas in Europe prefer them? Maybe that crass German opera was just too over the top after all? Aren't both parties equally to blame in the Palestinian, Iraqi and Afghan wars?
In the last two days, I have been writing about just one aspect of how the modern-day barbarians would like to take us back to the Middle/Dark Ages--and that is on the issue of women's pervasive oppression under Islam (see here and here). Let me make one last point that even a ditzy former feminist like Yvonne Ridley should be able to appreciate.
That issue for women is freedom of choice (surely even a former feminist and current dhimmi can appreciate the irony here).
It is too true that many Islamic women like Ridley happily defend their oppression and defend their oppressors. This is not a phenomenon that is exclusive to the situation under Islamic shar'ia and Arab misogyny; and I have witnessed the same psychological defense in battered women who ferociously defend the men who abuse them, even unto death. (I recount a personal experience with this in this post)
The only response to women who enable and support not only their own oppression, but that of other women, is to remind them that, how they live and under what conditions, is clearly their own free choice -- at least in the Western world.
However, as long as there are other women in their society who do not voluntarily choose to live that way, or are forced to continue to live that way when they have changed their mind; who are forced to wear certain clothing; prevented from driving or acting independently and freely of their own choosing---then the protestations of happiness and contentment have no validity whatsoever and cannot possibly be binding on anyone else.
They are only exhibiting the same symptoms of "identification with the oppressor", denial, and reaction formation that almost all battered women display --even toward those who would help them.
When women (and men for that matter) are free to choose or not to choose Islam; free to leave Islam; free to discard the restrictive clothing; free to move about independently and without fear of reprisals; free to achieve their own individual dreams and aspirations--then it will not be any of my concern that some women appear to enjoy the subjugation and humiliation that is institutionalized under Islam.
I'm sorry, but you will never convince me that this subjugation and second-class citizenship is what all women in Saudi Arabia; or under the Taliban; or even in an Islamic "gilded cage"-- truly desire.
Even if there is only one single woman anywhere under Islam's tyranny who desires to be free to live her life as she chooses, then I am completely, totally, and irrevocably on her side.
The attacks we are witnessing against not only freedom of choice, but also freedom of speech--indeed, freedom with all its blessings and challenges--clearly represent a return to the dark ages of mankind.
That is what Ridley and her "progressive" ilk are really arguing for.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
A RELIGION OF NARCISSISTIC ENTITLEMENT AND BORDERLINE BEHAVIOR
Anne Applebaum poses a pertinent question about "the veil" issue, which cuts to the heart of the multicultural hypocrisy rampant in the world today:
In other words, it is incredibly rude for anyone to insist that their right to practice religion is more important than anyone else's right. As Applebaum notes, Orthodox Jews do not demand the "right" to work in a restaurant only open on Saturdays; nor does a Quaker have the right to join the military and then refuse to fight. Those who feel it necessary to practice their religion to such an extent have no absolute right whatsoever to make the rest of the world adapt to their practices. They are free to stay home and wear whatever they choose; they are not free to demand the "right" to jobs that put their religion at odds with the job requirements.
I would submit that the behavior and attitude we witness today from the practitioners of Islam--in Britain, France and most of Europe; as well as in the Middle East--has gone way beyond "rude" or "impolite", however; and more clearly belongs in the realm of "borderline" and "narcissistic" psychopathology.
I wonder if you can describe a religion as completely narcissistic? Well, if the shoe fits....
The supposed "Religion of Peace" (RoP) would definitely meet diagnostic criteria for a "Religion of Malignant Narcissism" (RoMN). Some of the more radical practitioners of this religion seem to think that it is their divine right (also called having a "sense of entitlement")to demand the world accede to their wishes at all times:
The examples of this attitude of Islamic narcissistic entitlement are all around us these days. They demand "respect" for their religion, even as their religion dismisses and denigrates others; they demand that you draw only cartoons they they approve of (even as their own "humor" in cartoons passes the bounds of civilized behavior in terms of sadism and offense). They immigrate to countries that are polite enough to let them in and allow them to practice their religion in peace; and they threaten violence unless those countries are willing to alter their own traditions and subvert their own values in adopting the Islamic perspective.
Let's face it. These Islamic narcissists don't want to be tolerated by the society they live in and free to practice their religion even in the most multiculturally sensitive nations; they want the society or nation they live in to completely submit to their values and religious practices and to acknowledge their obvious superiority--or else.
Like most borderline personalities, is it any wonder that Islam's relationships with other cultures are unstable and characterized by intense mood reactivity such as dysphoria, irritability, anxiety, anger and rage? Or that they have a markedly and persistently unstable self-image or sense of self that expresses narcissistic rage at the slightest hint of an insult? Or that they constantly express intense anger or difficulty controlling anger, characterized by frequent displays of temper, constant recurrent physical aggression and fighting?
Not to mention the recurrent suicidal and homicidal impulses that are nurtured and given religious sanction.
This is all descriptive of a very sick religion. I am not talking here only about the "extremists", since many of these attitudes are apparently shared by even the so-called "moderates" of the religion; who, while they might eschew the more violent acting out, still arrogantly express the sense of entitlement and display not the slightest insight into their own intolerance and phobias regarding other cultures.
There is no appeasing borderlines. Giving into their sense of entitlement only leads to more and more demands for attention and acknowledgement of their narcissistic superiority. They will never express gratitude or thanks, and always view you as mere extensions of their own damaged self.
The only way to deal with such borderline behavior is to clearly set limits and expectations-- and then stick to them. Tolerating the unceasingly intolerable behavior and demands that modern Islam exhibits will only reinforce the underlying psychopathology and accentuate the bottomless narcissistic entitlement.
