THE FOUR PILLARS OF THE SOCIALIST REVIVAL, AND THE RISE OF ISLAMOFASCISM
Here is a fascinating talk by Bernard Lewis in which he discusses a variety of issues with regard to Islam (hat tip: OBloodyHell). Of particular interest is Lewis' analysis of the Danish Cartoon story:

That is the question of the Danish cartoons. Now, this is a very curious story. The news story, as it broke, was that a Danish newspaper had published a series of cartoons offensive to the Prophet, and that this had led to spontaneous outbursts of indignation all over the Muslim world. Now, there are several problems in this. One of them was that the spontaneous outbursts of indignation didn't occur until slightly more than four months after the publication of the cartoons. It's a little difficult to follow, I think you'll agree. The second problem was that when the spontaneous outbreaks of indignation did occur all over the Muslim world, in the remotest parts of northern Nigeria, Central Asia, Southeast Asia and elsewhere they had an ample supply of Danish flags of suitable size and texture for trampling or burning, as required. Obviously, this was something carefully prepared over a period of time.

What exactly was it about? Well, fortunately we have a little background on this, which makes it easier to understand. About 18 years ago, you may recall, the Ayatollah Khomeini pronounced a sentence of death against the novelist Salman Rushdie, who was living in London at that time. The crime for which he sentenced him to death was insulting the Prophet. For a Muslim to insult the Prophet is tantamount to apostasy, and that, as we were recently reminded in Afghanistan, is widely seen as a capital offense.

But this is a different matter. And after a time, I got interested in what was happening, and therefore made a study of the literature relating to this offense, which probably I would not otherwise have bothered with. A number of interesting things emerged. By the way, when we talk of Muslim law, I would remind you that we are talking about law. Sharia is a system of law and adjudication, not of lynching and terror. It is a law that lays down rules, rules for evidence, for indictment, for defense and the rest of it, quite a different matter from what has been happening recently.

The first point made was that it is forbidden to portray the Prophet, that making images of the Prophet of any kind is against the Muslim religion. That is true, though not always strictly observed by Muslims. But the point is that they want to avoid any kind of deification of the Prophet. Muslims are shocked when they go into churches and they see pictures and statues being worshipped. This they see as idolatrous. And if you go into the interior of a mosque, it is very austere: no pictures, no statues, only inscriptions. The ban on the portrayal of a prophet is intended to prevent the development of idolatrous worship of the Prophet. I don't think there was any danger of that from the Danish cartoons.

What was much more at issue was another ban, and that is on insulting the Prophet, which is, of course, an offense. This raises a number of interesting questions that I think are of direct relevance to the whole issue at the present time. Insulting the Prophet is an offense in Muslim law. This raises two issues: one of substantive law, the other of jurisdiction. Muslim jurists discuss this at some length, and there is a considerable body of case law concerning it in Muslim states.

The first point of disagreement: What is the range of jurisdiction of Muslim law? And here you have two opinions. According to the Shi'a and a minority among the Sunnis, Muslim law applies to Muslims wherever they may be in the world. A Muslim who commits an offense against Muslim law, wherever he may be in the world, is subject to Muslim law and must therefore be punished in accordance with Muslim law.

The majority Sunni view is that Muslim law only applies in countries under Muslim government. What happens outside is no concern of the Muslim authorities. One distinguished jurist makes his point with an extreme example: A Muslim traveling in the lands of the unbelievers commits robbery and murder. He returns to the lands of Islam with his loot. No action can be taken against him or against his loot because the offense was committed outside the jurisdiction of Islam, and it is therefore up to the juridical and legal authorities of the infidels to take action, if they can and will.

Here you have two different opinions relating to an offense committed by a Muslim. That is not the case for the Danish cartoons. This is an offense committed by a non-Muslim. And here the plot thickens. This is discussed by all of the juridical authorities only in the case of a non-Muslim subject of a Muslim state. If a non-Muslim subject of a Muslim state says or does something offensive to the Prophet, he is to be tried — accused, tried, and if necessary, punished. The jurists on the whole tend to take a rather mild view of this offense. They say, well, he is not a Muslim; he doesn't accept Mohammed as the Prophet; we know that. So saying that Mohammed is no prophet does not constitute this offense. It has to be more specifically insulting than that. And, as I say, there is an elaborate juridical literature and case law on this subject.

What is never discussed at all — it is never considered — is an offense committed by a non-Muslim in a non-Muslim country. That, according to the unanimous opinion of all of the doctors of the holy law is no concern of Islamic law, which brings us back to the case of Denmark. Does this mean that Denmark, along with the rest of Europe is now considered part of the Islamic lands, and that the Danes, like the rest, are therefore dhimmis, non-Muslim subjects of the Muslim state? I think this is an interesting question, which can lead to several possible lines of inquiry.
[...]
Insulting the Prophet is something that has been going on in Europe for a very long time. In Dante's Inferno, if you're interested in the 28th Canto, where Dante is being taken on his conducted tour of hell and guided by Virgil, he comes across the Prophet Mohammed in the course of his eternal damnation. He is punished — I quote Dante's words, as a "seminator di scandalo e di scisma," a sower of scandal and of schism. Now, this is very insulting. In the great Cathedral of Bologna there is a wonderful set of pictures painted, if I remember rightly, in the 15th century depicting scenes from Dante's Inferno, including some very graphic pictures of Mohammed being tortured in hell by the devil — very graphic.

Nobody did anything about this. A couple of years ago, the leaders of the Italian-Muslim community sent a polite request to the cathedral saying these are insulting to Muslims; would they mind covering those pictures. The cathedral administration said they would consider it. Nothing happened. The pictures are still in view.

The entire talk is long, but definitely worth reading.

What I take away from this excellent discussion by Lewis is that the entire Danish Cartoon episode was a carefully orchestrated propaganda ploy by our enemies as part of the war on terror.

I keep getting reminded when I read articles like the one above, that we are dealing with an extremely subtle, but capable and sophisticated enemy; who is able to plot, manipulate, and develop a coherent and effective strategy to split and disarm the West. Our enemies know us very, very well--in fact, they appear to perfectly understand the excessively vulnerabile position of the West because of its acceptance and promulgation of multiculturalism and political correctness; and have analyzed how to use the contents of these belief systems against us while furthering their own religious objectives.

Observe how easily Islam has been able to subvert key Western values--such as freedom of speech and expression--with a degree of invincibility and outraged virtue, capitalizing on a tactical opportunity that they have never before had in history. And worse of all, many on the political left--particularly the remnants of utopian socialism-- are aiding and abetting the Islamofascists.

With that in mind, is it at all surprising that Islam is able to take maximum advantage of this Achilles heel within Western culture and use the vulnerability to optimize their own religious, political, psychological, and military objectives?

Multiculturalism and political correctness are two of the fundamental pseudo-intellectual, quasi-religious tenets-- along with a third: radical environmentalism--that have been widely disseminated by intellectuals unable to abandon socialism even after its crushing failures in the 20th century. These tenets have been slowly, but relentlessly absorbed at all levels of Western culture in the last decade or so--but primarily since the end of the Cold War.

All three have been incorporated into most K-12 curricula and all other learning environments. They have been at the forefront of attempts by leading academics and academic institutions to rewrite most of history and undo thousands of years of Western cultural advancement. And further, as the culture has been completely saturated with this toxic brew, any attempt to question the tenets' validity or to contest their value is met with hysterical accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, imperialism, bigotry, or--worse of all --intolerance or insensitivity.

It just so happens, that these tenets represent three of the four pillars that are the foundation of an evolving epistemological, ethical and political strategy that the socialist remnants in the world have developed and are using to prevent their ideology from entering the dustbin of history.

And, what is most interesting is that, even as they encourage and enable Islam with the first three pillars; the Islamofascists are aiding and abetting them by using the fourth pillar- Terrorism. We can think of the four pillars as the reason for both the socialist revival (particularly in the western hemisphere recently) and the rapid advancement of the Islamic Jihad.

Below is a flow chart that I adapted from Stephen Hick's book, Explaining Postmodernism (p. 173), which summarizes the evolution of these strategies:




UPDATE: Just in case you think that an alliance between socialists/communists and Islamofascists is only theoretical, you might want to check this out. (hat tip: Stefania) Can Hugo and Evo be far behind? I especially liked this perversion of language:

According to a report released by the Foreign Ministry's Public Relations Department, at the meeting Mottaki referred to Iran-Cuba friendly relations as an example of solidarity between the two justice-seeking and freedom-seeking nations.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 4:33 PM |

 
SCIENCE IS WONDERFUL!
Apparently, the paranoid among us have had it all wrong!

Conspiracy theorists, beware: That aluminum foil beanie—headwear believed, since at least the 1950s, to stop brain-control rays—may make it easier for The Man to read your mind, according to Massachusetts Institute of Technology grad students. Inspired by fringe beliefs that invasive radio signals can probe citizens’ thoughts and that wearing foil on your head may fend them off, an experiment by four Ph.D. candidates found that certain key frequencies—owned by the Feds, naturally—are actually enhanced by such “protection.”

Isn't science wonderful?
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:19 AM |

 
I'VE BEEN WONDERING HOW TO PRONOUNCE IT...


More support for the above pronounciation, as the Iranian President expresses disbelief in the Holocaust yet again--this time while visiting Germany.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:47 PM |

 
JUST SAY NO...
...to yet another class of victims. That's Heather Mac Donald's advice, anyway; and I think it very sound:

The moment is close at hand when the United States will be composed entirely of victim groups.
The news media have been sounding the alarm about a new gender crisis in education: Boys reportedly make up a declining portion of college students. And so the future is clear. Boys are poised to become the newest victim class.
[...]
To be sure, there is a clear culprit in the boy shortage: feminized progressive education. Teacher education programs preach contempt for competition and fact-based learning; K-12 classrooms follow suit. When schools place more importance on group collaboration than on achievement of mastery in a subject, many boys are going to tune out.

But the costs of creating wall-to-wall victim groups outweigh the benefits of using boys' new victim status to overthrow progressive pedagogy. Let's get rid of the knowledge-crushing banalities of progressive education because it drags down all students' learning, not because it hurts boys.

I especially like her idea of overthrowing the progressive pedagogy which is at the root of the attempt to feminize boys and eliminate any masculine "taint" to learning (e.g. competition).

Nevertheless, Mac Donald underestimates the extent of the problem. A generation of educators has ingested the progressive poison and it saturates the k-12 curriculum. Diversity and multicultural nonsense abound even in kindergarden and any attempt to eliminate the indoctrination into perpetual victimhood status--which begins at that age--is doomed to fail.

Why? Because victimhood is still "in", having replaced personal responsibility and hard work as the means of getting ahead in the world. Try to change that and you will be accused by the progressive lot (see here) as being either Racist, Sexist, Homophobic, Islamophobic, Imperialist, Bigoted, or--worse of all --Intolerant or Insensitive.

That's what it has come down to. Either you do it the "progressive" way; or they will label you as vermin and attack you with all the firepower of their rhetorical armament. "Progressives" aren't really interested in what works to achieve the desired result in the real world; they are more interested in what makes them feel virtuous.

Now, I ask you; how can they feel virtuous if any members of their preferred victim groups learn to take responsibility for their own lives?

How can they feel virtuous if they don't keep creating and maintaining new victim groups which they can then virtuously champion?

Just saying no is not enough. I say we destroy the victimhood cult once and for all by using their own rules so logically and consistently against them, that the utter ridiculousness and complete insanity of their PC and diversity talk is so exposed that even a little boy can see how morally and intellectually bankrupt they are.

Some time ago, Gates of Vienna helpfully listed the 10 Commandments of Multiculturalism (the holy ideological tenets of the victimhood cult) :
1. America is uniquely evil.
2. America is never justified in defending itself.
3. Illiterate people from poor societies are superior to Americans.
4. The Earth would be better off without human beings.
5. Making a profit is always immoral.
6. Differences between individuals or groups are unfair.
7. For Designated Victim Groups, strong feelings excuse all behavior.
8. Policies informed by Judæo-Christian principles are inherently suspect.
9. Conservatives are hypocrites; liberals are sincere.
10. There are no acts of God; there are only acts of Government.

The only way we can rid ourselves of these toxic commandments; and free the millions held hostage in our own country by the virulent victimhood cult of the left; is to expose progressive pedagogy for what it is--totalitarian propaganda that disables free will; individuality and personal responsibiity; replacing them with "an oppressive tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its perpetual victims." (C.S. Lewis, again)

And never forget that even the most sincerely exercised tyranny is still...tyranny.

And just say NO.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:58 PM |

 
APOLOGIES !
This time it wasn't Blogger--it was our own internet connection that did me in. Things seem to be back up and I'll be blogging in a bit. Stay tuned (just in case you were waiting breathlessly for me to post!)
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 4:52 PM |

 
A WAR BY ANY OTHER NAME
This rant is pure, unadulterated psychological denial, which uses displacement as a tool to avoid dealing with reality.

Let me just address a few of the rather insane points the author brings up.

1. "The Bush administration has exploited the fear and shock of a nation in the wake of a surprising and dramatic act of violence to whip national fear and paranoia into a constant boil." (Emphasis mine)

This is said (presumably without any sense of irony) by a person who has at the top of his post a copy of the US Constitution with the hand written note across its front saying " George, we can blow this off big time. Dick"

In so saying, don't you think the author of this hysterical nonsense is whipping up his own fear and paranoia just a wee bit? Most psychiatrists would refer to this technique as projection. Further evidence of this psychological projection comes in the next accusation:

2. "The evidence suggests the whole point has been to seize power and steal money."

This too, is said with presumably a straight face, as the links made are to Bechtel and Halliburton, the great boogeymen companies of the paranoid left (when they aren't bashing every other major American capitalist company that suits their latest psychotic delusion. You know , all the usual suspects behind the conspiracies: like big (read:Evil) Oil and of course, the profiteering pharmaceutical companies that are trying to kill everyone with their drugs).

The left has yet to notice that despite all their exhortations about the evil of American capitalism and all the misery it brings; that the economy of this country keeps on chugging along while most of the rest of the world is cheerfully going down the economic toilet as they pursue the leftist's economic agenda?

No, the whole point of the left's insane rantings about Bush and company since the election of 2000 has been a desperate attempt to gain back their own power. To this day, they cannot accept something that is clearly written in the Constitution--that a president can actually be elected without winning the popular vote. Horrors! It has even happened in American history prior to 2000!

Talk about a war on the Constitution. That darn Constitution essentially deprived them of their power, and they don't like it one bit. The Supreme Court (not a part of the Executive Branch, I would like to point out) was involved in this issue, too. And they don't like that either.

But when lower courts subvert the Constitution in a manner that conforms to their leftist agenda, well, to hell with the Constitution. Apparently the only danger of an unchecked Judicial Branch--or Executive Branch (since it has been pointed out repeatedly that Clinton did most of the same things that Bush is doing) is when you don't happen to agree with their decisions or the focus of the policy.

And how about unchecked Legislative power? Apparently, the Executive Branch is never above the law, but the Legislative Branch is right to assume that they are. It isn't a disagreement...it is a "power grab". Well, such "power grabs" have gone on back and forth between the three branches for the entire history of our Republic.

The three branches have always had serious disagreements about the extent of each other's powers. The difference now is that during a war--a real war in which this country was attacked and is under threat of being attacked again--the people can usually count on the the three branches of the government to do what is necessary to protect them. Not to act like complete morons and increase the risks by fighting and arguing constantly.

No, the issue is not that the war is being prosecuted for power and money--it is quite the opposite. Those who violently and aggressively oppose the war desire to get their power back and are happy as clams to get the money, no matter how much blood from our courageous military personnel is lost because of their betrayal. Oh, don't you dare say they aren't patriots! They are patriotic, it is just that their country is being stolen from them by the evil Bushitler McChimpy Haliburton etc. etc. etc.

Well, I have news for them. Their "country" doesn't exist except in their fevered brains. I am most thankful for that fact. It is people like the author who have deliberately set out to destroy the US Constitution--a document written by mere mortals--for the sake of some utopian dream country run by perfect people like them.

3. "Take your "terror" and shove it."

My response to this is for the left and all their "patriotic" ilk to "take your utopia and shove it instead. I'm sick of patriotism that only knows how to attack America; patriotism that is truly paranoid that a duly elected president is about to establish a theocracy; create a totalitarian society; eliminate the constitution and the rule of law; and all the other paranoid bullshit that emanates from the mouths of this hysterical lot. This, my friends, is the New McCarthyism promulgated in our generation by --not the political right, but the left. The new John Bullshit Society, whose goal--conscious or unconscious--is nothing less than the destruction of this country and the establishment of a socialist utopia. Even an Islamic socialist utopia is preferable for them.

I happen to disagree with the Republicans on many issues. I don't even agree with Bush on a lot of domestic policy. But there is one thing that I know is true; and it is that we are in a war where our enemies are brutal and methodical; and where they can count on support and encouragement from the clueless political left who prefer to ignore reality and focus on the "threat" that can't hurt them. I'm sure all those brave and patriotic folks on the left believe they will soon be incarcerated and tortured like poor Stephen Colbert was not too long ago, when he spoke truth to power so bravely.

WHAT! You mean Colbert is still free? He has not been imprisoned for saying all those true things? How can that be? The evil Bushitler was sitting right there when Colbert made his courageous remarks? How can that be when we all know we live in a Bush/Cheney police state????