...at a much simpler level, surely it is also true that the full-faced veil -- the niqab, burqa or chador -- causes such deep reactions in the West not so much because of its political or religious symbolism but because it is extremely impolite. Just as it is considered rude to enter a Balinese temple wearing shorts, so, too, is it considered rude, in a Western country, to hide one's face. We wear masks when we want to frighten, when we are in mourning or when we want to conceal our identities. To a Western child -- or even an adult -- a woman clad from head to toe in black looks like a ghost. Thieves and actors hide their faces in the West; honest people look you straight in the eye.
Given that polite behavior is required in other facets of their jobs, it doesn't seem to me in the least offensive to require schoolteachers or civil servants to show their faces when dealing with children or the public. If Western tourists can wear sarongs in Balinese temples to show respect for the locals, so too can religious Muslim women show respect for the children they teach and the customers they serve by leaving their head scarves on, but removing their full-faced veils.
In other words, it is incredibly rude for anyone to insist that their right to practice religion is more important than anyone else's right. As Applebaum notes, Orthodox Jews do not demand the "right" to work in a restaurant only open on Saturdays; nor does a Quaker have the right to join the military and then refuse to fight. Those who feel it necessary to practice their religion to such an extent have no absolute right whatsoever to make the rest of the world adapt to their practices. They are free to stay home and wear whatever they choose; they are not free to demand the "right" to jobs that put their religion at odds with the job requirements.
I would submit that the behavior and attitude we witness today from the practitioners of Islam--in Britain, France and most of Europe; as well as in the Middle East--has gone way beyond "rude" or "impolite", however; and more clearly belongs in the realm of "borderline" and "narcissistic" psychopathology.
I wonder if you can describe a religion as completely narcissistic? Well, if the shoe fits....
The supposed "Religion of Peace" (RoP) would definitely meet diagnostic criteria for a "Religion of Malignant Narcissism" (RoMN). Some of the more radical practitioners of this religion seem to think that it is their divine right (also called having a "sense of entitlement")to demand the world accede to their wishes at all times:
Patients with this type of attitude always want more. Whatever you do is never good enough for them, and they also generally show no gratitute or express any thanks--even when someone goes out of their way for them. Like the most spoiled of royalty, they merely expect that they should be the center of your world at all times.
This attitude is normally seen in toddlers, who want what they want and they want it now. Every parent has had to deal with this kind of whining. When you see this attitude repeatedly in an adult, then you know you are dealing with psychopathology. Many adults whimper at the slightest inconvenience, delay, or restriction. Why? Because, like toddlers, they are convinced they deserve what they want when they want it. They are "entitled" to it.
The examples of this attitude of Islamic narcissistic entitlement are all around us these days. They demand "respect" for their religion, even as their religion dismisses and denigrates others; they demand that you draw only cartoons they they approve of (even as their own "humor" in cartoons passes the bounds of civilized behavior in terms of sadism and offense). They immigrate to countries that are polite enough to let them in and allow them to practice their religion in peace; and they threaten violence unless those countries are willing to alter their own traditions and subvert their own values in adopting the Islamic perspective.
Let's face it. These Islamic narcissists don't want to be tolerated by the society they live in and free to practice their religion even in the most multiculturally sensitive nations; they want the society or nation they live in to completely submit to their values and religious practices and to acknowledge their obvious superiority--or else.
Like most borderline personalities, is it any wonder that Islam's relationships with other cultures are unstable and characterized by intense mood reactivity such as dysphoria, irritability, anxiety, anger and rage? Or that they have a markedly and persistently unstable self-image or sense of self that expresses narcissistic rage at the slightest hint of an insult? Or that they constantly express intense anger or difficulty controlling anger, characterized by frequent displays of temper, constant recurrent physical aggression and fighting?
Not to mention the recurrent suicidal and homicidal impulses that are nurtured and given religious sanction.
This is all descriptive of a very sick religion. I am not talking here only about the "extremists", since many of these attitudes are apparently shared by even the so-called "moderates" of the religion; who, while they might eschew the more violent acting out, still arrogantly express the sense of entitlement and display not the slightest insight into their own intolerance and phobias regarding other cultures.
There is no appeasing borderlines. Giving into their sense of entitlement only leads to more and more demands for attention and acknowledgement of their narcissistic superiority. They will never express gratitude or thanks, and always view you as mere extensions of their own damaged self.
The only way to deal with such borderline behavior is to clearly set limits and expectations-- and then stick to them. Tolerating the unceasingly intolerable behavior and demands that modern Islam exhibits will only reinforce the underlying psychopathology and accentuate the bottomless narcissistic entitlement.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
THE SANITY SQUAD SPEAKS UP (Have you ever known them to stay silent??)
The latest Sanity Squad podcast is now available at Pajamas Media Politics Central !This week the Squad discusses enemies foreign and domestic. We delve into radical Islam as well as the somewhat radical behavior of a certain Senator from Massachusetts who reportedly conspired with our cold war enemies to undermine a sitting President.
Join Neo-neocon, Shrinkwrapped, and Siggy, and I as we pontificate, opine, and otherwise loosely associate our way through domestic and international politics. We are always sure to piss off someone (especially Siggy).
I guarantee you'll either love us or hate us!
Previous podcasts of The Sanity Squad can be found here; and you can also download them from iTunes.
(The Sanity Squad cartoon drawn by Eric Allie, whose political cartoons can be found here)
A NATION OF OSTRICHES?
Thomas Sowell realistically looks at the prospect that Democrats may take the majority in the House in the upcoming elections. Rather than offer credible alternatives or a coherent program, he argues, the Democrats are simply second-guessing, denigrating,and undermining Republicans even as the country deals with some of the most threatening challenges in its history from two irresponsible and undeterrable regimes.
He concludes:
Sowell does not say that Republicans deserve to win. Indeed, he argues pretty much that any voter anger toward the current majority is justified, since they betrayed the voters that elected them and have not resolutely implemented the agenda they once promised.
Today, there is much to be grim about if you are a person who thinks that the continued appeasement of regimes like North Korea; and the refusal to stand up against Islamic fundamentalism are strategies that are likely to get us many of us killed in the not too distant future.
George Bush started doing what needed to be done in both areas. After decades of appeasement and ostrich-like behavior, he has boldly changed America's stance in dealing with these growing threats. For that he has been excoriated, demonized and unceasingly attacked.
But there is really only one reason to critique Bush, in my opinion. And that is because, while he clearly sees what needs to be done, even he has not had the strength or ability to break out of the politically correct mindset that keeps this country time and again from acting decisively or making difficult choices. At every turn, Bush has pulled his punches, limited American capabiltiy and been conciliatory when strength and determination was called for. He has tried to coax the opposition in this country into taking their heads out of the sand only to be rebuffed again and again. I suspect he has given up and is now willing to let things slide until the end of his term.
And that is precisely what he must not do if he is serious about protecting this country. Yet, it is precisely what the Democrats demand that he do.
Not only has he been rebuffed by the opposition by trying to be conciliatory, his attempts to bring them onboard have only strengthened their psychological denial and made them more ferociously attack him. Democrats are convinced that Bush is the real enemy; hence their only strategy for dealing with the world's problems is to get rid of Bush and all will be well.
If they win in November, they will be in for a very big surprise. The problems of the world will not magically go away by pretending they do not exist. They won't even go away if the MSM decides not to report them (though they will undoubtedly try in their neverending attempts to make Democrats look good).
I wonder if America will ever again have a leader who is able to stand up and do what is right to protect and defend this country--or if the will, fortitude, and attention span of this country has deteriorated to such an extent that any such leader would be instantly vilified and harassed by the ostrich herd?
We certainly do not need an Ostrich-in-Chief to lead us into more denial and keep us from acknowledging or dealing with the real threats our country and the world faces.
This election in November is all about whether we will keep our heads in the sand and vote for the ostriches, or if we as a people will finally get serious and deal with the reality that threatens us.
I am still hopeful we will pull our heads out of the sand in time to tackle reality. As I have written before, it may be true that the Republicans deserve to lose; but it is even more true that the Democrats do not deserve to win.
Not unless we want to become an entire nation of ostriches.
He concludes:
That fate hangs grimly in the balance as two irresponsible regimes in North Korea and Iran seek to gain nuclear weapons. Neither leader of these regimes can be deterred by threats of nuclear retaliation, as the Soviet Union was deterred.
Both are like Hitler, who was willing to see his own people decimated and his own country reduced to rubble rather than quit when it was obvious to all that he could not win. If you can imagine Hitler with a few nuclear weapons to use to vent his all-consuming hatreds in a lost cause, you can see what a nuclear North Korea or a nuclear Iran would mean for America and the world.
It is obscene that our media should be obsessed with some jerk in Congress who wrote dirty e-mails to Congressional pages -- and was forced out of Congress for it -- when this nation faces dangers of this magnitude.
It would be worse than obscene for some voters to cut off their nose to spite their face by either staying home on election day or actually voting a blank check from America for a party with a decades-long history of irresponsibility on national defense.
Even today, Democrats are arguing for more talks with North Korea and Iran, as if talk is going to stop such regimes from going nuclear, any more than talks with Hitler in the 1930s deterred him.
This is no longer about hawks and doves. It is about ostriches who bury their heads in the sand -- and about those voters who are prepared to give a blank check to ostriches.
Sowell does not say that Republicans deserve to win. Indeed, he argues pretty much that any voter anger toward the current majority is justified, since they betrayed the voters that elected them and have not resolutely implemented the agenda they once promised.
Today, there is much to be grim about if you are a person who thinks that the continued appeasement of regimes like North Korea; and the refusal to stand up against Islamic fundamentalism are strategies that are likely to get us many of us killed in the not too distant future.
George Bush started doing what needed to be done in both areas. After decades of appeasement and ostrich-like behavior, he has boldly changed America's stance in dealing with these growing threats. For that he has been excoriated, demonized and unceasingly attacked.
But there is really only one reason to critique Bush, in my opinion. And that is because, while he clearly sees what needs to be done, even he has not had the strength or ability to break out of the politically correct mindset that keeps this country time and again from acting decisively or making difficult choices. At every turn, Bush has pulled his punches, limited American capabiltiy and been conciliatory when strength and determination was called for. He has tried to coax the opposition in this country into taking their heads out of the sand only to be rebuffed again and again. I suspect he has given up and is now willing to let things slide until the end of his term.
And that is precisely what he must not do if he is serious about protecting this country. Yet, it is precisely what the Democrats demand that he do.
Not only has he been rebuffed by the opposition by trying to be conciliatory, his attempts to bring them onboard have only strengthened their psychological denial and made them more ferociously attack him. Democrats are convinced that Bush is the real enemy; hence their only strategy for dealing with the world's problems is to get rid of Bush and all will be well.
If they win in November, they will be in for a very big surprise. The problems of the world will not magically go away by pretending they do not exist. They won't even go away if the MSM decides not to report them (though they will undoubtedly try in their neverending attempts to make Democrats look good).
I wonder if America will ever again have a leader who is able to stand up and do what is right to protect and defend this country--or if the will, fortitude, and attention span of this country has deteriorated to such an extent that any such leader would be instantly vilified and harassed by the ostrich herd?