When the author at Firedoglake is courageous enough to tell Mohammed and those who practice terror for Allah's sake to go to hell; or to tell Ahmadinejad, or the Taliban or Al-Quaeda; or Bin Laden or Zarqawi; or Zawahiri or Hamas or all the other violent, fascist fanatics to go to hell; when he will stand where it counts in the real world-- with the men and women in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan-- and deliver his "give me liberty or give me death" speech; when he takes a stand against Islamofascism and its thought control (disguised as political correctness); and stand for human freedom and individuality--in other words, when he stops knocking down the strawmen he has set up in his mind and confronts the real evil in the world; then perhaps then I might have something other than contempt for the big brave talk that covers up his cowardly denial and displacement.

I've listened to such rants for the last 3 years and I'm heartily sick of them and the people who stand for nothing, but have convinced themselves how patriotic they are. They are only the most recent batch of useful leftist idiots, who can't get over the fact that their ideology lost the Cold War

BTW, wasn't that a badly named war, too? "Cold" is only a temperature, after all....? In all honesty, I must admit that the only point of the rant that I agree with is that "war on terror" is very very badly named. Indeed, If it were up to me, I would definitely call it World War IV.

But this war--no matter what name you choose to call it; or how loudly you deny that it even exists--is unfortunately very real.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:20 PM |

 
MORAL PARALYSIS
I was struck by this post from Michael Ledeen at The Corner, where he first quotes Pope Benedict on Auschwitz:

"In a place like this, words fail. In the end, there can only be a dread silence, a silence which is a heartfelt cry to God — Why, Lord, did you remain silent? How could you tolerate all this?"

"Where was God in those days? Why was he silent? How could he permit this endless slaughter, this triumph of evil?"

Ledeen says,

But I think the question is more properly directed at man rather than the Almighty, who gave us the ability to distinguish between good and evil and the obligation to make our own choices. It is the question we should ask ourselves, and our leaders, every day. Why is the West once again silent, in the face of a monstrous evil? Why do even the few leaders who recognize our menace, content themselves with words rather than the decisive deeds required to rid this world of the threat of a new Shoah?

On this Memorial Day when we honor our fallen soldiers, who died in the service of human freedom and dignity, we must never forget what they died for and why they died.

Some say that the monstrous evil afflicting the world is the United States and western values. I have heard these arguments over and over again in the last few years from my peers; endlessly repeating the talking points that daily appear in the news. They have banners and slogans about Abu Ghraib and now the moral outrage is escalating about Haditha (before even all the facts are known, I might add). It is so easy and satisfying to condemn individual acts of atrocity, knowing full well that such acts are not part of official policy; nor do they reflect in any way the values of the West, particularly America. In fact, all those who place the highest premium on the sanctity of human life must be saddened to learn that human life is so cheap for some in our midst.

The triumph of the good lies in the West's relentless pursuit of justice and our demand that those in our midst who violate the fundamental values we stand for be held to account for their behavior.

This we will do. This we have always done, though not always as perfectly or with the necessary vigor in some cases. Since we are human, we make mistakes; but we are also capable of learning from them.

Only the morally bankrupt and relativistic political left are unable to appreciate this. They would like nothing better than to say that the actions of a few individuals reflect the values of the whole society. Yet, when it comes to condemning real, observable and institutionally-sanctioned brutality, murder, torture, oppression and crushing of the human spirit; when it comes to denouncing the hatred and vitriol that is stoked and manipulated against certain groups and countries; when it comes to confronting the mindset of the suicide bomber; the hatred of the religious fanatic; the societal humiliation and oppression of women as a matter of formal and "virtuous" policy--well, the silence of the left is so deafening, it shatters the eardrums.

And worse, it enables the real monsters who once again threaten to engulf the world in the flames of their madness. How those monsters must laugh at the idiots who obsess about Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo; and who give the real threat to civilization their blessing to advance its objectives. The monsters understand full well that the moral relativists and cheapshot artists of the left will never willingingly call real evil to account--because they lack the fundamental courage to confront it.

To confront evil in the world, one must first have the courage to confront it within one's self; to be able to see the dark side of one's own nature and accept one's own imperfections. If you are able to do this, then you will easily recognize the pathetic behavior at Abu Ghraib--and other places-- for what it is: a manifestation of human imperfection--which each one of us are capable of under the right circumstances.

But this is something the left will not do--they dare not do--and so they will continue to encourage and enable that dark side of themselves; even as they tell themselves how virtuous and superior they are. They know they are not capable of such evil. Their motives are always pure; their actions are always perfect and have no negative consequences. They are the only truly morally superior beings on earth.

Hence they are blind and unable to recognize those who--like themselves--are capable of incredible atrocities on a scale beyond imagining, simply because they do it in the name of some"virtue" or "good". This blindness to their own nature renders them morally paralyzed and incapable of confronting the threat of evil.

I have quoted C.S. Lewis previously, but his words seem particularly applicable today:

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

The cruelty and inhumanity of this or that particular person is manageable--during war and during peace. The perpetrators of Abu Ghraib have been held to account, as will all others who allow their dark side to prevail.

But the real monsters who again threaten the world with their fantasies of a "pure race" or a "pure religion" or a "perfect" society are loose and once again we imperfect humans must confront the evil as best we can.

This Memorial Day, thank God that there are men and women in the world who are not morally paralyzed by the rabid nonsense currently being propagated by the left; and will not remain silent, but are willing to do what needs to be done to deal with the threat.

UPDATE: A good article by Owen West in the NY Times:

Somehow Operation Iraqi Freedom, not a large war by America's historical standards, has blossomed into a crisis of expectations that threatens our ability to react to future threats with a fist instead of five fingers. Instead of rallying we are squabbling, even as the slow fuse burns.

One party is overly sanguine, unwilling to acknowledge its errors. The other is overly maudlin, unable to forgive the same. The Bush administration seeks to insulate the public from the reality of war, placing its burden on the few. The press has tried to fill that gap by exposing the raw brutality of the insurgency; but it has often done so without context, leaving a clear implication that we can never win.

In the past, the American public could turn to its sons for martial perspective. Soldiers have historically been perhaps the country's truest reflection, a socio-economic cross-section borne from common ideals. The problem is, this war is not being fought by World War II's citizen-soldiers. Nor is it fought by Vietnam's draftees. Its wages are paid by a small cadre of volunteers that composes about one-tenth of 1 percent of the population — America's warrior class.

The insular nature of this group — and a war that has spiraled into politicization — has left the Americans disconnected and confused. It's as if they have been invited into the owner's box to settle a first-quarter disagreement on the coach's play-calling. Not only are they unprepared to talk play selection, most have never even seen a football game.

This confusion, in turn, affects our warriors, who are frustrated by the country's lack of cohesion and the depiction of their war. Iraq hasn't been easy on the military, either. But the strength of our warriors is their ability to adapt.

First, in battle you move forward from where you are, not where you want to be. No one was more surprised that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction than the soldiers who rolled into Iraq in full chemical protective gear. But it is time for the rest of the country to do what the military was forced to: get over it.

If we can put 2003's debates behind us, there is a swath of common ground on which to focus. Both Republicans and Democrats agree we cannot lose Iraq. The general insurgency in Iraq imperils our national interest and the hardcore insurgents are our mortal enemies. Talking of troop reductions is to lose sight of the goal.

Second, America's conscience is one of its greatest strengths. But self-flagellation, especially in the early stages of a war against an enemy whose worldview is uncompromising, is absolutely hazardous. Three years gone and Iraq's most famous soldiers are Jessica Lynch and Lynndie England, a victim and a criminal, respectively. Abu Ghraib remains the most famous battle of the war.

I agree. Let's move on and win this battle in the WOT and get on with winning the war.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:47 PM |

 
BACK HOME
The good part is that the Boo's team finished in 2nd Place and there was even a nice awards ceremony presenting the trophies! The bad part is that we drove home last night and arrived here at about 2:30 am.

I'm up (sort of) and about, but feel like I just made a trip to Europe and am jetlagged. I have so many email messages (and I was already a few hundred behind). Not sure when I will catch up, so let me apologize up front for not getting back to anyone.

Things should be back to normal by later today, I hope.

HAVE A GREAT MEMORIAL DAY!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:00 PM |

 
WhoooooHoooooo !
The Boo's soccer team has made it into the tournament finals! So, instead of leaving for home today, we will have to stick around for the match this evening.

Probably won't be blogging anything new, but I have put up an old post (both Parts I and II) just below this one for you to contemplate if you have nothing better to do. And, the Carnival of the Insanities is here.

Meanwhile, we will be out celebrating then driving back late tonite.

Have a wonderful day!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:36 PM |

 
THE POLITICAL PARANOIA OF THE LEFT - Parts I and II
***NOTE*** The following two posts were originally published in January, 2006. I should be back posting tomorrow morning.

*************************************************************************************
PART I

Richard Hofstadter, in his well-known essay on the paranoid style in American politics--first delivered as a lecture at Oxford in November, 1963-- presented numerous examples which clearly demonstrated that the conservative right wing of the political spectrum were the dominant users of the paranoid style. From the John Birch Society; to Joseph McCarthy; to the conspiracy theories related to fluoridation of water and other irrationally held beliefs of the time; the conservative right engaged in frankly paranoid thinking.

But Hofstadter noted even then, that conservatives and the right could not claim exclusive title to the paranoid style. In fact, American history was littered with examples of both sides utilizing the paranoid style in order to cope with painful truths about errors in ideology; and the consequent loss of political power and influence.

I submit that at this point in history it is now the liberal left that has willingly passed through the world of reality and entered the twilight realm of paranoia. They made this transition in order to hold onto some cherished beliefs that they were convinced had become unchangeable historical "facts"; "facts" that had been and still are essential to their very identity as a political party; but which hide essential flaws in their thinking.

In the 60's the liberal left and the Democratic Party became the champions of civil rights --a cause with which they were NOT historically associated, actually; but events of the time conspired to make them the standard-bearers of racial equality--an unaddressed social issue in this country that plagued and highlighted some of the hypocrisy in its high-minded and lofty values from the very beginning. It was definitely time to make the American promise that so clearly burned in the minds of the Founding Fathers real for all Americans.

Championing this cause was so successful for the Democrats as a political party, that they quite naturally took up the causes of other identified "victim" groups (women, the disabled; homosexuals, etc.); successfully leveraging their heroic stand on civil rights as proof of their concern for the oppressed and "the little guy".

Along the way, the Democrats picked up a few holy mantras ("Roe v Wade" and the whole abortion rights movement ; "Make Love Not War" and the entire antiwar crowd; etc.) and, about this time, they became very seriously infected with the Marxist virus that had already spread throughout Europe, despite being the cause of human misery as well as millions of deaths around the world.

Hence, the liberal left failed to notice that the American people rose to the challenge of equal rights and that society changed under the irrefutable logic of human freedom and equal opportunity for all. The promise of liberty was, after all, the founding principle of our nation.

But Democrats and the liberal left could only be threatened by the succes of their attempt to change American society. Blacks; women; and even Gays were making incredible progress in assimilation into society -- and could now move on to say and think what they pleased. They might even choose to become Republican; or disagree with some entitlement program; or challenge directly the ideology beneath the Democratic Party and the left ! Horrors!

Thus it is not so hard to understand that those who once championed the oppressed and encouraged them to be free and partake of all aspects of American society; now have become the most potent enablers of the victimhood cults that sprang up in each of these groups.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, those whose identity is tied-up inextricably with being the champions the oppressed, must be sure to maintain an oppressed class--constantly seeking new victims to heroically stand for; otherwise what or who will they champion?

Most Americans who are not indoctrinated into the Marxist worldview and obsessed with victimhood can clearly see the real progress of Blacks and women--indeed all minority groups-- in all aspects of society. They can appreciate individuals from those groups who forged into previously restricted areas and broke barrier after barrier, even if they are not Democrats or subscribers to leftist theories.

Not only did the liberal left exhibit almost complete blindness and fail to celebrate its greatest success , but they became more and more strident in their demands and denunciations of American society as a whole. This entire process coincided with their increasing irrelevance and loss of political power. In response, the left is trying to change the playing field to insure that they remain relevant by switching from demands for "equal opportunity" to an insistance on "equal outcome". Since it is impossible to achieve the latter--except in a totalitarian society, where everyone is made equally miserable; or in death itself--the left hopes to achieve new power and influence over a neverending victim class that they will have created through their policies. The paranoid style conveniently defends those policies and effortlessly maintains their defective worldview.

Of course, calling someone "paranoid", or insinuating that they have a "paranoid style" is definitely pejorative. Being paranoid has, as Hofstadter notes, "a greater affinity for bad causes than good ones." This is primaril because the paranoid--even when their cause has some merit--is actually trying to delude himself about some inner reality at the expense of, or detriment to, the cause. Their motivation is no longer about the cause anymore; it is about protecting themselves from an unpleasant reality that is making them question their foundations.

Any who oppose the "equality of outcome" logic are descibed as "racist". Those who disagree with them are "trying to shut down free speech" (watch and see whose behavior actually physically attempts to silence others). Those who point out the errors in their thinking are "evil". American society--arguably the freest and most tolerant in the world--becomes the source of all oppression and evil. This growing attitude condensed itself into an insane and irrational hatred for one man who came to symbolize their worst fear -- that their image of themselves was no longer true, but had become a well-loved and cultivated delusion. I mean, if GW Bush could be elected President (not once, but TWICE); and be considered the liberator of literally millions of people--what were they? Chopped liver?

Let me use an example that Hofstadter uses in his essay:

Again it is common knowledge that the movement against the fluoridation of municipal water supplies has been catnip for cranks of all kinds, especially for those who have obsessive fear of poisoning. It is conceivable that at some time scientists may turn up conclusive evidence that this practice is, on balance, harmful; and such a discovery would prove the antifluoridationists quite right on the substance of their position. But it could hardly, at the same time, validate the contentions of those among them who, in characteristic paranoid fashion have charged that fluoridation was an attempt to advance socialism under the guise of public health or to rot out the brains of the community by introducing chemicals in the water supply in order to make people more vulnerable to socialist or communist schemes.

A distorted style is, then, a possible signal that may alert us to a distorted judgment, just as in art an ugly style is a cue to fundamental defects of taste. What interests me here is the possibility of using political rhetoric to get a political pathology. One of the most impressive facts about the paranoid style, in this connection, is that it represents an old and recurrent mode of expression in our public life which has frequently been linked with movements of suspicious discontent and whose content remains much the same even when it is adopted by men of distinctly different purposes.

In the example of fluoridation, which was a major focus of paranoia in the 50's and 60's; science never confirmed that it was harmful and it is still used today all over the country. Nevertheless, it was not unreasonable to bring up concerns about the long-term safety of a public program that would impact almost every citizen in the country.

What was inappropriate and irrational, as well as an extreme example of "connecting the dots" to regain political power, was the use of the relevant scientific question as a basis for developing a rather bizarre conspiracy theory that connected it with another realistic concern at the time--the rise of communism and its easy acceptance and penetration into American culture.

In this case, "connecting the dots" was not the product of a rational thought process, but of a paranoia on the right; who in their political impotence came to emotionally conflate two important concerns with some degree of merit into one conspiracy theory that was totally off the wall. In the end, it completely discredited them in the minds of reasonable people.

The bizarre conspiracy theories that condensed around fluoridation are not dissimilar to the ones we hear over and over again concerning President Bush and his rationale for the war in Iraq and the war on terror in general.

Even if, hypothetically, every single justification for the war would be eventually proven not to have any basis ( and this is already demonstrably impossible); it would still not validate the absurd claims on the part of the left who, in characteristic paranoid fashion, have come up with all sorts of conspiracy theories and paranoid fantasies that connect dots in a much more irrational and delusional manner than what they accuse the President of doing.

The President simply acted on facts that were accepted at the time (even by the people now accusing him of lying); and responded appropriately to a real threat that had materialized on his watch and resulted in the murder of 3000 American citizens. The paranoia of the left can be seen in their attempts to undermine his actions by resorting to ridiculous connections that simply don't compute-- just as fluoridation being a plot of the communists didn't resonate with reality; neither does Michael Moore's fictional documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11, make the paranoid case for some underlying conspiracy.

While there is merit in debating how best to go about achieving our objectives in the war in Iraq and the GWOT; believing that terrorism is a conspiracy cooked up by Bush and Co. to consolidate power and institute (take your pick) a fascist state; a theocracy; or both; is simply a paranoid fantasy that consoles those of the liberal left who cannot cope with their loss of power and influence.

The hallmark of the paranoid individual and the paranoid style is constant anticipation or expectation of either attack or personal betrayal. Paranoia finds causal connections everywhere and in everything; for them, nothing is coincidental. They can develop complicated conspiracies about innocuous behaviors and seemingly irrelevant events. Their paranoia makes them constantly on guard, searching for hidden motives and meanings in everyone else's behavior. (Just go check out the Democratic Underground, where these fantasies on every action or inaction on the part of the Bush administration are immediately converted into conspiracies and plots). The tragic death of a reporter -- Bush et al had him killed because he knew too much. Osama's most recent tape -- a Rovian plot to show how frightened we should be. And so on.