We certainly do not need an Ostrich-in-Chief to lead us into more denial and keep us from acknowledging or dealing with the real threats our country and the world faces.
This election in November is all about whether we will keep our heads in the sand and vote for the ostriches, or if we as a people will finally get serious and deal with the reality that threatens us.
I am still hopeful we will pull our heads out of the sand in time to tackle reality. As I have written before, it may be true that the Republicans deserve to lose; but it is even more true that the Democrats do not deserve to win.
Not unless we want to become an entire nation of ostriches.
Monday, October 23, 2006
LARWYN BLOGS !
Larwyn is guest blogging today over at Fausta's:"Like teenage girls with "secrets" DEM's leak their own, too". Go check it out!
Sometimes I wonder what we would all do without Larwyn, whose indefatigable efforts to keep us all informed are always very much appreciated by this blogger.
Keep up the excellent work!
Sometimes I wonder what we would all do without Larwyn, whose indefatigable efforts to keep us all informed are always very much appreciated by this blogger.
Keep up the excellent work!
YVONNE STRANGELOVE, Or, How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love the Veil
Stop me if you've heard this argument before:
Indeed, it probably takes a "Western feminist" to be so completely clueless (and indifferent, I might add) about the real issue here.
You can take your hijabs, nikabs, burkhas or whatever and put 'em on where the sun don't shine for all I care, sister. If that's what turns you on, far be it from me to point out how ridiculous you sound. It's your life.
The fact that 1,400 years ago, Muslim women had a great deal of liberty within their religion is hardly an argument to justify the religious police in Saudi Arabia who preferred to let little girls burn to death rather than rescue them because they were not fully clothed. It doesn't justify the thousands and thousands of acts each day that are religiously sanctioned, whose only purpose it to subjugate, humiliate, and oppress women in the Muslim world. The truth is that most women under Islam have about as much freedom as a slave, unless they are fortunate enough to live in a westernized country.
Just because Yvonne Ridley chooses to delude herself about modern-day Islam ("A careful reading of the Koran shows that just about everything that Western feminists fought for in the 1970s was available to Muslim women 1,400 years ago.") doesn't mean that I intend to.
See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here-- I could go on like this, but hopefully, you get the point. Over the centuries, Arab culture and Islam have become one entity, each supporting and justifying the psychopathology of the other. This is particularly true when it comes to women's rights.
I wrote in an earlier post:
It is astonishing to me that there are women who justify Islam and even describe it as "liberating" because it "frees" women from having to worry about issues like fashion or looks. By that line of reasoning, you could say that Death "frees" people from having to worry about Life.
When I started my career in psychiatry, one of my earliest and most difficult cases was a woman--I'll call her Alice--who was seen frequently in the ER because her husband used to beat her fairly regularly. She had been hospitalized several times because of internal injuries from these beatings, but despite our trying to convince her to get help, Alice vehemently refused, claiming that she loved her husband and that he loved her. Her hospital room would be filled with flowers and cards from the repentant spouse. Both Alice and her husband would have nothing to do with us, and denied they even had a problem.
The last time I saw Alice, she was unconscious and being wheeled into the operating room after a particularly savage beating from her loving husband. She never made it off the operating table. I thought of how we tried desperately to warn her that the violence would not stop unless something changed. We literally had pleaded with her to let us help her the last time she was discharged from the medical unit.
Rarely since then have I felt so helpless or impotent as a professional. Rarely have I felt so angry about the kind of psychopathology and lack of insight that lead to situations like Alice's.
Since then I have come to realize you cannot force someone to change psychologically. The professional part of me understands that Alice had many opportunities to make a change in the toxic relationship she had with her husband. She had the opporutnity to get help; she could have stopped accepting his way of expressing his "love". She could have faced the reality of her situation. But she didn't, and now she was dead. The husband was convicted of her murder. And Alice, who was without doubt a tragic victim of domestic abuse, was at the same time a willing accomplice to her own murder.
Alice might have chosen differently. Most women in Islam cannot choose their fate. From birth to death they are ruthlessly oppressed and subjected to the medieval, misogynist attitudes of their religion and culture. In many Muslim countries they have as many rights as the family dog--perhaps less. I have little sympathy for apologists of this situation, whether they are male or female; religious or fanatic.
To those who claim that Islam is compatible with women's rights and self-determination, I say: DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE INSTITUTIONALIZED ABUSE AND OPPRESSION OF WOMEN UNDER ISLAM.
Individual cases of domestic violence clearly cannot be prevented in every case; and there will always be women like Alice and men like her husband in every culture or creed. But Muslims can stop justifying this psychpathological behavior as compatible with and sanctioned by their religion. Until that religious sanction is withdrawn, claims that Islam is a religion of peace--or even that it is civilized--are laughable.
How Islam was practiced in the 1400's is totally irrelevant to how it is practiced today. Today, anyone who doesn't have their eyes shut (even a former Western feminist) sees a religion that has found much in its religious writings to justify the institutional acting out of male fantasies of superiority, potency and power at the expense of women.
The key to moderating the current Islam lies precisely in empowering women who have been routinely subjugated and made into second-class citizens.
One prisoner of Islam has been outspoken with her criticisms; and because she has dared to question this wonderful religion that, according to Ridley "offers women so much", she has now been marked for death. But Ridley, who is either completely brainwashed and a product of identification with the aggressor; or who is deliberately and malignantly choosing to ignore the facts for her own personal gain and status is only able to summon up ridicule for any Muslim woman who courageously attempts to escape the prison of shar'ia and Islamic law. She appears to think she is somehow morally superior to them simply because of the clothes she chooses to wear.
One can only imagine the contempt she feels for non-Muslim women.
Neo-neocon writes:
"...some people just seem to have a deeper integrity than others, and feel driven to speak out no matter what the personal consequences may be. They are heroes of a very special sort"--whether it is to enter a beauty pageant, or go on al-Jazeera and debate Muslim clerics on women's rights and the primitive practices of Islam.
Yvonne Ridley is no hero. Nor does she have much integrity. She has willfully and cravenly become exactly what her Western feminist buddies are fond of calling "an oppressor." Only, unlike the imaginary oppressors the ideologically pure feminist/marxists rage against, Ridley is the real thing.
UPDATE: Reason's Nick Gillespe has more, as does Merle Yourish, Dinocrat, Shot in the Dark, and Flopping Aces.
UPDATE II: The Anchoress:
And, of course Siggy doesn't hold back:
These cultural issues and customs have nothing to do with Islam. A careful reading of the Koran shows that just about everything that Western feminists fought for in the 1970s was available to Muslim women 1,400 years ago. Women in Islam are considered equal to men in spirituality, education and worth, and a woman's gift for childbirth and child-rearing is regarded as a positive attribute.
When Islam offers women so much, why are Western men so obsessed with Muslim women's attire? Even British government ministers Gordon Brown and John Reid have made disparaging remarks about the nikab -- and they hail from across the Scottish border, where men wear skirts.
When I converted to Islam and began wearing a headscarf, the repercussions were enormous. All I did was cover my head and hair -- but I instantly became a second-class citizen. I knew I'd hear from the odd Islamophobe, but I didn't expect so much open hostility from strangers. Cabs passed me by at night, their "for hire" lights glowing. One cabbie, after dropping off a white passenger right in front of me, glared at me when I rapped on his window, then drove off. Another said, "Don't leave a bomb in the back seat" and asked, "Where's bin Laden hiding?"
Yes, it is a religious obligation for Muslim women to dress modestly, but the majority of Muslim women I know like wearing the hijab, which leaves the face uncovered, though a few prefer the nikab. It is a personal statement: My dress tells you that I am a Muslim and that I expect to be treated respectfully, much as a Wall Street banker would say that a business suit defines him as an executive to be taken seriously. And, especially among converts to the faith like me, the attention of men who confront women with inappropriate, leering behavior is not tolerable.
I was a Western feminist for many years, but I've discovered that Muslim feminists are more radical than their secular counterparts. We hate those ghastly beauty pageants, and tried to stop laughing in 2003 when judges of the Miss Earth competition hailed the emergence of a bikini-clad Miss Afghanistan, Vida Samadzai, as a giant leap for women's liberation. They even gave Samadzai a special award for "representing the victory of women's rights."
Indeed, it probably takes a "Western feminist" to be so completely clueless (and indifferent, I might add) about the real issue here.
You can take your hijabs, nikabs, burkhas or whatever and put 'em on where the sun don't shine for all I care, sister. If that's what turns you on, far be it from me to point out how ridiculous you sound. It's your life.
The fact that 1,400 years ago, Muslim women had a great deal of liberty within their religion is hardly an argument to justify the religious police in Saudi Arabia who preferred to let little girls burn to death rather than rescue them because they were not fully clothed. It doesn't justify the thousands and thousands of acts each day that are religiously sanctioned, whose only purpose it to subjugate, humiliate, and oppress women in the Muslim world. The truth is that most women under Islam have about as much freedom as a slave, unless they are fortunate enough to live in a westernized country.
Just because Yvonne Ridley chooses to delude herself about modern-day Islam ("A careful reading of the Koran shows that just about everything that Western feminists fought for in the 1970s was available to Muslim women 1,400 years ago.") doesn't mean that I intend to.
See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here-- I could go on like this, but hopefully, you get the point. Over the centuries, Arab culture and Islam have become one entity, each supporting and justifying the psychopathology of the other. This is particularly true when it comes to women's rights.
I wrote in an earlier post:
It is astonishing to me that there are women who justify Islam and even describe it as "liberating" because it "frees" women from having to worry about issues like fashion or looks. By that line of reasoning, you could say that Death "frees" people from having to worry about Life.
When I started my career in psychiatry, one of my earliest and most difficult cases was a woman--I'll call her Alice--who was seen frequently in the ER because her husband used to beat her fairly regularly. She had been hospitalized several times because of internal injuries from these beatings, but despite our trying to convince her to get help, Alice vehemently refused, claiming that she loved her husband and that he loved her. Her hospital room would be filled with flowers and cards from the repentant spouse. Both Alice and her husband would have nothing to do with us, and denied they even had a problem.
The last time I saw Alice, she was unconscious and being wheeled into the operating room after a particularly savage beating from her loving husband. She never made it off the operating table. I thought of how we tried desperately to warn her that the violence would not stop unless something changed. We literally had pleaded with her to let us help her the last time she was discharged from the medical unit.
Rarely since then have I felt so helpless or impotent as a professional. Rarely have I felt so angry about the kind of psychopathology and lack of insight that lead to situations like Alice's.
Since then I have come to realize you cannot force someone to change psychologically. The professional part of me understands that Alice had many opportunities to make a change in the toxic relationship she had with her husband. She had the opporutnity to get help; she could have stopped accepting his way of expressing his "love". She could have faced the reality of her situation. But she didn't, and now she was dead. The husband was convicted of her murder. And Alice, who was without doubt a tragic victim of domestic abuse, was at the same time a willing accomplice to her own murder.
Alice might have chosen differently. Most women in Islam cannot choose their fate. From birth to death they are ruthlessly oppressed and subjected to the medieval, misogynist attitudes of their religion and culture. In many Muslim countries they have as many rights as the family dog--perhaps less. I have little sympathy for apologists of this situation, whether they are male or female; religious or fanatic.