Paranoia can be conceptualized as "rationality in the service of the irrational." Once fixed on a particular idea or explanation -- no matter how bizarre or irrational; the paranoid person looks for evidence to validate their prejudices. It is almost impossible to change their minds. Their entire concept of themselves is tied up with the paranoid idea or conspiracy. If it did not exist, or was proven to be untrue or false-- then they would need to question their underlying assumptions and ideas--and those are what usually form the foundation of who they believe themselves to be.

For example, a belief that one is important enough to be the subject of a determined (and often vague) FBI or CIA plot may be frightening, but is likely to be vastly superior to accepting that you have a severe and lifelong psychiatric disorder.

It is far easier to disregard reality; and/or to simply incorporate the person who tries to disabuse you of your idea or conspiracy into the complex paranoid fantasy itself, rather than deal with the trauma of a disintegrating self.

When setbacks occur, or when something goes wrong in the life of the paranoid, they will prefer to believe that another person or group is to blame, rather than accept any personal responsibility.

In Part II, I will discuss how paranoia can originate from both biological and psychological causes; and how the current political paranoia and rhetoric of the left have profound implications for our society. It has led to severe breaks in the social fabric that bind us together as a nation. I hope that these can, with time, be mended. But the worse effect of this paranoid style is that it seriously impedes those who express it from being able to appropriately face and respond to reality.

Thus, those who adopt the paranoid style in their rhetoric and their behavior not only are unable to help the rest of us deal with the very real threats we face in the 21st century; they actively undermine our efforts and enable our enemies.

******************************************************************

PART II

I will begin this second part of the discussion by quoting Richard Hofstadter again, from his essay "The Paranoid Style in American Politics":

What distinguishes the paranoid style is not, then, the absence of verifiable facts (though it is occasionally true that in his extravagaant passion for facts the paranoid occasionally manufactures them), but rather the curious leap in imagination that is always made at some critical point in the recital of events....

The plausability the paranoid style for those who find it plausible lies, in good measure, in this appearance of the more careful, conscientious and seemingly coherent application to detail, the laborious accumulation of what can be taken as convincing evidence for the most fantastic conclusions, the careful preparation for the big lep from the undeniable to the unbelievable.

The singular thing about all this laborious work is that the passion for factual evidence does not, as in most intellectual exchanges have the effect of putting the paranoid spokesman into effective two-way communication with the world outside his group--least of all with those who doubt his views. He has little real hope that his evidence will convince a hostile world. His effort to amass it has rather the quality of a defensive act which shuts off his receptive apparatus and protects him from haavaing to attend to disturbing considerations that do not fortify his ideas. He has all the evidence he needs; he is not a receiver, he is a transmitter.

What is missing from the paranoid style is not facts, but sensible judgment. And how can judgments be made--let alone be sensible--when the postmodern constraints on thinking (discussed here and here) demand moral relativity and decree that all truth is subjective anyway. Postmodernism practically celebrates paranoia, projection, denial and distortion as undeniable and fundamental truth.

Paranoid symptoms and the paranoid style may arise from biological or emotional (psychological) causes.

In my line of work I see many people who have an underlying physiological abnormality in the brain that predisposes them to develop psychotic symptoms, including paranoia. Some of the psychiatric disorders where paranoia can be seen include from schizophrenia, psychotic depression, mania and substance abuse. Paranoia may also be a symptom of medical disorders, and the list of them is quite long, but includes almost all medical problems that may affect the brain (e.g. infectious, neoplastic endocrine, nutritional etc.).

One patient I remember vividly was a young man in his 30's who came to the emergency room with careful documentation (literally hundreds of pages) of his fluid intake and urine output; (with careful descriptions of the color and consistency of the urine as well as several recent samples) for the last 3 years. This compilation of data was offered to me as the "proof" that someone had been slowly poisoning him. Recently, he had begun to realize, he told me, that the persons behind this were likely from some planet astronomers had not yet discovered.

Most of the medical and psychiatric disorders that lead to paranoia involve a disruption of normal brain physiology, which then leads to misperceptions and distorted thinking processes. In such cases, paranoia develops as the broken brain tries to make sense of a world that one's senses are saying has gone mad. In other words, the brain tries to use its rational faculty to develop a coherent explanation of the false or distorted perceptions that are brought about by the abnormal physiology.

I am not suggesting that all people who use projection or paranoia have a medical or psychiatric illness. Most non-clinical instances of paranoia stop abruptly at the point where the totally bizarre begins. The patient above had wandered into the bizarre with his inclusion of aliens into the paranoid mix and he suffered from a pathological disorder. The particular content of the paranoia--even in clinical disorders--may take on some of the psychological issues with which the individual is dealing at the time. For example, one high-functioning PhD level microbiologist that I treated in the past believed that there were "sub"microscopic organisms on his skin that jumped from him to other people and where the reason why he could not get andy dates with women.

One of the daunting aspects of political paranoia is that it is not entirely out of the realm of the possible; it is just unbelievable in its breathtaking scope to most reasonable people. In order to believe it, a person would have to accept some pretty far-fetched underlying assumptions - many of them fairly contradictory.

It simply boggles the mind to contemplate all the conspiracy theories constructed about George W. Bush and/or Karl Rove's evil genius. They are blamed even for the sad foolishness of some Democrats' behaviors. Recall, as just one example, the proposed theory that Karl Rove was the originator of the "fake but accurate" Dan Rather/Mary Mapes memo. The idea of this theory was that Rove did it to make Democrats look foolish since it was so obviously a forgery; and that they were "entrapped" into believing it to be real. Except, of course, that the same people who say that piece of nonsense are also unwilling to admit that the forgery is fake and believe there is some "underlying truth" to its contents. Go figure. But as Hofstadter has said, this is the hallmark of the paranoid style.

Science has shown that many purely psychological factors can also have a dramatic effect on brain physiology and alter perceptions.

Many conversion disorders (such as this classic case of hysteria I discussed in an earlier post) have no objective medical pathology, but are brought about by a traumatic psychological event in a person's life. Sometimes non-psychiatric physicians speak of of such symptoms in a belittling manner, calling them "all in your head" or "supratentorial" (suggesting that the person is making them up). But the truth is that psychological factors and how we react to the world have an enormous impact on our brain.

That is, after all, on of the main functions of the brain -- to perceive and respond to the external environment. When that environment or the real world overwhelms us psychologically, sometimes even a normal brain can malfunction. And sometime an otherwise normal brain may be used to filter out the unacceptable or the reality that overloads it.

All of the psychological defenses--including paranoia, denial, distortion and projection -- undoubtedly have a biological basis. We are only now just coming to understand some of the physiology that may be involved; and it is hardly surprising that it is the same physiology that underlies the analogous medical conditions. (See here, for example).

Clearly some people are more prone to develop extreme paranoid ideas that are completely out of the realm of possibility than others, but the only difference between paranoia from a medical or psychiatric etiology and paranoia from a psychological (or political) etiology is how one treats it.

In the former case, the underlying medical or psychiatric problem is diagnosed and treated. Most often, the paranoia will diminish, though not always as it is a very difficult symptom to entirely remove.

In the latter case, one must also treat the underlying problem, but in this case, it is not medication or other physical treatments that will do the job. The treatment for political paranoia is insight and self-awareness.

As recently as yesterday, some new studies were reported on that demonstrated how political bias affects brain activity. The key word is "bias". Or, to put it another way, deeply held political beliefs effect brain activity and can interfere with both judgment and perception. Most certainly, this is not unique to either Democratic or Republican brains.

All human brains have the potential to be biased, prejudiced, irrational, and, with reference to our topic--paranoid. The only psychological prerequisite to slip into this kind of deluded thinking is a perceived threat to one's sense of self; or any of the ideas or relationships one's sense of self is based on.

When faced with some extremely unpleasant aspect of reality, the individual mind immediately take steps to preserve its integrity. A common example of this is the situation where someone is told of a loved one's unexpected death. Such traumatic information cannot be processed instantaneously as it puts a person's whole world out of frame. It is too sudden to be fully digested.

So, the first and most normal response is the reflexive response to such news: "NO! That can't be true!" (denial) ; or even the more paranoid response: "No! You're lying to me! Why would you lie to me!"

Again, we are all capable of having paranoid ideas at times because paranoia is the extreme of the human mind's attempts to find connections; assign meanings; and develop rational explanations for events, thoughts and/or feelings.

In other words, the tendency to mistake coincidences for causes; or to blame other people rather than one's self for one's circumstances is a universal trait; but it is hardly a psychologically healthy one.

Here is the way that paranoia and projection work:

-You consider yourself a "peaceful" and non-violent person. Yet you feel violently angry at someone or some situation. This does not fit in with your image of yourself. With projection, you deny your own rage and insist that it is the other person who is going to attack you or has angry feelings towards you. PSYCHOLOGICAL RESULT: you don't have to acknowledge your own angry feelings which are unacceptable to you; and instead can attribute them to someone else.

-You are a successful person. But deep down you feel unworthy of your success or guilty of your talent or wealth. Instead of acknowledging this and trying to understand and deal with the origins of such painful self-recrimination (did you cheat others to obtain your wealth? Are you faking talent? Have poor self-esteem?); you begin to think that others are criticizing you and trying to impede your success. Or, alternately you engage in self-defeating or self-destructive behavior that you blame on someone else. Or, you take the position that wealth is evil or all talent is undeserved and extol mediocrity or poverty as morally superior in order to compensate for your guilt. PSYCHOLOGICAL RESULT: you don't have to deal with the reason behind your guilt and unworthiness; and can attribute such critical attacks on you to someone else or denouncing others with talent and wealth makes you feel worthy. For examples of this you can pretty much pick all of the Hollywood elite or many successful businessmen (George Soros comes to mind).

-You are an unsuccessful person or feel a failure in life. You have some shame and/or humiliation about your situation. Instead of dealing with what you are doing that makes you unsuccessful, you attribute your lack of success to the actions of some individual or group who is acting against you. PSYCHOLOGICAL RESULT: you don't have to take responsibility for your situation or acknowledge that your own actions brought you to it. It is not your fault, but someone else's. This is the mechanism behind most racist, sexist, homophobic and/or antisemitic behavior the world over. Islam, in particular, seems to specialize in this type of thinking about the Jews onto whom they project all their own inadequacies.

There is a reason that human beings experience suspicion, distrust and hyper- vigilance. That reason is because there is REAL danger in the world. Our ancestors in the caves knew this to be true. They lived with continual danger just to survive every minute of every day. Being able to logically "connect the dots" and extract meaning from the evidence of one's senses is a necessity for survival. Those who did not have this psychological capacity surely died out long ago.

The tools of the paranoid individual and the paranoid style that one can see dramatised in much political discourse these days are denial, distortion, and projection. These psychological defenses are almost always pathological when used by an adult to cope with the real world.

Those individuals who use these three primitive psychological defenses rearrange external reality (so that actual reality may be avoided); for an observer, the users of these mechanisms frequently appear crazy or insane. These are known as the "psychotic" defenses, common in overt psychosis, in dreams, and throughout childhood.

Denial is a refusal to accept external reality because it is too threatening. There are examples of denial being adaptive (for example, it might be adaptive for a person who has a terminal illness to use some degree of denial). But for the most part, denial is only useful as a short-term strategy, to permit a person to come to terms with reality. As a long-term strategy to protect self-identity, it is potentially lethal--since the person or group that uses it extensively is blinded to the real danger that might be out there.

Distortion is a gross reshaping of external reality to meet internal needs. The ongoing and bizarre accusations against the evil genius Karl Rove are typical of the distortion of the paranoid style. The most recent example is the accusation by the denizens of the Democratic Underground that the Osama tape was masterminded by Rove to justify the President's authorization of the NSA to intercept terrorist communications.

In a free society, it is reasonable to raise concerns about the trade-offs during a war of increased security and decreased freedom in some areas; and how far is it appropriate or necessary to go--balancing risks and benefits. But the paranoid left will not allow a rational discussion of this issue and insist that free speech is being taken away and that the President is mad with power. It is more to the point to say that they are mad with impotence.

It is my observation that most of the liberal left are so obsessed with controlling the speech of those who disagree with them (they refer to such speech as "hate" speech and generally accuse you of being "hate-filled"); that they are unable to recognize, let alone take responsibility for the hatred and anger that they are experiencing. Attributing their own feeling to others is much more acceptable since it allows them to continue to believe that they are champions of free speech; calm and rational ("reality-based"); when the greatest threats to free speech originate in their own policies which they demand be forced onto others; and the greatest threat to peace is in their own unacknowledged rage.

Granted that the conservative right--especially sometimes the religious right--suffer from the same paranoid style at times and can be equally obnoxious with wanting to force their policies and beliefs onto others. That this is so, does not take the liberal left off the hook for their unbelievably childish and incredibly foolish paranoid attempts to manipulate political rhetoric in a time of war; in a manner that enables our enemies to exploit exposed faultlines in American politics--and to do it solely for their own personal political gain.

When you try to engage them in discussion, the paranoid person will simply emote and vent his rage because he feels dispossessed, impotent and irrelevant. Two-way communication is impossible, as Hofstadter notes. Eventually, the paranoid will develop a conspiracy theory to explain away their feelings of rage and impotence and seek to punish the person or group they blame for their situation. You can see this in almost every thread at the Democratic Underground if you are so inclined to read them. You can see it in the inflammatory and over-the-top rhetoric about Judge Alito, an able and mainstream conservative jurist; whose detractors paint "end-of-the-world" scenarios if he were to be confirmed to the Supreme Court. "Women will die" and children will be sexually abused; you will lose all your personal liberties; and we will return to the days of the caveman; and so on.

It is easy to see how all these psychological manipulations work together to keep a person or a group insulated from reality. We witness such behavior all around us these days. It has a mindless quality that is indifferent to the societal damage that it wreaks.

The actual numbers of those on the liberal left who have fully embraced the paranoid style is actually relatively low. The damage they do; the deaths they must certainly take responsibility for are totally out of proportion to the actual size. Yet they have leveraged their power in the media and academic institutions well, and have come to dominate almost all of the programs of the liberal left.

So, what is the solution to this dilemma posed by the liberal left's paranoid style? They behave the way they do because they believe (falsely, I think) that it will gain them back their position of power and influence.

When--and if--the paranoid style fails to bring them back to the hall of political power in Washington and elsewhere, the left will have a motivation to change--just as the conservative right managed to look at itself in the 70's and 80's and curtail the paranoia that threatened to keep them powerless and keep the valuable ideas they had to contribute to American society out of the mainstream.

If the conservative right were able to develop a sense of insight and terminate the paranoid streak that ran through all its thinking in the 50's and 60's; then so too can the liberal left.

What is so dangerous at this particular time in history, is that the left seems to be escalating their paranoia instead of containing it. The entire world is in th midst of a potentially deadly crisis, brought on by a dangerous and lethal strain of Islamism that the paranoid liberal left refuses to acknowledge. They are only able to see the conservative right as the enemies they have to deal with, and are blind to the real danger.

This is worse than delusional. This is potentially life-threatening for American society. It must stop.

To regain health--both political and psychological--the liberal left must begin to take responsibility for their thoughts, feelings, rhetoric and behaviors that are enabling and appeasing Islamofascist murderers. Even if this is a painful process for the left (or a financially painful process), they must change their mindless opposition to everything that the conservative right proposes --especially in the area of national security. They must exert control over inappropriate behaviors that derives from their anger and resentment at having lost the last two elections to someone they despise. They do not have to love George Bush or Republicans, but they have to grow up and work with them for the sake of America. If they have alternatives that are consistent with national security and national interests, let them propose them instead of simply saying NO to everything that is proposed. Even if they hate the direction things are going, it was only a little over a year ago that the American people--the one's they say they serve--voted to go in Bush's direction. There is a job to get done, and they must do it together with their political opponents for the good of us all.

Paranoia, projection, denial and distortion are banished though the development of insight and self awareness. When these defense mechanisms are being used, some inner reality is distorting outer reality. It is the inner reality that has to be understood before a person can have control over their bias, prejudices and histrionic and rageful tendencies; which are the major stumbling blocks to a full grasp of reality. Only be taking down such impediments will the liberal left and the conservative right--working together-- optimally deal with dangerous world of the 21st century.

The conservative right wing of American politics may once have been the predominant users of the paranoid style in the 60's. But what we see today clearly demonstrates the severe paranoia of the liberal left wing as they try to come to grips with their own growing irrelevancy and confining worldview that keeps them anchored in the past and deeply afraid of the future.

Today, conservatives are actually more representative of true "progressive" thought; and will continue to be as long as the rhetoric and behavior of the liberal left is mired in the paranoid style.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:35 PM |

 
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. Thanks for all the submissions. I try to use as many as possible! SO MANY INSANITIES! SO LITTLE TIME!!!

1. Dear Adorable Little Boy Who Makes Noise and Needs Attention! (hat tip: SC&A)

2. Dear Fellow Muslims, Please stone me, I'm an adulteress--I think.

3. Dear National Security Agency...

4. "Zionest George Bush tells Iran to go eat pork" (loose translation)

5. All we are saying is give surrender a chance !

6. Standing up to the bullies in the press (does that count as "speaking truth to power?")

7. I don't care either.

8. Favorite bumper sticker of the congressional elite. Speaking of Congress--any possibility that this pill could help them?

9. Culture of corruption on videotape. Is drunk legislating a crime?

10. Witness for the defense. Perhaps a bit unreliable?

11. Disappointment...but, guess who's racist by his own definition? Apparently this issue brings out the insane in everyone.

12. Nimrod of the week award. I'd call it political Munchausen's Syndrome.

13. I'm waiting for one of my delusional patients to tell me he isn't delusional--he's just "too far in front of the news cycle."

14. Musical taste is inexplicable? De gustabus non est disputandum...

15. Amnesty vs Bananas ; and Pondering vs Musing

16. A modest suggestion for Vincente Fox and Vladimir Putin... that will solve both their problems.

17. Crime in West Virginia is interesting.

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:



- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:12 AM |

 
THE MSM IS UNCONSCIOUS
Iraq the Model asks if CNN is having some problems translating Arabic to English in this story, which claims in its opening statement that:

Iran has a right to develop nuclear technology and the international community should drop its demands that Tehran prove it's not trying to build a nuclear weapon, Iraq's foreign minister said Friday.

Omar's translation is the following:

We respect Iran's and every other nation's right to pursue nuclear technology for research purposes and peaceful use given they accept [giving] the internationally required guarantees that this will not lead to an armament race in the region…

It would seem that the CNN version is somewhat different from what a native speaker of the language heard in the original broadcast.

And then there's this, from John at PowerLine, quoting
a CBS news story:

Top law enforcement officials at the Justice Department and the FBI indicated to their counterparts at the White House that they could not, and were unwilling to, return documents to the Louisiana Republican which were seized as part of a bribery investigation. (emphasis John's and mine)

Anyone following the story knows full well that the congressman in question is a Democrat whose antics have (for now anyway) put a halt to the "culture of corruption" talking points that the Democrats have unwisely been using against the Republicans.

John suggests that this is "wishful thinking" on CBS's part. I would call both of these instances of "Freudian Slips" on the part of the MSM.

A Freudian Slip is is an error in speech or emotion that reveals an unconscious motive. The two examples above just happened to occur in the latest 24 hour news cycle.

At any rate, I prefer to think of the errors as Freudian slips; and revealing basically the unconscious bias of some of our major news outlets (or at the least their complete unconsciousness)--because the alternative explanation is that the MSM is deliberately and maliciously trying to distort the news and mislead the American public to further its own political agenda.

And that would be simply unthinkable...wouldn't it?
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:41 PM |

 
A WAR TO BE PROUD OF
Victor Davis Hanson: has some thoughts this Memorial Day weekend about the Iraq War:

There may be a lot to regret about the past policy of the United States in the Middle East, but the removal of Saddam Hussein and the effort to birth democracy in his place is surely not one of them. And we should remember that this Memorial Day.

Whatever our righteous anger at Khomeinist Iran, it was wrong, well aside from the arms-for-hostages scandal, to provide even a modicum of aid to Saddam Hussein, the great butcher of his own, during the Iran-Iraq war.

Inviting the fascist Baathist government of Syria into the allied coalition of the first Gulf War meant that we more or less legitimized the Assad regime’s take-over of Lebanon, with disastrous results for its people.

It may have been strategically in error not to have taken out Saddam in 1991, but it was morally wrong to have then encouraged Shiites and Kurds to rise up — while watching idly as Saddam’s reprieved planes and helicopters slaughtered them in the thousands.

A decade of appeasement of Islamic terrorism, with retaliations after the serial attacks — from the first World Trade Center bombing to Khobar Towers and the USS Cole — never exceeding the occasional cruise missile or stern televised lecture, made September 11 inevitable.

A decade was wasted in subsidizing Yasser Arafat on the pretense that he was something other than a mendacious thug.

I cite these few examples of the now nostalgic past, because it is common to see Iraq written off by the architects of these past failures as the “worst” policy decision in our history, a “quagmire” and a “disaster.”

Just the other day at work, people were discussing WWII and the battles their fathers had fought in during that time, when of my colleagues casually commented about what a "waste" Iraq was compared to WWII. On the contrary, I replied. Not only was Iraq for as great--if not greater--a cause as WWII, but it was a key battle in WWIII.

Absolute silence engulfed the room.

And then the usual began. "But what about all Bush's "lies"? What about all the soldiers dead?" "What about all those Iraqi civilians killed?" As usual, I tried to respond one by one. Most were astonished that Iraq had so few casualties and deaths compared to WWII. Somehow they imagined that Germany and Japan had been stopped without any effort or sacrifice on the part of our soldiers. Some were simply astonished that I would even say such a thing and defend the current administration.

Especially this weekend, though, we should be remembering the achievement our military has had in crushing the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. That we have stayed on to offer a new alternative other than autocracy and theocracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, and kept a targeted United States safe from attack for over four years is an incredible accomplishment.

No matter what the naysayers insist.


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:46 AM |

 
THE COUNCIL HAS SPOKEN !
This week's winners in the Watcher's Council are now posted at the Watcher of Weasels . Every week the Council nominates posts from the blogs of the Council members, and posts from around the blogsphere. The Council then votes to select the "Best" of all these posts.

BEST COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

Let Us Make Them All Welcome Gates of Vienna

Second Place

Assessing the Threat At Our Southern Border The Glittering Eye

BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

The Essential President Bush The Anchoress

Second Place

SC&A Ven t Sigmund, Carl & Alfred

Be sure to check out all the winners at the Watcher's Site! Great weekend reading.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:10 AM |

 
ANOTHER WEEKEND, ANOTHER SOCCER TOURNAMENT !
We just spent the last 5 hours driving down interstate highway 69 to beautiful Indianapolis, where the Boo will be playing in a big soccer tournament over the weekend.

This happens to also be the weekend for the Indianapolis 500, so things are sort of crowded in this neck of the woods! The team was darn lucky to get hotel rooms (that's the good part); the bad part is that the rooms are 20+ miles from the fields.

Blogging will be lighter than usual, but I have a good internet connection and should be able to post each day!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:21 AM |

 
THE USEFUL IDIOT BRIGADE STRIKES AGAIN
Cathy Siepp takes down Cindy Sheehan rather nicely in an aptly titled piece, "Dear Useful Idiot":

My teenage daughter, who is a more sympathetic person than I am, thinks baldly calling Cindy Sheehan an idiot is a bit harsh, so I'll amend: Cindy Sheehan is a useful idiot, a rattle-headed tool of everyone from Not In Our Name, who even as the Twin Towers were still smoldering worried more about retaliation against the poor Taliban than about women oppressed by the Taliban; to pro-Palestinian terrorist apologists; to your friendly neighborhood Stalinists at various branches of International ANSWER, whose objectives range from freeing Mumia to putting a bright and happy spin on daily life in North Korea.

And yet the most idiotic statement in Sheehan’s new book, Dear President Bush, comes not from Sheehan herself but from Howard Zinn, who writes in the introduction: “A box-cutter can bring down a tower. A poem can build up a movement. A pamphlet can spark a revolution.”

A box-cutter can bring down a tower. By now, I suppose, we should be used to the hard Left’s extending underdog status to the worst of mass murderers; still, the sheer gall of beginning a series of David-and-Goliath metaphors with that one is breathtaking.

So a spunky little box-cutter took on those big old capitalistic towers, the same way that a brave little pamphlet like Dear President Bush takes on Bush and his evil policies. (The publisher is City Lights’s Open Media Series; City Lights is the San Francisco bookstore famously dedicated to free speech, although it won’t carry anything by Oriana Fallaci because she’s “fascist.”)

Go ahead, read it all.

Meanwhile another useful idiot of the left, whose compassion and concern know no bounds has this to say:

"Yes, it [the assasination of Tony Blair by a suicide bomber] would be morally justified. I am not calling for it - but if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7. It would be entirely logical and explicable. And morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq - as Blair did."

It is a real love fest among these guys. Cindy adoringly hugging Hugo; Geoge looking deeply into the eyes of Fidel...

Neither Cindy nor George have any problem admiring--or even embracing --dictators and thugs enthusiastically. Welcome to the new, improved Useful Idiot Brigade of the 21st century! Joining the Brigade is easy. Simply set your moral thermostat to zero; your psychological state to denial; and your intellectual state to bankrupt.

UPDATE: The Belmont Club seems to notice the same eerie similarity between Sheehan and Galloway, as they are manipulated by their respective puppet-masters and cheerfully enable and encourage the deaths of innocents all over the world.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:45 PM |

 
ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER PRINCIPLE
Maybe you've noticed this, too? Charles Krauthammer this morning notes the following:

All of a sudden, revolutionary Iran has offered direct talks with the United States. All of a sudden, the usual suspects -- European commentators, American liberals, dissident CIA analysts, Madeleine Albright -- are urging the administration to take the bait.

It is not rare to see a regime like Iran's -- despotic, internally weak, feeling the world closing in -- attempt so transparent a ploy to relieve pressure on itself. What is rare is to see the craven alacrity with which such a ploy is taken up by others.

Mark my words. The momentum for U.S.-Iran negotiations has only begun. The focus of the entire Iranian crisis will begin to shift from the question of whether Tehran will stop its nuclear program to whether Washington will sit down alone at the table with Tehran.

To this cynical bait-and-switch, there can be no American response other than No. Absolutely not.

Just yesterday the world was excoriating the Bush administration for its unilateralism -- on Kyoto, the ABM Treaty and most especially Iraq -- and demanding that Washington act in concert with the "international community.'' Just yesterday, the Democratic candidate for president attacked Bush's foreign policy precisely for refusing to consult with, listen to and work with "the allies.''

Another day, another principle. Bush is now being pressured to abandon multilateralism and go it alone with Iran.

Krauthammers suggests that we not fall into this obvious trap--unless one condition applies. We should look the international community if the eye and state that sure, we'll go into negotiations with Iran--but only if you publically pledge beforehand, that the failure of any unilateral talks with this lying and deceitful regime will immediately lead to united military action by the international community.

Barring that kind of pledge, what possible advantaage would there be in our sitting down with Iran? Ahmadinejad will simply use such negotiations as a platform for showing off his pseudo-macho contempt for anything the U.S. does. Haven't we heard enough scornful responses from the fruitcake in charge? A brief sampling:

“They say we want to give Iranians incentives but they think they are dealing with a four-year-old, telling him they will give him candies or walnuts and take gold from him in return”

“Iran will not accept any suspension or freeze of nuclear its work”

"We are asking them to step down from their ivory towers and act with a little logic"

"The Islamic Republic, based on its principles, without being scared of the fuss created, will continue on its path of scientific developments and the world cannot influence the Iranian nation's will"

"The International Atomic Energy Agency has accepted that we are now part of the atomic club"

"I am telling those fake superpowers that the Iranian nation became independent 27 years ago and ... on the nuclear case, it will resist until fully achieving its rights"

This is the kind of rhetoric we have been hearing on a daily basis for several years now from Ahmadinejad and the mullahs. Why in the world would anyone believe that they have any real intention of negotiating in good faith?

It is mere fantasy and wishful thinking on the part of the international community.

By now, even the slowest learners should have figured out that Iran has no intention of stopping its nuclear ambitions; has no intention of doing anything except trying to buy itself yet more time -- something they continually get from the dhim bulbs and enablers of the world, who still believe that if they say "pretty please" enough times, it will make everything better.

On the contrary, that kind of appeasing behavior is correctly perceived by bullies as a fundamental weakness that can be exploited. The practical result is positive reinforcement of the behavior, that continues to escalate because it feeds the ego of the bully.

There is only one principle that can stop Iran's pathological behavior and it is as Krauthammer explains so clearly: You set the limits; clearly state the consequences of unacceptable behavior; and then follow through.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:16 AM |

 
SPRINGTIME FOR MAHMOUD AND THE 12th IMAM
I guess things aren't all rosy and holy in the Iranian paradise... Gateway Pundit has the roundup and pictures of Iranian student rioting in Tehran and elsewhere.

Which reminded me of this hit song from the hit musical "The Looters", the sequel to Mel Brooks' "The Producers"):

CHORUS:
Iran was having trouble
What a sad, sad story
Needed a brave leader to restore
Islam's former glory
Where, oh, where was he?
Where could that man be?
We looked around and then we found
The man for you and me

HEAD MULLAH:
And now it's...
Springtime for Mahmoud and the 12th Imam
Tehran is happy and gay! (well, not the way you think)
We're praying at a faster pace
We know that we are Allah's master race!
Springtime for Mahmoud and the 12th Imam
Noone can ignore Iran any more
Springtime for Mahmoud and the 12th Imam
Watch out, Europe
We're going on tour!
Springtime for Mahmoud and the 12th Imam...

MULLAHS:
Look, it's springtime

HEAD MULLAH:
Winter for America and the Jew!

MULLAHS:
Springtime for Mahmoud and the 12th Imam!
Now that Islam's
gone nuclear too!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:55 PM |

 
PSYCHBLOGGER CARNIVAL ***NEW***
IndianCowboy at Not Really A Cowboy has decided to host a "Psychblogger's Carnival"!

If it has to do with psych, it’s well-written, and it’s an actual commentary from your point of view rather than simply a link and a quote with a quick “I like this”, then send it in. Should Fun times will be had by all.

I’ll be hosting the first one on Thursday, June 1st, so get your links in to me by about 6pm the Wednesday before. Feel free to send multiple submissions, since I have no idea how popular this will be these first few carnivals. That may change if we get to be anything like the size of Tangled Bank, Skeptics’ Circle, or Grand Rounds. We’ll start out bi-weekly and if it looks like it’ll work we might move up to once a week. Once it’s off the ground I’ll open up hosting opportunities to those who are stupid enough to take on the work.

You can either submit by sending me an email at:

indiancowboysblog@gmail.com

Or by using the Blog Carnival Submit Form. I like this idea and hope that everyone in the psychosphere will submit something!

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:46 PM |

 
TOWEL DAY
Today is Towel Day (hat tip: Rand Simberg)

You sass that hoopy Douglas Adams? Now there's a frood who knew where his towel was. You are invited to join your fellow hitchhikers in mourning the loss of the late great one. Join in on towel day to show your appreciation for the humor and insight that Douglas Adams brought to all our lives.

Go and find out why a towel is about the most massively useful thing an interstellar hitch hiker can have. And then mourn the great Douglas Adams, whose work I quoted just yesterday.

Adams was about the funniest writer I have ever had the pleasure to read. I still remember reading the first few pages of The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy back in the early 1980's. I was on board a plane, flying to New York and I suspect that my fellow passengers thought I was having a psychotic fit, I was laughing so hard.

The memory of the first time stays with you forever.



- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:34 PM |

 
Light Blogging But Stay Tuned...
Duty calls, and today is going to be extraordinarily busy at work. I may get a post up by this afternoon, but more likely by this evening. Stay tuned and feel free to visit some of the blogs on my blogroll!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:06 AM |

 
THE ACLU'S BAD POETRY
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !

If I ignore the gratuitous Bush/Cheney bashing in the article above, I have to admit that I am simply consumed with admiration at the way the ACLU has hidden its socialist/totalitarian agenda under the guise of protecting "civil liberties".

It is mind-boggling to think that any rational person could take this organization seriously anymore, as it goes around trying to destroy America's cultural heritage and suppress free speech in a manner reminiscent of certain oppressive religions. Once it may have embraced classical liberal ideals; but then it took a very wrong turn and is now just another quasi-religious cult that owes allegience to the multiculti left.

The ACLU's position brings to mind this passage from Douglas Adams, who was writing about Vogon and other bad poetry:

Vogon poetry is of course the third worst in the Universe. The second worse is that of the Azgoths of Kria. During a recitation by their Poet Master Grunthos the Flatulent of his poem "Ode to a Small Lump of Green Putty I Found in My Armpit One Midsummer Morning" four of his audience died of internall hemorrhaging, and the President of the Mid-Gaactic ARts Nobbling Council survived by gnawing one of his own legs off. Grunthos is reported to have been "disappointed" by the poem's reception, and was about to embark on a reading of his twelve-book epic entitled My Favoite Bathtime Girgles when his own major intestine, in a desperate attempt to save life and civilization, leaped straight up and through his neck and throttled his brain. (Emphasis mine)

I suspect that the sad fate of Grunthos of Kria has already been shared by the leadership of the ACLU.

And that can only be a good thing for all freedom-loving human life and civilization.

Stop the ACLU has more.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 4:35 PM |

 
HOLY OUTRAGE

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:55 PM |

 
BIPARTISAN
At long last there is an issue that is important enough to make the two parties in Congress come together in a spirit of bipartisan resolve. In an amazing display of cooperation when the stakes are high, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have united to deal with the most critical issue of our time: to ensure that the elite corruption club to which they belong is able to retains its privileges; and remains above the law.

Doesn't it make you just weep with admiration for the spirit of patriotism they exhibit in these difficult times?

UPDATE: Dafydd at Big Lizards has the following to say:

I think it was Paul Mirengoff over on Power Line who wondered how long it would be before the blatant bribery case against Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA), was sent to the back of the bus while yet another accusation of George W. Bush's "unilateral approach to the use of [executive] authority" hopped into the driver's seat instead.

In other words, who cares whether Jefferson took hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes... George Bush violated Congressional protocol. B'gad, but we must keep a sense of priorities here; what could possibly be more important to the republic than the privileges of members of Congress?