To those who claim that Islam is compatible with women's rights and self-determination, I say: DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE INSTITUTIONALIZED ABUSE AND OPPRESSION OF WOMEN UNDER ISLAM.
Individual cases of domestic violence clearly cannot be prevented in every case; and there will always be women like Alice and men like her husband in every culture or creed. But Muslims can stop justifying this psychpathological behavior as compatible with and sanctioned by their religion. Until that religious sanction is withdrawn, claims that Islam is a religion of peace--or even that it is civilized--are laughable.
How Islam was practiced in the 1400's is totally irrelevant to how it is practiced today. Today, anyone who doesn't have their eyes shut (even a former Western feminist) sees a religion that has found much in its religious writings to justify the institutional acting out of male fantasies of superiority, potency and power at the expense of women.
The key to moderating the current Islam lies precisely in empowering women who have been routinely subjugated and made into second-class citizens.
One prisoner of Islam has been outspoken with her criticisms; and because she has dared to question this wonderful religion that, according to Ridley "offers women so much", she has now been marked for death. But Ridley, who is either completely brainwashed and a product of identification with the aggressor; or who is deliberately and malignantly choosing to ignore the facts for her own personal gain and status is only able to summon up ridicule for any Muslim woman who courageously attempts to escape the prison of shar'ia and Islamic law. She appears to think she is somehow morally superior to them simply because of the clothes she chooses to wear.
One can only imagine the contempt she feels for non-Muslim women.
Neo-neocon writes:
"...some people just seem to have a deeper integrity than others, and feel driven to speak out no matter what the personal consequences may be. They are heroes of a very special sort"--whether it is to enter a beauty pageant, or go on al-Jazeera and debate Muslim clerics on women's rights and the primitive practices of Islam.
Yvonne Ridley is no hero. Nor does she have much integrity. She has willfully and cravenly become exactly what her Western feminist buddies are fond of calling "an oppressor." Only, unlike the imaginary oppressors the ideologically pure feminist/marxists rage against, Ridley is the real thing.
UPDATE: Reason's Nick Gillespe has more, as does Merle Yourish, Dinocrat, Shot in the Dark, and Flopping Aces.
UPDATE II: The Anchoress:
Ridley makes a heady defense for the veil and - in fine Western feminist fashion - she lashes out at the Western men who dare to critique the mandatory wearing of it. She conveniently forgets to mention that Western men have been trained over decades - by women like herself - to find this Muslim garb objectionable. She also seems not to realize that one of the first Western voices raised against enforced coverage was a woman’s voice, as Mavis Leno, wife of Jay Leno, worked for years to bring attention to the subjegation of Muslim women.
Her piece is a fascinating hodgepodge of past and present prejudices all jumbling about as Ridley works to justify her conversion from a feminist standpoint.
And, of course Siggy doesn't hold back:
In a culture that prides itself on faith and morality, many think nothing of rape as a mode of religious expression. On the one hand, they insist that women dress modestly- and if they refuse, violent sex is the weapon of choice to instill religious punishment...
What Ms Ridley and others fail to see is that what goes in the head is far more important than what goes on the head. After a number of years, we know what has gone into the head of Yvonne Ridley.
Ms Ridley is a propagandist pig- and nothing less. Soliciting her opinion on the 'morality' of the veil is as relevant as soliciting the opinion of a whore on family values.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
CARNIVAL OF THE INSANITIES
Time for the weekly insanity update, where the insane, the bizarre, the ridiculous, and the completely absurd are highlighted for all to see! This has been a week of rare idiocy (as always!). So, if you want to remain sane, the best thing is to poke some fun at the more egregious absurdities.Send all entries for next week's carnival to Dr. Sanity by 8 pm ET on Saturday for Sunday's Carnival. Only one post entry weekly per blogger, please. And you might read this before submitting an entry.
Thanks for all the submissions. I try to use as many as possible! SO MANY INSANITIES! SO LITTLE TIME!!!
1. Advisors to our enemies...clearly they are deeply committed to diversity and social justice. And don't leave out any of the media's descriptors--especially "fiesty"and "firebrand".
2. Does anyone think that training in "diversity" and "social justice" will produce competent teachers? Let alone politicians?
3. The new French conceptualization of "Free Speech". Hey, Roger's moving there as soon as possible! Meanwhile, French elites strike back against EuroDisney.
4. Celebrity status symbol shopping. The new "must-have" accessory! Uh-oh, this can't be good for the status of the symbol! Meanwhile there are Islamic ladies and their liberation sacks... Maybe these will become the new must-have celebrity accessory soon!
5. Yes, apparently they are free to choose to commit suicide....
6. The 7 Political Wonders of the World! (tasteless, so you'll like it!)
7. Imagine tastelessly humming the soundtrack from "Rocky Horror Picture Show" as you view this little gem. And they say not a single man complained about it! Of course, some people seem to think that men should evolve beyond masculinity; but then, would that make them...girls?
8. For those who love to be scared at Halloween. For those who just like to be scared, period.
9. Who says bloggers aren't having an impact??
10. Putin unplugged! (or rather, still plugged...). I bet he wishes he had one of these things.
11. This sounds exactly like what today's liberals would say, don't you think?
12. Bring out your dead! 1 on 1 with The Lancet. (sort of). 300 million = 957 trillion, if you work for The Lancet
13. The growing Republican homo menace! This, from the supposed "champions" of Gay Rights? I know! Let's give these people the Congress!
14. Taxicab tango...with cows?
15. This is the kind of political theater that is actually entertaining. As is this political blog theater!
16. The true culprit was blazingly apparent! The true culprit was blazingly apparent! The true culprit was blazingly apparent! No he didn't; the true culprit was always blazingly apparent.