What, indeed?
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:48 AM |

 
MYTHOLOGICAL TALES ABOUT IRAQ
Peter Wehner in Opinion Journal:

Iraqis can participate in three historic elections, pass the most liberal constitution in the Arab world, and form a unity government despite terrorist attacks and provocations. Yet for some critics of the president, these are minor matters. Like swallows to Capistrano, they keep returning to the same allegations--the president misled the country in order to justify the Iraq war; his administration pressured intelligence agencies to bias their judgments; Saddam Hussein turned out to be no threat since he didn't possess weapons of mass destruction; and helping democracy take root in the Middle East was a postwar rationalization. The problem with these charges is that they are false and can be shown to be so--and yet people continue to believe, and spread, them. Let me examine each in turn:

Go ahead and read the rest. Of course, the people who are invulnerable to the truth won't bother to read it; and you can bet will repeat the left's talking points in the comment thread as though Wehner had never taken the trouble to (once again) point out the lies inherent in their mythology.

Like any mythology, the left's narrative about Iraq is immune to reality, or even the slightest common sense. Their mantras ("Bush Lied" "No WMD" "No Blood For Oil") are best repeated in quasi-religious trance-like state that precludes the need for any rational thought process (see the post immediately preceeding this one; see also here); and any facts or deviations from the legends summon the lefty trolls like an afternoon call to prayer. This is what they believe. This is all they believe; as it was in the beginning, world without end. Amen.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 4:19 PM |

 
THE LEFT'S SHORTCUT FOR THINKING
I have talked multiple times about how classical liberal thought has devolved into mere leftist sloganeering, but Dennis Praeger at RCP has really nailed it precisely:

Here is a list of terms liberals apply to virtually every idea or action with which they differ:

Racist
Sexist
Homophobic
Islamophobic
Imperialist
Bigoted
Intolerant

And here is the list of one-word descriptions of what liberals are for:

Peace
Fairness
Tolerance
The poor
The disenfranchised
The environment

These two lists serve contemporary liberals in at least three ways.

First, they attack the motives of non-liberals and thereby morally dismiss the non-liberal person.

Second, these words make it easy to be a liberal -- essentially all one needs to do is to memorize this brief list and apply the right term to any idea or policy.

Praeger still refers to them as "liberals", a term I am careful not to use to describe the left. The classical liberal tradition is alive and well elsewhere--permeating both neoconservative and libertarian intellectual thought.

The left, chronically bereft of ideas, has the above shortcut to acutal thinking; since not being able to mindlessly protest and think at the same time is a big drawback for their movement. They compensate for this intellectual shallowness by being more passionate-- which is all the moral virtue they require to maintain their overweening sense of superiority.

Read Praeger's entire piece.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:21 AM |

 
A MENACE TO MULTICULTURALISM
Christopher Hitchens defend Aayan Hirsi Ali whose outspoken views have made her a pariah now in the Netherlands, even as her life remains in danger from the Islamists who want her dead:

Once again to mention her excellent new book The Caged Virgin, , this is an author and a politician who has made the transition from early Islamic fanaticism (she initially endorsed the fatwa against Salman Rushdie) to a full-out acceptance and advocacy of secularism and of Enlightenment ideals. Hirsi Ali calls for a pluralist democracy where all opinion is protected but where the law does not—in the name of some pseudo-tolerance—permit genital mutilation, "honor" killing, and forced marriage. One might have expected a more robust defense of this position from the Dutch, and indeed the international left, but instead there has been a response of extraordinary and sullen ungenerousness, as if a lone woman defying taboo and standing up to violence has in some way let down the side and become a menace to multiculturalism.

I would say the "extraordinary and sullen ungenerousness" hardly captures the indifference to Hirsi Ali's truly courageous stance against the Islamic fundamentalists by the feminist left (but the word "sullen" is certainly appropriate).

She is, as Hitchens notes a true menace to the cult of multiculturalism in the same way that Condi Rice is an apostate to the cult-- a female of color who dares to defy the rigid leftist rules regarding victimhood. Doesn't she know that she can't possibly be oppressed by Isalm, whose culture is superior by definition to western culture?

Once again she is defying those rules by refusing to be a victim of Islamic oppression and western dhimmitude; and choosing instead to be free and move to the U.S. As I commented in this post, The Dutch loss is America's gain.

Meanwhile, Dymphna notes that Hirsi Ali may be the beginning of a trend as many decide to abandon Europe's multicultural paradise:

Remember the 1930’s when so many of Europe’s intelligentsia came to America to escape Fascism? Albert Einstein was one; Karen Horney was another. Our intellectual ranks and our universities were enriched as Europe’s totalitarian rumblings caused the educated ranks to flee to safer shores.

It seems to be happening again. In addition to Hirsi Ali’s imminent departure from the Netherlands, there is a growing feeling that Europe is not safe for those who dissent even a little from the received wisdom of the bureaucratic state, or dare to confront the Muslim taqiyya so prevalent there

The reality is that multiculturalism is so intellectually vapid and morally reprehensible; it is a menace even to itself.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:52 AM |

 
THE MAN HE EVER WAS
I wholeheartedly agree with The Anchoress about President Bush:

That made me wonder a little - has President Bush lost his bearings, or have we? Is it President Bush who has broken faith with “his base” or have they?

When I read my friend’s line, I thought of a line from Pride and Prejudice, in which Elizabeth Bennett says in new appreciation of Mr. Darcy, “In essentials, I believe, he is very much what he ever was.”

Perhaps I am a dim bulb, but President Bush has never surprised me, and that is probably why I have never felt let down or “betrayed” by him. He is, in essentials, precisely whom he has ever been. He did not surprise me when he managed, in August of 2001, to find a morally workable solution in the matter of Embryonic Stem Cells. He did not surprise me when, a month later, he stood on a pile of rubble and lifted a broken city from its knees. When my NYFD friends told me of the enormous consolation and strength he brought to his meetings with grieving families, I was not surprised.

Read it all, please. President Bush is indeed the the man ever was -- a good and decent man; worn down perhaps by the burden of trying to keep this country safe in difficult times; as well as the neverending hostility and histrionics directed his way on a daily basis--but worthy of respect.

And despite his very human flaws, and the many issues on which I disagree with him, he will continue to get that respect from me.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:24 PM |

 
CHILDISH
Several stories in the news recently shine a spotlight on the children pretending to be adults that make up the political left of today.

First, from the "We can dish it out, but we can't take it" department comes this sad whine:

Top McCain Aide Insults Entire College Graduating Class...
"Very Unlikely Any Of You Will Ever Possess...One Small Fraction Of The Character Of John McCain"...

Clearly it is ok for the graduating class to insult, demean, and otherwise act like spoiled children whose rudeness apparently knows no bounds; but when they are criticized for such behavior it cannot be tolerated. On that basis alone, it seems likely that the top McCain aide is absolutely correct--particularly since McCain himself demonstrated adult behavior.

Second, in response to this disturbing story, the great intellects posting at Kos have this to say:

OH MY GOD! by davej Sun May 21, 2006 at 12:48:07 PM PDT
You're just notgoing to believe this outrage!!! Two men got on a school bus!!!!! This is just incredible!!!!!

OH MY GOD!!!!
[...]
It's a good thing the sentries are on duty, keeping watch to guard and protect us!!!!!!!!!

These adult-sized children scoff at those who might have prevented an American Beslan; and would become even more hysterical if nothing had been done. And later, if these two men or others had created a hostage situation, would be screaming for the heads of those who did not "connect the dots".

Finally, for your artistic edification, we have an infantile movie director who thinks himself quite avant garde and on the leading edge of protest by having real gay sex during a rendition of the national anthem in his new movie. The movie is described as a "call to arms" against George Bush. Arms? I suspect that another part of human anatomy is involved in the kind of screwing he is talking about. But nevermind. Gays are tortured and imprisoned in some countries; but America is the only country this fellow can think of to bash with his "art".

I offer these stories as further evidence of the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of today's left.

Together they demonstrate the fundamentally infantile manner in which many of the members of the left side of the political spectrum deal with the real world.

The first one portrays all the classic narcissistic entitlement of the spoiled brat. As Rich Lowery at The Corner commented at the time:

1) The solipsism of the student Left is incredible. That a war hero would come to talk to you about what he's learned in life, and your reaction would be to shout—“it's about me!” Amazing.
2) The forfeit of foreign-policy idealism on the left at the moment is near total. McCain got some applause when he said we should be doing more in Darfur—maybe because that's a cause that has an anti-Bush tinge. But his defense of American values and spreading them to the world was met with indifference or hostility.

Yes. Amazing is the word to describe it.

The second illustration highlights the childish lack of seriousness that the left has toward national security and the protection of America and its citizens. Even if the two Saudi men are completely innocent of any dastardly intent; to have ignored this incident would have been the height of folly in today's world. The contempt displayed toward those whose job is to protect all of us, is telling. Think very carefully about whether those possessing this level of immaturity and willful blindness should have anything to say about national security.

In Human Events Online, Rabbi Spero put it this way (hat tip: OnlineAnalyst)

It is easy to portray oneself as a champion of “civil liberties” during time of war when one knows that while pontificating the “high road” his safety is still guaranteed since the adults in power will not listen to juvenile cliches and will continue doing the sensible things that must be done to protect Americans.

Let’s point at the Democrats, while the American people are listening, and say: OK, we’ll do it your way. Safety is secondary to whatever Human Rights Watch and the ACLU demand. We will win this war not through the historic methods that have proven efficacious but through the method advanced by the Left. Yes, the Left has assured us that by being ‘beyond criticism’ our enemies will respect us, recognize how sweet we are, and thus put down their arms.
[...]
Republican Leaders, look the Democrats in the face and charge: If you were in office and had the responsibility of protecting the country, your party would not follow Russ Feingold and Dick Durban and would be doing 99% of what the President is doing. And if Democrats answer that they would indeed lead according to their holier-than-thou rhetoric, then boldly tell them and the American electorate that such an administration would be derelict in its duty, that such an administration would deserve being booted out of office since they would be leaving the American people defenseless. Charge them as guilty for not using all the technological and physical powers disposable to a Superpower, choosing instead to defend us as if a third world country bereft of any mechanism.

As for the third example of the emotionally immature movie director who wants to speak "truth to power" (don't they all?) and wants to be perceived as some sort of deep and edgy "artist", stickin' it to the man (you know, THE MAN: George Bush)?

This is the same kind of "artist" that delights in placing dung on an image of Mary and thinks he is making a serious statement about religion. The only serious statment he is making is about himself.

Most young children believe that their excrement-- and all their other bodily excretions--are pretty serious and special stuff; and for a brief time in their young life, they are correct (at least according to their parents). But real adults are expected to manage their exhibitionistic tendencies and not subject the rest of humanity directly to their unresolved shit. Great art--meaningful art--finds a creative way to transform those childhood conflicts into something positive. In an earlier post, I commented:

The problem --or rather, the reality is--that art is a critical part of life and through it one can can become aware of all the potential of what life can be. It is a way for humans to bring real, concrete meaning to abstract concept. As a selective recreation of reality, art uniquely captures and presents an idea or emotion in a way that can be grasped and understood by an observer. It provides, in other words, a "sense of life" --an instinctual fuel--that can inspire and motivate the perceiver--or, it can have the opposite effect.

Only fully mature and functioning adults are able to (1) appreciate that everything is not always about them and therefore be able to learn from someone else's life experience; (2) make those difficult and sometimes unpopular adult decisions that might be necessary to protect this country; or, (3) create lasting and meaningful art.

Grow up.

UPDATE: Greg Gutfield channeling Jane Rohe discusses the amazing "courage" of the student commencement speaker at the New School last week and what she meant to say:

For example, I actually said this: "Preemptive war is dangerous!" Who but me could say that kind of stuff among a group of people who rabidly agree with everything I say?

That takes real guts.

That's why I am now writing for the Huffington Post! Because writing for the Huffington Post is dangerous, too. And I know that all of you who also write for the Huffington Post will agree with that! That makes me feel good about myself, and good about you. We are now all feeling good. And feeling good is good! Just like war is dangerous!

But don't get me wrong. I hate war! It is dangerous!

You may wonder if I have feelings, just because I am so courageous. Well, the answer is yes! I have feelings! You might even call them strong feelings. I also love playing music! I love playing music, even in a time of war, which is dangerous. The war. Not the music. The music is just brave.

Forgive me if my writing is a little scattered. What I am really hoping for is a book deal, not this unpaid internship crap at Moveon.org.

I would say Gutfield has captured the shallow silliness of the little children who obtained their degrees that day.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:52 PM |

 


(from Pearls Before Swine)
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:27 AM |

 
THE BEST OF TIMES, THE WORST OF TIMES
Recently the President of Iran wrote a long, rambling letter to the President of the US in which, among other things, he asserted that:

...liberalism and Western-style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems.

Michael Barone--rebuts Ahmadinejad's psychological projection and identifies it for what it is: "obvious nonsense". Barone cites overall world economic growth, which is dominated by the engine of America--who accounts for more than a quarter of that growth.

He also discusses armed conflicts:

But aren't we also living in times of record strife? Actually, no. Just the opposite. The Human Security Centre of the University of British Columbia has been keeping track of armed conflicts since World War II. It reports that the number of genocides and violent conflicts dropped rapidly after the end of the Cold War, and that in 2005 the number of armed conflicts was down 40 percent from 1992.

Wars have also become less deadly: The average number of people killed per conflict per year in 1950 was 38,000; in 2002, it was just 600. The conflict in Iraq has not significantly changed that picture. American casualties are orders of magnitude lower than in the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam, and precision weapons have enabled us to vastly reduce the civilian death toll.

After our victory in the Cold War, Francis Fukuyama proclaimed that we had reached "the end of history," by which he meant the end of any serious argument over what constitutes the best kind of society. That is disputed by the Islamist fascists, who have made it clear that they will do whatever they can to inflict harm on our civilization.
[...]
Free markets and democracy are chalking up one ringing achievement after another -- as we can see from the surge in world economic growth and the reduction of armed conflict -- while the Islamists can achieve their goals only through oppression and slaughter.

Unfortunately, Ahmadinejad's particular brand of obvious nonsense seems to be selling well in the echo chambers of the left, whose greatest desire is to eliminate free markets and free individuals; and to stop the engine of human progress. For them, as well as for Ahmadinejad and the Islamists, it will always be the worst of times--as long as humanity is not completely controlled under their boot.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:20 AM |

 
SADDAM'S REALITY CHECK
John Burns writes in the NY Times:

After months of dominating the courtroom with his mocking protestations, Mr. Hussein had come to earth with a thud. In a 20-minute statement, the chief judge, Raouf Abdel-Rahman, confirmed that Mr. Hussein and the other seven defendants would face formal charges of crimes against humanity for their role in a "widespread and systematic attack" on the people of Dujail, a mainly Shiite town, after a failed assassination attempt against Mr. Hussein in 1982.

The indictments meant that the five-judge panel, after weighing testimony and evidence given over seven months, had decided there was a strong case for the defendants to answer on the harshest of all the possible charges.

It was a watershed moment, and one that reflected how far the court has progressed since Judge Raouf joined the panel in January, taking charge of a case that was at risk of imploding under the buffeting of chaotic events within the courtroom and outside.

And with the formal indictments, even Mr. Hussein and the three other high-ranking defendants showed signs of a new, more cautious approach to the proceedings

Saddam, who has consistently maintained that he is still the president of Iraq and, in general, acted as if he were the star of some pseudoreality-TV show is perhaps finally beginning to understand that he is going to held accountable for his crimes.

This news must also be disheartening for the poor, oppressed ex-dictator.

It is certainly disheartening for the usual enablers of terrorism on the left , who equate any success in Iraq with (gasp!) success for the evil Bushitler. Therefore they will do anything in their power to minimize, undermine and distort any postive accomplishment in Iraq --or for that matter, anywhere in the war on terror.

Events like this one, probably make them apoplectic.

I can't help contemplating what a difference it would make in people's perception of Iraq and the war if events like the one linked immediately above, actually made headlines in places like the NY Times or the Washington Post; or were discussed objectively in the "reality-based" community.

OTOH, I can see the headlines now: "Mayor From War-Torn Iraq Paraded Before Anxious Troops". Or, it would be written off as some sort of blatant propaganda effort by the sadistic military. No, I'm sure they would feel much more comfortable doing their own usual blatant propaganda effort--for the benefit of the enemies of the US.

Saddam's not the only one who needs a reality check.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:59 PM |

 
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. Thanks for all the submissions. I try to use as many as possible! SO MANY INSANITIES! SO LITTLE TIME!!!

1. Guess what? A real civil war; and a real refugee problem. But not in Iraq.

2. The left eat their own. But perhaps they are more open-minded...? Maybe not.

3. Could the GOP get this lucky?

4. Personally, I'd rather win Publishers Clearing House. But some are sex-starved, I guess--maybe they should enter?

5. Are you a helicopter parent?

6. The Chappaquidick dream falls short... Was it something he said, do you think?

7. Just another devastating side effect from the lack of affordable prescription drugs...

8. DaVinci hype ; the oppression of albinos; and interestingly, Opus Dei is...amused. COMING NEXT: The Mohammed Code!

9. Karla Marx? And Starbuck Marxists.

10. Sometimes you just get tired of running the world.

11. Funny, he doesn't look Jewish... and he's been taken off the official American shitlist.

12. Some see immigration as a balancing act

13. The Guantanamo Rehab Center? Just what those poor misguided souls need. Oh yes, let them eat tuna fish and cheese sandwiches!