17. Tree climbing goats? Fauxtography, anyone?
18. Economic doom and gloom... or truth deficit? This doesn't inspire much confidence in Kazakstan's monetary system (or their educational system for that matter) !
19. Either this guy chose poorly; or he was passing himself off as KJI's estranged distant cousin. The North Korean luxury good supply line
20. New health hazards identified and making peace with plastic grocery bags!
Carnival of the Insanities can also be found at The Truth Laid Bear's ÜberCarnival and at the BlogCarnival.
***************************************
If you would like to Join the insanity, and add the Carnival of the Insanities button to your sidebar (clicking on it will always take you to the latest update of the Carnival), click on "Word of Blog" below the button to obtain the html code:
Saturday, October 21, 2006
THE POLITICAL LEFT AND THEIR TOTALITARIAN DREAMS
When I wrote this post about the current, overt manipulation of news, I didn't imagine that this information would be coming out, which, if true, shows the levels to which the political left and the Democrats have been willing to sink to achieve their ideological agenda:
Hot Air quotes this little tidbit:
Stickynotes and ajacksonian and Clarice Feldman each have more to say about this information.
What interests me is the transformation of the Democratic Party into a tool that every major enemy of this country--from the North Vietnamese, to the Soviets, to the Syrians all the way up to the present day-- has been able to use to advance their objectives at the expense of America. As Feldman notes, this does indeed give new meaning to the term "opposition party".
It also give new clarity to one of the issues that I have talked about on this blog repeatedly, and that is the complete betrayal by the political left in this country of the values and freedoms upon which the U.S. was founded.
How easily they deceived themselves (if it was deception at all) into thinking that they had more in common with the communist party leadership of the USSR than with the duly elected president of the U.S. How easily people like John Kerry supported and enabled the dictators of North Vietnam. Is it any susrprise at all that today, in our war on terror, that this same political party and the same deluded base that animates them see the terrorists as the oppressed victims and the US as the evil oppressors?
Good grief, they have been acting out this drama for over half a century now, and they've got the "good guys" and the "bad guys" clearly identified in their own minds it seems.
And the U.S. has NEVER been the "good guy" from their point of view. This rather incredible consistency on their part demonstrates a dedication and committment to the principles of tyranny, as well as both a hatred for this country and an unquenchable lust for power, that is difficult to imagine could originate in the heart of any American--let alone elected representatives of this country.
From Kerry during Vietnam, to Kennedy during the Cold War; to Rockefeller and Murtha (along with many others) today, we can see a pervasive pattern of hatred for the values of this country, and a willingness to sell those values to whatever enemies we happen to be fighting at the moment.
And yet, psychologically, they have managed to deceive themselves into thinking that what they are doing is for the "good" of the country. That their behavior is actually "patriotic". That their machinations are selfless and necessary in order to "protect" this country -- from what they have always perceived as the "true" evil.
Kerry believed that the "true evil" was American and the U.S. Military--not the communist North Vietnamese; Kennedy believed that the "true" evil was Ronald Reagan apparently--not the USSR. We all know who most of the recent crop of Democrats believe is the "true" evil in the world today.
I submit, that if you are looking for evil, then you couldn't find better representatives of the darkness than the two senators from Massachusetts, whose sell-outs of this country have been going on for some time.
But let's move on to some of the people who encourage and support the likes of Kennedy and the Democrats.
Here is a sweet little piece that gives Americans just a hint of what is to come, should they vote the wrong way in November--i.e., if for some unimaginable reason not enough Democrats are voted into office:
Can you hear the guns, Fernando?
The individual who wrote this is a Ph.D. psychologist; and yet is so wrapped up in the hysteria of the neo-marxist drama , that she is completely unable to appreciate the psychological projection--and unbelievable irony--of her words; let alone the paranoia.
"We all know the neocons won't cede power easily."
Let me ask you to consider which side of the political spectrum has had problems "ceding power" over the last 50 years? Which side whines and fusses and creates complicated conspiracy fantasies whenever they lose elections?
Their hatred and denunciations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush seems to know no bounds, even as they embrace, coddle, and encourage dictators, thugs, and terrorists around the world.
This is the same political party that constantly accuses their opposition of being fascists and totalitarians...? I wonder if they are even capable of appreciating their own totalitarian dreams, disguised as they are under a cloak of concern and compassion for others?
Better examples of psychological projection, paranoia, delusion,and denial you will be unable to find in any psychological textbook.
UPDATE: Sigmund, Carl & Alfred remind us about other well-known Democrats and their questionable interactions with enemies of the US, and then asks a very pertinent question:
Read it all. And check out Sister Toldjah, Riehl World View and Blue Crab Boulevard while you are at it.
The antipathy that congressional Democrats have today toward President George W. Bush is reminiscent of their distrust of President Ronald Reagan during the Cold War, a political science professor says.
"We see some of the same sentiments today, in that some Democrats see the Republican president as being a threat and the true obstacle to peace, instead of seeing our enemies as the true danger," said Paul Kengor, a political science professor at Grove City College and the author of new book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.
In his book, which came out this week, Kengor focuses on a KGB letter written at the height of the Cold War that shows that Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) offered to assist Soviet leaders in formulating a public relations strategy to counter President Reagan's foreign policy and to complicate his re-election efforts.
Hot Air quotes this little tidbit:
If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y. V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interview. Specifically, the board of directors of ABC, Elton Raul and the television columnists Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters could visit Moscow. The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side. (emphasis mine)
Stickynotes and ajacksonian and Clarice Feldman each have more to say about this information.
What interests me is the transformation of the Democratic Party into a tool that every major enemy of this country--from the North Vietnamese, to the Soviets, to the Syrians all the way up to the present day-- has been able to use to advance their objectives at the expense of America. As Feldman notes, this does indeed give new meaning to the term "opposition party".