14. Goodbye and good riddance?

15. An army of 1.2 million volunteers! But protecting the homeland is Not. Their. Role?

16. A Bond issue in San Francisco. It's a no-win situation for everyone.

17. Damn those nexis searches! You can't get away with anything these days.

18. Doing the opposite of what you really want to do is the hallmark of passive-aggressive behavior. Is anyone surprised?

19. There are none so deaf as those who cannot hear ? There are none so truthful as those who are out of truth ?

20. Nakba goes well with Palestinian whine. I'm shocked. Simply shocked.

21. Pssst. Anyone want to buy a used fighter jet?

22. Good thing it wasn't named the "Brown Enchilada" !

23. A new olympic sport for Beijing? Journalists get no respect.


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:



- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:15 AM |

 
Assymetrical Intelligence Gathering

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:38 AM |

 
THE VOICES OF DEFEAT AND THE ENEMY WITHIN
***NOTE***It is a beautiful Saturday morning! And since it is spring, there is, by definition, SOCCER! Blogging will resume this evening perhaps. In the meantime, here are two items to check out and ponder.

The first comes from Victor Davis Hanson who discusses anti-Americanism:

So we know the symptoms of this one-sided anti-Americanism and its strange combination of hatred, envy, and yearning — but, so far, not its remedy. In the meantime, the global caricature of the United States, in the aftermath of Iraq, is proving near fatal to the Bush administration, whose idealism and sharp break with past cynical realpolitik have earned it outright disdain. Indeed, the more al Qaeda is scattered, and the more Iraq looks like it will eventually emerge as a constitutional government, the angrier the world seems to become at the United States. American success, it seems, is even worse than failure.

Some of the criticism is inevitable. America is in an unpopular reconstruction of Iraq that has cost lives and treasure. Observers looked only at the explosions, never what the sacrifice was for — especially when it is rare for an Afghan or Iraqi ever to visit the United States to express thanks for giving their peoples a reprieve from the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.

We should also accept that the United States, as the world’s policeman, always suffers the easy hatred of the cops, who are as ankle-bitten when things are calm as they are desperately sought when danger looms. America is the genitor and largest donor to the United Nations. Its military is the ultimate guarantor of free commerce by land and sea, and its wide-open market proves the catalyst of international trade. More immigrants seek its shores than all other designations combined — especially from countries of Latin America, whose criticism of the United States is the loudest.

Nevertheless, while we cannot stop anti-Americanism, here (a consequence, in part, of a deep-seeded, irrational sense of inferiority) and abroad, we can adopt a wiser stance that puts the onus of responsibility more on our critics.

We have a window of 1 to 3 years in Iran before it deploys nuclear weapons. Let Ahmadinejad talk and write — the loonier and longer, the better, as we smile and ignore him and his monstrous ilk.

Let also the Europeans and Arabs come to us to ask our help, as sphinx-like we express “concern” for their security needs. Meanwhile we should continue to try to appeal to Iranian dissidents, stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan, and resolve that at the eleventh hour this nut with his head in a well will not obtain the methods to destroy what we once knew as the West.

Ditto with Hamas. Don’t demonize it — just don’t give it any money. Praise democracy, but not what was elected.

Read the entire piece, of course.

Meanwhile, the slow process of stabilizing Iraq continues as the Iraqi parliament approves the new cabinet and national unity government. That government has formidible challenges ahead:

In his first address, al-Maliki told parliament he would make restoring stability and security the top priority of his new administration. He said he would "work fast" to improve and coordinate Iraqi security forces so they can reduce attacks by insurgent groups and militias.

Al-Maliki also said he would set "an objective timetable to transfer the full security mission to Iraqi forces, ending the mission of the multinational forces."

What is interesting to me is that some seem to think that stability, peace, brotherhood and unification should have magically resulted instantaneously after the toppling of a decades-old totalitarian regime. Why wasn't everything perfectly planned for in advance? And of course, even though events are moving ever so slowly in the general direction we would like; since things are definitely not perfect, then it must just another hopeless, useless quagmire for the utopian left.

In fact, as Hanson notes, the more that Iraq moves in the direction of a constitutional government and works hard to deal with the diversity of interests and cultures that make up the country, the louder and shriller becomes the voices of anti-Americanism; and the voices of hopelessness and defeat.

America can deal with it when those voices originate from outside the country. It is a whole other matter, however, when the loudest and most toxic voices come from within.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:48 PM |

 
THE COUNCIL HAS SPOKEN !
This week's winners in the Watcher's Council are now posted at the Watcher of Weasels . Every week the Council nominates posts from the blogs of the Council members, and posts from around the blogsphere. The Council then votes to select the "Best" of all these posts.

BEST COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

Public Virtue Done With Mirrors

Second Place

Conservative Fatigue Syndrome ShrinkWrapped

BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

You Dissin' My God! Vox Poplar Is Right About Everything & Don't You Forget It!

Second Place (a two-way tie)

Kennedy's "Stigma" Is Limbaugh's "Crime" Don Surber

Negotiating with Iran: Who's the Real Enemy? Neo-neocon

Be sure to check out all the winners at the Watcher's Site! Great weekend reading.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:08 AM |

 
THE "USEFUL IDIOT" BRIGADE OF THE ISLAMIC JIHADISTS
In a previous post today, I contend that:

...the fact that the MSM and the left desperately want to believe Al Qaeda and chaos are winning is like a beacon of hope to the murderers and terrorists. They know they have lost militarily and politically; but they are hoping that their useful idiot brigade here in the U.S. and elsewhere can pull out a victory for them despite defeat.

Our friends on the left implicitly believe that the MSM is providing accurate information about the war on terror and that those of us who doubt it are demented and delusional. A sample attitude from one of my commenters in that earlier thread:

Of course, in the delusional world of the 29% Bushites, everybody lies: the press, the U.N., and generally everybody who does not feed them what they want to hear.

The 29% Bushites go around with blinders firmly in place and their fingers solidly planted in their ears, singing "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!"

It's not the Kool-Aid. The 29% Bushites are truly demented.

OK, children, let's look at yet another "news" story today. This one from the Washington Post exclaims, "Afghanistan Rocked As 105 Die in Violence: Toll Is Among Worst Since 2001 Invasion".

Once again, the invaluable Cori Dauber picks up on the blatant attempt to mislead and distort by noting that 80-90 of that number just happens to be the enemy who were killed. She then links to a report by Bill Roggio at the Counterterrorism Blog who will be an embed in Afghanistan (I am excerpting a large part of Roggio's report because I know that the lefties who come here wouldn't bother to click on the link; but I do hope other, more reasonable readers will take the time):

The news reports of a major Taliban offensive in southeastern Afghanistan are inaccurate, as Coalition offensives and Taliban attacks have been lumped together to give the impression of a coordinated Taliban assault in multiple provinces. A reading of the various reports indicates that while the Taliban has launched a major strike on a police station and government center in Helmand province and a small scale attack on a police patrol in Ghazni, as well as two suicide attacks against U.S. contractors in Herat and an Afghan army base in Ghazni, the fighting in Kandahar was initiated by Afghan and Coalition security forces during planned operations. Over 100 have been reported killed during the fighting, with 87 being Taliban. Well over half of those killed were killed during the Coalition offensives in Kandahar.

There were two separate major engagements in Kandahar province, and both were initiated by the Coalition. Coalition forces conducted a raid and subsequent air strikes against a Taliban safe haven in the village of Azizi. As many as 27 Taliban are believed to have been killed during the operation. A joint Canadian and Afghan security force conducted a sweep in the Panjwai district of Kandahar, and killed 18 Taliban and captured 26 in the process. One Canadian officer was killed and three Afghan police were wounded during the operation.

The fighting in Musa Qala in Helmand province is a bonafide major Taliban attack. The Associated Press reports an "estimated 300-400 militants with assault rifles and machine guns attacked a police and government headquarters" in Musa Qala. The Afghan police provided reinforcements to the beleaguered police station, fought off the Taliban force, reestablished control over the region, and killed 40 Taliban and took thirteen casualties of their own. Two police patrols were ambushed in Ghazni, and resulted in the death of two policemen. There is no evidence the attacks were coordinated. And they certainly weren't coordinated to occur in conjunction with Coalition operations.

It is important to understand how the fighting was initiated, as the current reporting is giving the impression of a coordinated Taliban uprising. This provides the Taliban with a propaganda victory, as their power is perceived as far greater than it actually is, which can negatively influence the government and peoples of the Coalition forces serving in Afghanistan. The narrow passage of the extension of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan (by a 149-145 vote in Parliament) illustrates the fragile nature of the support for the mission in some Western nations.(Empasis mine)

Roggio notes that the entire affair is likely a major victory for the coalition; especially considering that the Taliban's most senior commander was captured. But that point is not even mentioned in the Post story. Nor, of course is the concept of "victory" put forth as we endure the hand-wringing of the writer who is clearly upset at all that "violence" going on over there.

Roggion is also absolutely correct when he asserts that the MSM reporting basically gives the Taliban a "propaganda victory" by making it seem as if they are coordinated and exacting a heavy toll on hapless coalition forces. The death toll (which is 80-90% enemy deaths) reported in that fashion gives the clear impression that somehow the Taliban were successful in the skirmishes.

This is the reporting we are getting from these "unimpeachable" news sources, and that the left eat like sweet candy. They just love to savor the taste and texture of that anti-American; anti-coalition; anti-Bush propaganda that makes the enemy rejoice--even as they are unequivocally beaten by the forces of civilization.

This propaganda is absorbed directly into the bloodstream and flows unimpeded into the brains (and I use the term loosely) of people like the one I quoted above; who, as you can easily see from his comments, shares in the jubilation of the enemy forces.

Anyone with any common sense and reason would want to hear the truth--both the good parts and the bad. But, when the MSM reports are this misleading and deliberately distort the facts; and when the left eat those stories up-- then you've got to ask yourself: what kind of sick motives lie behind such a blatant desire to aid and abet the enemy.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:39 PM |

 
Dreams of Immortality
Once, during the time I was on the faculty of the University of Wisconsin, a colleague in Internal Medicine came to my door to discuss a case with me. He was well-known as a health food nut and obsessive exerciser; regularly jogging up to 50-60 miles a week. While talking to me he started doing pull-ups in my doorway, which prompted me to ask him curiously what he imagined was the point of the continuous exercise and the near-starvation diet. He told me--with no irony or humor whatever--that he intended to "live forever."

Woody Allen once said (and I'm paraphrasing) that he did not intend to achieve immortality through his works; he intended to achieve it by not dying. He, unlike my colleague, was joking. At least, I think he was.

(Note: The cartoon comes from here; and a hat tip to The Corner)

UPDATE: Only the good die young...tyrants seem to live forever.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:01 PM |

 
THE REAL SITUATION IN IRAQ
Amir Taheri has a Commentary article reviewing the non-quagmirish situation in Iraq.

Spending time in the United States after a tour of Iraq can be a disorienting experience these days. Within hours of arriving here, as I can attest from a recent visit, one is confronted with an image of Iraq that is unrecognizable. It is created in several overlapping ways: through television footage showing the charred remains of vehicles used in suicide attacks, surrounded by wailing women in black and grim-looking men carrying coffins; by armchair strategists and political gurus predicting further doom or pontificating about how the war should have been fought in the first place; by authors of instant-history books making their rounds to dissect the various fundamental mistakes committed by the Bush administration; and by reporters, cocooned in hotels in Baghdad, explaining the carnage and chaos in the streets as signs of the countrys impending or undeclared civil war. Add to all this the days alleged scandal or revelationan outed CIA operative, a reportedly doctored intelligence report, a leaked pessimistic assessmentand it is no wonder the American public registers disillusion with Iraq and everyone who embroiled the U.S. in its troubles.

It would be hard indeed for the average interested citizen to find out on his own just how grossly this image distorts the realities of present-day Iraq. Part of the problem, faced by even the most well-meaning news organizations, is the difficulty of covering so large and complex a subject; naturally, in such circumstances, sensational items rise to the top. But even ostensibly more objective efforts, like the Brookings Institutions much-cited Iraq Index with its constantly updated array of security, economic, and public-opinion indicators, tell us little about the actual feel of the country on the ground.

To make matters worse, many of the newsmen, pundits, and commentators on whom American viewers and readers rely to describe the situation have been contaminated by the increasing bitterness of American politics. Clearly there are those in the media and the think tanks who wish the Iraq enterprise to end in tragedy, as a just comeuppance for George W. Bush. Others, prompted by noble sentiment, so abhor the idea of war that they would banish it from human discourse before admitting that, in some circumstances, military power can be used in support of a good cause. But whatever the reason, the half-truths and outright misinformation that now function as conventional wisdom have gravely disserved the American people.

That's just the opener. Taheri then goes on to catalog what are, for him, the key signs that Iraq has made substantial--even unbelievable-- progress since its liberation. Among the signs are:

(1) the lack of refugees departing Iraq--which over the decades has been a sure indicator that things were not going well. In fact Taheri notes that more than 1.2 million Iraqis have returned to the country since 2003;

(2) the continuing flow of religious pilgrims to the holy sites in Iraq in Karbala and Najaf--which, under Saddam had ceased altogether; and the return of exiled clerics;

(3) the value of the Iraqi dinar which had tanked at the end of Saddam's rule is now making significant progress against the US dollar;

(4) the increased level of activity of medium-sized businesses in Iraq;

(5) the Iraqi economy per the IMF is now the "best in the region";

and (6) the loquaciousness of the Iraqis, who--once silent under the Saddam regime-- now are talking to everyone openly about their hopes and fears.

These seem like pretty significant changes to me, but of course will hardly convince those who are determined to make Iraq into a "quagmire" and convince the American people how hopeless it is there. These people are unreachable by factual arguments.

From the other side of the argument, note how the U.S. military has met all its recruitment goals and has record re-enlistment--despite the highlighting of dissatisfied soldiers in major newspapers; the opposition of military recruitment on many college campuses; and the overemphasis on familes of fallen soldiers, who make it clear they are opposed to the war.

I notice we are seeing fewer and fewer articles about Iraq at all--either in the print or TV media--(except for the occasional bomb going off and smoking car hulk)as the MSM has been mainly preoccupied with other news items that can better show the Bush Administration in a mostly negative light.

Despite the real obstacles that keep getting thrown in its path, freedom and democracy in Iraq are succeeding. Read all of Taheri's article.

UPDATE: Almost as if to deliberately counter Taheri's piece, there is an article in the NY Times today--with the melodramatic title "As Death Stalks Iraq, Middle Class Exodus Begins"(which sounds suspiciously like the headlines they use to talk about Detroit and other urban areas of the US)--except, as noted by Cori Dauber, what they are really reporting on is an exodus from Baghdad..not all of Iraq. But the article is framed to suggest that this is a phenomenon impacting the entire country. Dauber also comments that they have no data to support such an overarching conclusion. (Does an exodus from Detroit or D.C. mean that the entire middle class is leaving America?)

However, the Times piece itself is a data point supportive of my own thesis--that the MSM is dedicated to putting the worse possible face on every current aspect of Iraqi society. Iraqis have reasons to be upset with the slow-moving pace of their new governemnt, and until that government coalesces and starts doing what it needs, it will disaffect many there. How is that different from any other free country, where citizens can leave when it is in their interest to do so? As I mentioned in the comment section to this post, the fact that the MSM and the left desperately want to believe Al Qaeda and chaos are winning is like a beacon of hope to the murderers and terrorists. They know they have lost militarily and politically; but they are hoping that their useful idiot brigade here in the U.S. and elsewhere can pull out a victory for them despite defeat.

UPDATE II: Gateway Pundit has a lot more information on the Times story.

UPDATE III: Wretchard has more: The Face of Defeat. (hat tip: doug)
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:17 AM |

 
FEMALE FREEDOM FIGHTERS
In Saudi Arabia, women have just become even more invisible than they were before:

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has told newspaper editors to stop publishing pictures of women as they could lead young men astray.

After a meeting with editors on Monday, the king was reported in the Saudi media as saying that "one needs to think if he would want his daughter, sister or wife to appear like that. Of course, no one would".

Newspapers have recently broken with tradition and published pictures of women with hair covered but faces showing.

They had also begun to debate women's issues, such as being forbidden to drive and vote.

This is only more evidence of muslim and arab men's extreme fear of female sexuality-- a fear that has resulted in the continued culturally-sactioned oppression and humiliation of women and has dragged the entire culture to an intellectual standstill. Some might argue that it has even sent them backwards in time. I would tend to agree.

But, there are female freedom fighters, whose voices are being heard in that backwards world.

Egyptian feminist Dr. Nawal Al-Sa'dawi and Saudi columnist Maha Fahd Al-Hujailan speak out against the inferior status of women in Arab society. (hat tip: Free Thoughts):

"The man is permitted to be violent towards his wife and even to murder her. Article 237 of the penal code states that a man who kills his wife in order to defend his honor is sentenced to imprisonment only, and does not receive the punishment meted out for other kinds of murder, namely the death penalty or a life sentence with hard labor[…] [Moreover], the murderer husband may [even] be released if the judge sympathizes with him, as frequently happens.

"If a husband is entitled to defend his honor, why doesn't a woman have the right to defend hers? [Are we to understand that] a man has honor while a woman does not? What is the difference between an adulterous wife and an adulterous husband? Doesn't justice oblige us to evaluate the act by the same standards, regardless of [the perpetrator's] color, gender or status?"

Meanwhile, in the West, the Netherlands should be ashamed of its treatment of another outspoken voice. Their loss is America's gain.



(from Cox and Forkum)
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:13 PM |

 
CALM DOWN OR A PADDED CELL MIGHT BE IN YOUR FUTURE
I don't have much to say on the immigration issue (that I haven't already said) , except for these two points:

(1) I want the borders to be secure so that the bad guys* can't get in; and

(2) I support legal immigration and don't support any particular "rights" for people who are here illegally. A corollary: any businesses that depend on illegals to survive, shouldn't survive--unless they follow the law. Illegals will have to take responsibility for violating immigration laws; Their employers will have to take responsibility for violating the same laws; and the American public will have to cope with the fact that the low prices they were paying on a variety of things cannot be sustained.

That being said, I think all the hysteria on the right about this issue is rather unbecoming and certainly disheartening. I expected a better discussion and a more reasoned debate. How foolishly naive of me!

What I never expected was the kind of DUmb BS you can get every day from the lunatic left, who have made vitriol their perferred drink and rhetorical style; and who are just delighted to incorporate another new victim group into the ranks of the eternally pathetic so they can pander to them and advance their causes under the cover of championing the oppressed.

It saddens me to see many on the right I admire lose their sanity over this issue. I had a lot to say, but, others have said it much better than I ever could:

The Anchoress has two must-read posts here and here.

Smoke on the Water has an excellent reality check; and Signmund, Carl, and Alfred have decided to vent on the issue.

Go and read all of the above; and calm down. If your pulse remains too rapid; your breathing shallow, or your speech shrill and slurred--give my office a call. I'm sure I can fit you in. Because, if you coninue on in this vein, you may need a padded cell to protect you from yourself.

********************
*bad guys = Islamic terrorists (i.e., generally speaking, Mexicans desperate for work are not the "bad guys". Yes, they are here illegally, but they don't want to kill Americans or destroy America. Get real.)
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:54 AM |

 
THE DEMOCRATS BETTER REVIEW THE SITUATION
Our party's got a heart, hasn't it?
Joking apart -- hasn't it?
And tho' we'd be the last ones to say we weren't saints...

We're finding it hard to really maintain all these feints...

We're reviewing the situation
Can our Party act bewildered all the time?
All the trials and tribulations!
Let's call Nancy and we'll have a big group whine.
And a whine would hide our cluelessness,
Obscure the real world for us,
Al Gore will fire-breath for us.
And Dean will go and whore for us.
As Kerry acts the bore for us....

...We think we'd better think it out again!

Those losers you can keep, anyway
They put us all to sleep, anyway.
We're left with only moveon in the world,
And we're starting out from now
We want to win votes and get back our power
--But how?

We're reviewing the situation,
We must quickly look up ev'ry star we know.
Hollywood stars' exalted station --
Can all help us make a real impressive show!
We will rent a suite in Bel Air,
And show the poor how much we care,
And badmouth the Republicans
So everyone can see their sins
In wiretapping terrorists...

To keep us off their terror lists... Oh wait!

...We think we'd better think it out again.

So what shall we do -- somebody?
Who do we have? Nobody!
Who'll stand up for what we believe?
Does anyone know what we believe?
Or does it depend on what we recieve?
Perhaps we should turn over a new leaf...?

We're reviewing the situation.
If we want to win-- we've got to please the base!
Is it too much victimization,
to pander to each gender,group, and race?
If we get them jobs then it is true,
They'll start to say, "Well, who needs you?"
And then what will our Party do...?
March with illegals and that ANSWER crew...?
Support Hamas against the Jew?
The War on Terror we'll undo...but wait!

...We think we'd better think it out again.

What happens in 2008?
And even before in 2006?
We're gonna win and we can't wait!
And who cares if we put our country in a fix,
Our one consolation's the congressional seats
And lots and lots of Republican defeats...

We're reviewing the situation.
We stand for nothing and that's how we we want stay!
You'll not be seeing a transformation,
Not having ideas is the Democratic Party way!

We don't want someone to give advice to us,
Ted Rall can keep on dissing Condi Rice for us.
The NSA will never get a pass from us.
And CAIR can always say a mass for us.
Or maybe Hugo will campaign for us,
And CIA rogues will surely Plame for us
The New York Times can do the same for us.
This really, really is insane of us...

...We think we'd better think it out again!

Hey!

(One of Fagin's songs from Oliver!; with apologies to Lionel Bart)


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:11 PM |

 
HUGO'S (AND EVO'S) BRILLIANT IDEA


UPDATE: Fausta has a post up about Hugo's travels and the marketing of competitivie authoritarianism. Check it out to further understand Hugo and Evo's excellent adventure and the glorious second coming of socialism as it bursts upon leftoid totalitarians all over the world.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:08 AM |

 
THE NARCISSISTIC SYNTHESIS - Sometimes, You Get What You Need
You can't always get what you want, no!
You can't always get what you want (tell ya baby)
You can't always get what you want (no)
But if you try sometimes you just might find
You get what you need
-Mick Jagger, The Rolling Stones

In an earlier post on "The Narcissistic Dialectic", I argued that the development of a healthy psychological self in each individual is determined by the concurrent evolution of two opposed developmental lines --one originating from the primitive self of the infant; and the second from the idealized m(other) on whom the infant is totally dependent for survival. Any conflicts between the two poles must be resolved by adulthood for optimal psychological functioning in the world.

Problems for the individual and for society occur when remnants of either side of this dialectic are not fully integrated into a "cohesive self" in adulthood, and thus emerge as dysfunctional behavior. It is fair to say that much of the evil that humans do to each other comes as a result of the ensuing narcissistic rage and narcissistic awe/ idealism.

When the grandiose self is out of control; the fragments self of the individual(s) will manipulate, control, subjugate, hurt and in extreme cases even kill others. This happens because without a cohesive self, other people are not seen as separate from the self, or even necessarily human. Those in the thrall of the grandiose self are not capable of real human empathy.

We see stories of this kind of thing happening all the time on the news, and frequently exclaim in astonishment, "How could someone do that?" Examples are the ex-boyfriend who cannot accept that the woman he loved has dared to withdraw her love from him and so must kill her (and often himself); the serial killer who does not experience others as really human; the pedophile who abuses then murders his child victim; and every petty criminal who believes implicitly that his feelings and desires are paramount and justify his behavior.

The second type problem for society at large is an evil that is far more subtle, but even more destructive; and it originates from the idealized object developmental line . Individuals with this particular narcissistic defect (as likewise described for the grandiose self) also do not see other people as separate individuals; and instead see them only as fodder for the expression of an IDEAL or as pawns for an Omnipotent Object (e.g., a dictator).

For all the lip service given to compassion and caring for others, the individual in the throes of narcissistic idealism also completely reject the needs of the individual and enslave him or her to their IDEAL. Eventually, the enslavement--whether religious or secular--snuffs out human ambition, confidence, energy and self-esteem. These "do-gooders" cause considerable human misery and their ideologies can lead to genocidal practices and unbelievable atrocities on a grand scale, all in the name of the IDEAL or GOD. Appropriate benevolence and compassion toward others can only occur when there is a cohesive self in residence; who accepts that other people are separate from him, with thoughts, desires, wishes and beliefs that may not coincide with his own--and that those others have a right to be so.

C.S. Lewis wrote:

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

Many people never completely resolve all the tension between the two poles of narcissistic development; thereby never reaching a fully integrated and cohesive self. While most would not meet specific criteria for a diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, such people have extremely dysfunctional narcissistic traits that continually interfere with their own and other's lives.

Societies and the way they are structured can either facilitate a dialectical synthesis in the maturing child; or they can predispose the child toward one pole or another. Societies like Oceania in Orwell's 1984, would be an extreme example of one that deliberately attempts completely eliminate the grandiose self from each individual so that all is left is one's love in the submergence of one's self with "Big Brother."

Some societies like what the Palestinians have currently, mostly view each child as a soldier of the Jihad--without individual goals or ambitions-- and from an early age route the child into service to the state. By the time the child has grown up, they have little ambition but to do the will of the omnipotent state and/or Allah. In this case, the grandiose self is not eliminated, but purposefully subjugated to act out the violent priorities of the state. The narcissistic defect is perpetuated when these children grow up and, those who do not blow themselves up in an act of ultimate union with an evil god, go on to mother and father more fragmented and horribly impaired individuals.

In fact, throughout most of history, it has been the grandiose self that society has most tried to control. Either by eliminating it entirely; or chaining the energy it brings to the achievement of union with the omnipotent other.

Of course this has not been successful for very long when it is done; if only because the two lines are like flip sides of a coin. You may think that by emphasizing one side you are eliminating or subjugating the other; but in reality you are simply holding onto the extremes of both sides. That is why most totalitarian societies (either from the left or the right) have one big dictator, and numerous little dictators (thugs) running things. Such societies willingly give carte blanche to the most sociopathic of grandiose selves when they can be pledged to the service of the idealized object; but are fearful of the positive aspects of the grandiose self--the personal autonomy; individual desires and ambitions--which must be relentlessly rooted out in order to achieve that completely "selfless" soldier for jihad.

Developmentally, the fusion with mother during gestation and the early months of life lead to the idealized object developmental line. As the child matures, the evolving relationship with father while separating slowly from mother allows for the growth and development of the grandiose self. A healthy child requires both a healthy mother who allows slow separation from her mothering; and a father who encourages further individuation and maturation into a unique person. Defects occur when mother withdraws too quickly or father expects too much too soon.

This sequence of mothering and fathering is also recapitulated in brain development. Our early ancestors functioned at a primitive level where the tribe or group was primary and individuals separated from their tribe could not survive on their own.

As the human brain evolved over time, and complex thought and cognitive functioning became possible, the development of the individual as an individual was then possible. The growth of abstract thought and complex reasoning that came with the evolution of higher levels of the brain allowed each human to be able to function more independently, and to break away from the herd --unlike other animal species.

And, interestingly, as individuals became more and more empowered, their creativity and imagination benefited the entire tribe and drove the entire species foward.

In fact, for civilization to move forward from those primitive, tribal days, the developing grandiose self had to be unleashed to allow for individual accomplishment and creativity. Without it civilization would have remained primitive and basic, focused on the mystical and inexplicable (to them) universe. We see this process even in modern times, when totalitarian societies (modern tribes) deteriorate to the degree that they squash individual human ambition and effort. Such societies stop evolving and instead devolve toward the primitive and basic.

That has certainly been the result of every socialist experiment of the 20th century. Instead of bringing better standards of living for their citizens, as egalitarian principles were played out in the real world, they only succeeded in making everyone live in poverty. Where there is no significantly integrated grandiose self, there is no ambition, self-esteem; or even a sense that one is entitled to a life of one's own outside the confines of the state.

Dinocrat, in commenting on the same Lee Harris article that caught my attention says:

[I}t should not be that hard to stop Marxist or Islamic thugs around the world. Relatively speaking they have little power, and their myths of superiority have been shown to be bankrupt and have been rejected by large parts of the world. Moreover, the thug chieftains are often cruel, sadistic, and evil men. So stopping the thugs should be relatively easy for a sane and mighty civilization. However, our own elites fawn over these evil men and their bankrupt ideologies. How do we stop this enemy within from getting us killed?

Lee Harris in TCS discussed the persistence of socialism, despite its gross and manifest failures, and the continued rule of awful men who are its leaders, like Evo Morales, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. Harris sees these strongmen as reaching motivations and desires “deeper and more primordial than mere reason and argument” in the people than their rational self-interest; hence reason is always in danger of being overpowered. Capitalism, he argued, has no comparable powerful myth, and this is a persistent weakness.
{...}The Marxist world and the Islamic world have in common that they have political systems that create poverty and slavery, so the totalitarian model must have some appeal, as Harris says.

The totalitarian model grips the human imagination from time to time, despite its flaws. It’s a story as old as tribal man himself. Men are drawn to the strong horse, who is often the authentic man of violence. In primitive societies, a man of power and violence can be a good protector. So much the better if he cloaks his cruelty in Utopian rhetoric or service to the gods; one of the greatest empowering devices of man is to do violence in the name of good (see Henninger today).

With those introductory comments, I present the table that follows ("THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE NARCISSISTIC DIALECTIC") for discussion and debate. It is my first attempt to organize some of the implications of the Narcissistic Dialectic and to conceptualize what an "optimal narcissistic synthesis" might include. It is likely that there are defects and blind spots in my thinking, since I don't know everything (really!) and have likely left something out; or put it in the wrong place.

Additionally, I have included some (as yet)undefined concepts of my own that are not fully fleshed out in my thinking. For example, the idea of a "Polydimensional Reality" is my own pathetic attempt to come up with a way to rationally include those aspects of reality that can't always be explained in completely "rational" terms.

This is NOT an attempt to insert something "mystical" into reality, but instead to rationally include for scientific consideration a way of experiencing reality that is inherent in all human beings; because humans are, after all, animals and possess the same kind of instincts that most animals possess.

This earlier post of mine describes what I am trying to get at here. While, the information obtained from this method of reality perception is frequently inaccurate and inadequate for survival, I think it needs to be included because it adds a new dimension that can truly enhance the human experience in unique ways--particularly when it is supervised by the rational faculty. This is especially true in esthetic and artistic pursuits.

Sometimes there is no way known to measure or describe something that is real, and, while this may be a limitation on our science it does not necessarily mean that it doesn't exist. One useful way to think about this sort of conundrum is in the concepts of "horizontal" and the "vertical" worlds that Gagdad Bob describes at his blog, One Cosmos:

...[L]et's just suppose that there's a horizontal world and a
vertical one.

This vertical/horizontal duality is just one of many ultimate
antinomies in the universe, in the sense that you cannot have one
without the other. Indeed, they cannot be defined except in reference
to one other: subject-object, external relations-internal relations,
mechanism-organicism, quantity-quality, time-eternity, part-whole,
consciousness-matter, form-substance, life-lifeless, etc.

Let us further suppose that each of these antinomies is indeed
ultimate--that each one represents a "horizon of knowabilty" for us.
And that furthermore, these antinomies are related in an unsuspected
way, as follows:

There is a horizontal world of matter, objects, external relations,
mechanism, quantities, time, parts, substance, and lifelessness.

And a vertical world of form, subject, internal relations, organicism,
qualities, eternity, whole, life, and consciousness.

Let us also stipulate that the causal influence of the horizontal realm
operates on the basis of past, to present, to future. On the other
hand, the vertical realm operates outside chronological time and has
"top-down" or "bottom-up" causation. But knowledge in either realm
involves a type of memory. Horizontal knowledge involves remembering
the past so that we may understand the present and predict the future.
Vertical knowledge involves remembering the "above" or "below" so that
we may understand the now.

The horizontal discloses all sorts of facts. That is the domain of
science. But scientific facts only reveal their significance in the vertical.

What is vertical recollection? What does it mean to "remember" what is
above?

For human beings, remembering is to forgetting as waking is to sleeping
and birth is to death. "Forgetting" the vertical reduces man to
animality, just as sleep reduces us to vegetality and death to
minerality. To sleep is to forget, to forget is to die.

To awaken to the vertical is to remember and to actually be alive, or
"born again" from above.

The mind is an organ of truth. Just as the heart pumps blood and the
lungs exchange oxygen, the mind functions to metabolize truth. In fact,
human beings would cognitively and spiritually starve and suffocate--do
starve and suffocate--without constant exchanges with the oxidized
blood of Truth from above. Because of this exchange, the mind grows and renews itself.

What I call "Neo-Rationalism" in the table would then be the new epistemology that incorporated a synthesis of the horizontal and vertical worlds. [I especially like the thought that "neo-rats" would be the nickname for those who adopt this concept!]

I have tended to shy away just yet from too much discussion of religion and its role in human life. Like the socialism that won't die; religion also will not pass out of human consciousness because it reflects a very real aspect of our self that comes from the same source. I will not go into a debate about the existence of a anthropomorphic, all-powerful and all-good God; that debate is still open, as far as I'm concerned. The fact is that the human brain is predisposed psychologically to "believe in" something greater and outside of itself and that is human nature. That fundamental truth will not go away because some demand complete rationality from people at all times. It ain't gonna happen, folks. Total and complete rationality 24/7 just ain't human nature.

I dont' know about you, but I can live with that; just as I can live with all sorts of religions as long as they don't force me (the grandiose me, of course) to think exactly as they decree.

The problem with both the pseudo-religion of socialism and the religion of Islam is that they won't permit people like myself to disagree and not believe in them. That is exactly why they are such abysmal failures in the real world in advancing the lives of the individuals who do believe; and the societies that enforce belief.

Having said all that, I would suggest that religions can either be life-affirming and add something to human existence; or they can detract and make human existence a misery--just as any social system that appeals to the normal human desire for reunion with the idealized object.

In other words, there is clearly a place for religion (or something similar) in human life. But not just any religion. For optimum psychological health--just as for optimal societal health--religion must also be included in the narcissistic synthesis and must recognize the rational side of human nature.