It also give new clarity to one of the issues that I have talked about on this blog repeatedly, and that is the complete betrayal by the political left in this country of the values and freedoms upon which the U.S. was founded.
How easily they deceived themselves (if it was deception at all) into thinking that they had more in common with the communist party leadership of the USSR than with the duly elected president of the U.S. How easily people like John Kerry supported and enabled the dictators of North Vietnam. Is it any susrprise at all that today, in our war on terror, that this same political party and the same deluded base that animates them see the terrorists as the oppressed victims and the US as the evil oppressors?
Good grief, they have been acting out this drama for over half a century now, and they've got the "good guys" and the "bad guys" clearly identified in their own minds it seems.
And the U.S. has NEVER been the "good guy" from their point of view. This rather incredible consistency on their part demonstrates a dedication and committment to the principles of tyranny, as well as both a hatred for this country and an unquenchable lust for power, that is difficult to imagine could originate in the heart of any American--let alone elected representatives of this country.
From Kerry during Vietnam, to Kennedy during the Cold War; to Rockefeller and Murtha (along with many others) today, we can see a pervasive pattern of hatred for the values of this country, and a willingness to sell those values to whatever enemies we happen to be fighting at the moment.
And yet, psychologically, they have managed to deceive themselves into thinking that what they are doing is for the "good" of the country. That their behavior is actually "patriotic". That their machinations are selfless and necessary in order to "protect" this country -- from what they have always perceived as the "true" evil.
Kerry believed that the "true evil" was American and the U.S. Military--not the communist North Vietnamese; Kennedy believed that the "true" evil was Ronald Reagan apparently--not the USSR. We all know who most of the recent crop of Democrats believe is the "true" evil in the world today.
I submit, that if you are looking for evil, then you couldn't find better representatives of the darkness than the two senators from Massachusetts, whose sell-outs of this country have been going on for some time.
But let's move on to some of the people who encourage and support the likes of Kennedy and the Democrats.
Here is a sweet little piece that gives Americans just a hint of what is to come, should they vote the wrong way in November--i.e., if for some unimaginable reason not enough Democrats are voted into office:
All week I’ve been reading in disparate sources from Drudge to US News and World Report about Bush, Rove and Cheney being overly confident about the midterm elections. Even Republican strategists are increasingly concerned because the White House doesn’t have a plan if they lose. This lack of planning shouldn’t surprise anyone, but if you really think about it a creepy, crawly feeling grows in your gut.
Here are some questions: Are these guys simply narcissistic idiots Rove-ing around in some never-never land bubble or do they know something we don’t? Have they planned a grab bag nose punch of an October/November surprise? Or have Diebold, ES&S, and local state secretaries assured them that they will do “whatever it takes” to get a Republican Congress elected again? Or are they just planning to outspend us? Karl Rove recently told the Washington Times, “For most Americans, particularly the marginal voters who are going to determine the outcome of the election, it started a couple of weeks ago… Between now and the election we will spend $100 million in target House and Senate races in the next 21 days”. That is $30 million a week in 15 or 16 key races. Knowing this group, the answers must lie in a clever blitzkrieg combo of all of the above.
When I asked Gore Vidal at dinner why the White House seemed so serene and at ease about the vote, he replied that, this time around, the Bush-Cheney henchmen could simply call on martial law. He glumly noted that we are so far down the road toward totalitarianism that, even if Democrats do win back the Congress, it would take at least two generations before the last six years of damage to the nation could be reversed. Gore frankly despaired that any amount of time could ever return the country to where and what it previously was. This prediction left me reaching for some Fernet Branca.
We all know the neocons won't cede power easily. They have to be aware that if the tide of Congress turns, Bush's last two years will be mired in gridlock and perhaps even be punctuated by several embarrassing congressional investigations. Of course, Cheney did say last week that everything in Iraq is hunky dory, which leads one to believe that after James Baker's devastating report and the escalating mass destruction of the war, Dickey-boy has simply lost it. But whether it is hubris, loony tunes, or both, the White House's freakish calm about the elections makes me as nervous as the hell we seem to be headed for. Therefore we should all be on alert. If for whatever reason we don't win back Congress in November the only real answer will be to take to the streets.
Can you hear the guns, Fernando?
The individual who wrote this is a Ph.D. psychologist; and yet is so wrapped up in the hysteria of the neo-marxist drama , that she is completely unable to appreciate the psychological projection--and unbelievable irony--of her words; let alone the paranoia.
"We all know the neocons won't cede power easily."
Let me ask you to consider which side of the political spectrum has had problems "ceding power" over the last 50 years? Which side whines and fusses and creates complicated conspiracy fantasies whenever they lose elections?
Their hatred and denunciations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush seems to know no bounds, even as they embrace, coddle, and encourage dictators, thugs, and terrorists around the world.
This is the same political party that constantly accuses their opposition of being fascists and totalitarians...? I wonder if they are even capable of appreciating their own totalitarian dreams, disguised as they are under a cloak of concern and compassion for others?
Better examples of psychological projection, paranoia, delusion,and denial you will be unable to find in any psychological textbook.
UPDATE: Sigmund, Carl & Alfred remind us about other well-known Democrats and their questionable interactions with enemies of the US, and then asks a very pertinent question:
If Democrat luminaries such as Teddy Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, et al, had no trouble looking outside the US for political help and campaugn money, why on earth should we not assume that some Dems are dealing with Iran, Syria, Al Qaeda, Hizbollah and Hamas, to further their political aims and ambitions?
Read it all. And check out Sister Toldjah, Riehl World View and Blue Crab Boulevard while you are at it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)