Two final points. First, "Synthesis" is not the same thing as "Compromise". I am NOT talking about "compromising" reason or reality. The synthesis of dialectically opposed concepts requires-- not compromise, which simply gives power to one concept over the other--the development of an entirely new and frequently innovative concept that manages to incorporates the two poles in what might be an unexpected, but wholly creative manner.

And the second and concluding point is simply that, by resolving the narcissistic dialectic and achieving an optimal synthesis of the the two opposing poles of the self, the mature individual may not always get what he wants; but sometimes, he actually gets what he needs.



I am sure there are several books contained in the above table. A blog post is really a very unsatisfactory forum in many ways for the kind of discussion that would be useful. Nevertheless, feel free to discuss, tear apart, and add to the ideas in this chart. I look forward to your thoughts.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:54 PM |

 
THE CASSANDRA SYNDROME
Both ShrinkWrapped and neo-neocon today have written on the subject of blogger burnout.

From ShrinkWrapped, who discusses "Conservative Fatigue Syndrome" we have this disturbing analysis:

The elephant in the room, which too much of our political and media culture seem to have conspired to overlook, is that the war is still in its early stages and we are finishing the easy parts, al Qaeda and Iraq. If we have had so much trouble mobilizing the support for the easy work, how can anyone be confident that we can address the more difficult problems that are facing us? Unless our enemies make the foolish mistake of attacking us again before they are ready to destroy our ability to carry on the fight, I think there is almost no chance that we can preemptively and adequately wage the next phase of this war.

The idea that we will have to struggle to protect ourselves and maintain support for the Military and the Intelligence services to do their job, and ultimately will almost certainly be attacked again, is enough to make anyone disconsolate.

And neo-neocon, with almost exactly the same take, says:

I think Iran is indeed one of the biggest causes of blogger fatigue, combined with our lack of agreement on the seriousness of the problem--if we can't agree on the vicious intent and dangerousness of the Iranian leadership, what can we agree on?

Iran is a topic I've tried to wrap my mind around many times, and still it looms, unresolved and seemingly--perhaps--unresolvable. All approaches seem potentially either catastrophic or ineffectual, or both. So fatigue is an understandable reaction; the mind tends to shut down.

For me, personally, I think I faced something of this way back on 9/11, strangely enough. Not the details, of course; I couldn't possibly have foreseen them. But it came to me that day that we were in something that would be very long and extraordinarily difficult.

When two superb mental health professionals come to identical conclusions (and agree with my own take, for that matter!), you better believe that they are on to something; and it is this:

We have engaged the enemy in Afghanistan and Iraq and despite the continued carping and unrealisitc expectations of perfection on the part of the left, we have decisively won on the battlefield. Al Qaeda is on the run and now their intent has been made clear to the rest of the world. But instead of reacting appropriately and supporting the U.S., the rest of the world remains ambivalent about the danger and seems more likely to try to appease it, instead of deal with it.

On the homefront, the initial will that emerged after 9/11 to deal with this growing threat, has been consistently and relentlessly eroded by a media and a political party that insists on believing that the enemy is the Bush Administration.

Having been successful in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have nonetheless been subjected to continued controversy, recycled over and over again that continually undermines our every action. This has pretty much resulted in limiting the options this administration has for dealing decisively with Iran (and they were pretty limited to begin with).

The conservative blogsphere arose, it seems to me, primarily to counter the recycled controversies and neverending lies and distortions that abound about the war on terror and the Bush Administration in general. It is discouraging that no matter how rational or logical are the spirited defenses that we employ, they seem to have no effect on the sinister side of the blogsphere.

Sadly, those of us who live in the real world can see clearly what the future is going to bring if the current appeasment of islamic fundamentalism continues, encouraged by the left who desires nothing more than to destroy the will of America in waging the war on terror. Like Cassandra, we conservative bloggers have our warnings routinely labelled as "lies" and discounted, minimized and ignored by the very people we are trying to convince. Postmodern rhetoric simply ignores reason and logic and thus cannot be easily deflected by those methods. Much as we would like to ignore it, it's quasi-intellectual persuasiveness represents the easy way to avoid thinking entirely, and provides a justification for emotional recklessness.

Neo-neocon mentions Winston Churchill and I also would like to bring him into this discussion. If we are to avoid this "Cassandra Syndrome" that leads to burnout and fatigue in this war, we must look to someone like Churchill to inspire us at our low points:

I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many months of struggle and suffering.

You ask, what is our policy? I say it is to wage war by land, sea, and air. War with all our might and with all the strength God has given us, and to wage war against a monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy.

You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory. Victory at all costs - Victory in spite of all terrors - Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival.

Let that be realized. No survival for the British Empire, no survival for all that the British Empire has stood for, no survival for the urge, the impulse of the ages, that mankind shall move forward toward his goal.

I take up my task in buoyancy and hope. I feel sure that our cause will not be suffered to fail among men. I feel entitled at this juncture, at this time, to claim the aid of all and to say, "Come then, let us go forward together with our united strength."

So, we bloggers must also wage war by doing what we do best--blogging; and fighting this battle the best we can; taking R&R whenever it is needed to keep our spirits high.

Victory at all costs - Victory in spite of all terrors - Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival.


UPDATE: Sigmund, Carl and Alfred also have some thoughts on this issue. Note the new digs for SC&A, who have escaped the blogger nightmare and immigrated to WordPress.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:26 PM |

 
WELCOME
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is leaving the Dutch parliament and the Netherlands in September and moving to the United States:

Hirsi Ali has been on a speaking tour in the US and is due to make an official announcement on Tuesday.

She is going to work for the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative Washington think tank. The institute was founded in 1943 and is seen as one of the most important advisors to the government of George Bush.

Somali-born Hirsi Ali has been an outspoken critic of aspects of Islam and she became a campaigner for freedom of speech afterthe murder of film director Theo van Gogh in November 2004.

Hirsi Ali and Van Gogh collaborated on the short film ‘Submission’ which featured women in see-through veils discussing ill-treatment of women in Muslim societies. Hirsi Ali’s life has been threatened several times and she is under armed guard.

The unquenchable spirit of this woman, and her ability to truly "speak truth to power" in perverted world of Islam is astonishing. Unlike most of the lunatic left who apologize and appease evil, speaking nonsense to noone; this woman is a beacon of courage and a stalwart defender of free speech.

America has always been the land of the free and home of the brave. Hirsi Ali is finally coming home. I wish her well; and that she lives long and prospers in her new country.

Here's an excellent profile of the woman.

Here's a recent interview of Ali.

Dymphna at Gates of Vienna has a few bones to pick with her. Maybe she can discuss them in person now.

Jeff Goldstein has more thoughts on her imminent relocation.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 4:26 PM |

 
THE DEATH OF JFK AND THE DEMISE OF AMERICAN LIBERALISM
A fascinating article in Commentary by James Piereson that traces the demise of liberalism and the rise of the left after the assasination of JFK:

What happened? There is, of course, a litany of standard answers, from the political to the cultural to the psychological, each seeking to explain the great upheaval summed up in that all-purpose phrase, “the 60’s.” To some, the relevant factor was a long overdue reaction to the repressions and pieties of 1950’s conformism. To others, the watershed event was the escalating war in Vietnam, sparking an opposition movement that itself escalated into widespread disaffection from received political ideas and indeed from larger American purposes. Still others have pointed to the simmering racial tensions that would burst into the open in riots and looting, calling into question underlying assumptions about the course of integration if not the very possibility of social harmony.

No doubt, the combination of these and other events had much to do with driving the nation’s political culture to the Left in the latter half of the decade. But there can be no doubt, either, that an event from the early 1960’s—namely, the assassination of Kennedy himself—contributed heavily. As many observers have noted, Kennedy’s death seemed somehow to give new energy to the more extreme impulses of the Left, as not only left-wing ideas but revolutionary leftist leaders—Marx, Lenin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and Castro among them—came in the aftermath to enjoy a greater vogue in the United States than at any other time in our history. By 1968, student radicals were taking over campuses and joining protest demonstrations in support of a host of extreme causes.

It is one of the ironies of the era that many young people who in 1963 reacted with profound grief to Kennedy’s death would, just a few years later, come to champion a version of the left-wing doctrines that had motivated his assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald. But why should this have been so? What was it about mid-century liberalism that allowed it to be knocked so badly off balance by a single blow?

To recall John F. Kennedy’s brief tenure as President is to be reminded of the distance that American liberalism has traveled since those days. His landmark domestic initiatives, passed with modest adjustments after his death, were a civil-rights bill and a major tax reduction to stimulate the economy. The civil-rights legislation is well known, but many have forgotten Kennedy’s across-the-board, 30-percent tax cut, with the highest rate falling from 91 percent to 65 percent—a measure that, two decades later, would inspire Ronald Reagan’s own tax-cutting agenda.

Kennedy was, moreover, a sophisticated anti-Communist who understood the stakes at issue in the cold war. His inspiring inaugural address in 1961 was entirely about foreign policy and the challenge of Communism to freedom-loving peoples. As President, his most notable victory was achieved by confronting the Soviet Union over its missiles in Cuba and by forcing their removal. And he was nothing if not forthright in declaring America’s universal aims. “Let every nation know,” he famously announced in his inaugural address, “whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty.” America, he said in a speech to the Massachusetts legislature a week before he took office, was “a city upon a hill,” an example and a model for the entire world.

Read the article.

I was very young when Kennedy was assasinated -13 years old to be precise. I completely and totally adored Kennedy. I remember his election in great detail because I was a Catholic and there was considerable discussion at the time that a Catholic person could not become president because he would then be controlled by the Pope. There was quite a bit of animosity at the elementary school I went to directed toward Kennedy supporters.

Kennedy was young, handsome, heroic...what was not to like? I listened to every speech he made. He came to the area I lived and I went to hear him speak. I followed him daily in the papers. His sudden, violent death on November 22, 1963 plunged me into an unbearable grief--something I had never experienced in my short life. I was glued to the TV set, saw the assasination of Jack Ruby; watched the funeral procession and the endless debate about what had happened that awful day.

As an adult, I have come to recognize Kennedy's shortcomings and limitations. But, Piereson is absolutely correct--after Kennedy's death something changed for the worse in the Democratic Party; and it has never recovered, nor has it recaptured the momentum that Kennedy once brought to it.

It is Kennedy's strong anti-communist stance and exhilarating defense of liberty that are most indelibly etched on my brain today. Kennedy was killed by an ardent communist; and it occurs to me that, if it were left to the Democrats who followed him, we would be all speaking Russian in a brave new world.

His brother was later assasinated by an ardent Palestinian, upset that Kennedy supported Israel. If it were left to the Democrats today, I wonder if we would abandon Israel. Almost certainly, we would be heeding the call to daily prayer.

The Democrats certainly keep drifting further and further away from anything I could ever support.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:06 PM |

 
Wishful Thinking ?
Here's the original article from truthout.org. claiming that Karl Rove had been indicted.

Byron York says the report of Rove's iminent indictment that surfaced yesterday on truthout.org is greatly exaggerated:

I talked with Rove defense spokesman Mark Corallo, who told me the story was completely baseless. Part of our conversation:

Did Patrick Fitzgerald come to Patton Boggs for 15 hours Friday?
No.
Did he come to Patton Boggs for any period of time Friday?
No.
Did he meet anywhere else with Karl Rove's representatives?
No.
Did he communicate in any way with Karl Rove's representatives?
No.
Did he inform Rove or Rove's representatives that Rove had been indicted?
No.

So there seems to be nothing to the story, certainly nothing which any other reporter has seen fit to report. Which raises a question: What is going on here? The journalists who checked out the story, quite properly, did not repeat Leopold's bad information. But for some media blogger out there, it might be reasonable to ask: Where are these reports coming from?

No major news organization has gone with the story. Many of the usual leftwing blogs have been trumpeting it with great glee and rejoicing ( I noticed that at least 14 or more had linked or commented on it last night).

Dinocrat wonders if this is a real scoop or a sting operation (hat tip: Larwyn).

Fitzmas in May? Or just plain old wishful thinking? Only the Shadow knows....
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:43 AM |

 
THE NARCISSISTIC DIALECTIC: We Just Can't Kill The Beast
And in the master's chambers
They gathered for the feast
They stab it with their steely knives
But they just can't kill the beast
-The Eagles, Hotel California

In an article titled "Thank You My Foolish Friends In The West", Ian Buruma notes that leftist intellectuals' adoration of tyrants and thugs like Hugo Chavez is nothing new:

When the Cuban novelist Reinaldo Arenas managed to escape to the US in 1980, after years of persecution by the Cuban government for being openly homosexual and a dissident, he said: “The difference between the communist and capitalist systems is that, although both give you a kick in the ass, in the communist system you have to applaud, while in the capitalist system you can scream. And I came here to scream.”
One of the most vexing things for artists and intellectuals who live under the compulsion to applaud dictators is the spectacle of colleagues from more open societies applauding of their own free will. It adds a peculiarly nasty insult to injury.

Buruma goes on to describe a sort of "populist authoritarianism" that has become all the rage in intellectual circles. The left applauds the dictator who is swept into power by the "poor", who can always be counted on to cheer the empty promises of a tyrant offering an easy way out of poverty and blaming their condition on the usual scapegoats: the "rich", capitalism, America, or Israel. Such thinking fits in nicely with the fundamental way the left thinks.

That thinking no longer (if it ever did) includes the concepts of individualism, freedom and democracy. As Buruma says:

That Chavez is applauded by many people, especially the poor, is not necessarily a sign of democracy; many revolutionary leaders are popular, at least in the beginning of their rule, before their promises have ended in misery and bloodshed.

Ditto for Hamas, who are planning the usual misery and bloodshed associated with progressive thought as we speak and are cheered on by the likes of Noam Chomsky and Jimmy Carter, the quintissential passive-aggressive enablers of evil.

Along these lines, I have been meaning to write about a very thought-provoking column by Lee Harris at TCS recently. It is fairly long, but definitely worth reading and re-reading for those of us who are actively working in this new century to prevent a replay of the devastating "socialist experiment" that literally killed millions in the last century.

It is discouraging to see the insanity currently going on in the western hemisphere with the likes of Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales rising on a tide of socialist bullshit, even as Castro's failed paradise--which once was the last stronghold of these discredited ideas in the hemisphere-- waits expectantly for its dear leader's impending demise. These newest embryonic nations of "misery and bloodshed" have only a limited time until they too, reach their anti-human potential. The question is why are we seeing this happening all over again, in another hemisphere; in another century?

Several paragraphs in Harris' article were particularly striking in this regard:

When Hernando de Soto asserts that capitalism is the only rational alternative left to mankind, he is maintaining that capitalism is the alternative that human beings ought to take because it is the rational thing to do. But what human beings ought to do and what they actually do are often two quite different things. For human beings frequently act quite irrationally, and without the least consideration of what economist called their "enlightened self-interest." And it is in this light that we must approach the problem, Why isn't socialism dead?
[...]
It may well be that socialism isn't dead because socialism cannot die. As Sorel argued, the revolutionary myth may, like religion, continue to thrive in "the profounder regions of our mental life," in those realms unreachable by mere reason and argument, where even a hundred proofs of failure are insufficient to wean us from those primordial illusions that we so badly wish to be true. Who doesn't want to see the wicked and the arrogant put in their place? Who among the downtrodden and the dispossessed can fail to be stirred by the promise of a world in which all men are equal, and each has what he needs?

Here we have the problem facing those who, like Hernando de Soto, believe that capitalism is the only rational alternative left after the disastrous collapse of so many socialist experiments. Yes, capitalism is the only rational method of proceeding; but is the mere appeal to reason sufficient to make the mass of men and women, especially among the poor and the rejected, shut their ears to those who promise them the socialist apocalypse, especially when the men who are making these promises possess charisma and glamour, and are willing to stand up, in revolutionary defiance, to their oppressors?

The shrewd and realistic Florentine statesman and thinker, Guicciardini, once advised: "Never fight against religion...this concept has too much empire over the minds of men." And to the extent that socialism is a religion, then those who wish to fight it with mere reason and argument may well be in for a losing battle. Furthermore, as populism spreads, it is inevitable that the myth of socialism will gain in strength among the people who have the least cause to be happy with their place in the capitalist world-order, and who will naturally be overjoyed to put their faith in those who promise them a quick fix to their poverty and an end to their suffering.

Thus, in the coming century, those who are advocates of capitalism may well find themselves confronted with "a myth gap." Those who, like Chavez, Morales, and Castro, are preaching the old time religion of socialism may well be able to tap into something deeper and more primordial than mere reason and argument, while those who advocate the more rational path of capitalism may find that they have few listeners among those they most need to reach -- namely, the People. Worse, in a populist democracy, the People have historically demonstrated a knack of picking as their leaders those know the best and most efficient way to by-pass their reason -- demagogues who can reach deep down to their primordial and, alas, often utterly irrational instincts. This, after all, has been the genius of every great populist leader of the past, as it is proving to be the genius of those populist leaders who are now springing up around the world, from Bolivia to Iran. (emphasis mine)

The idea that "socialism cannot die" and that "the revolutionary myth may, like religion, continue to thrive in 'the profounder regions of our mental life...'" are key to what I intend to address in the next several posts.

In reading Harris' excellent analysis, it occurred to me that if socialism cannot die because its mythology is seared into the psyche of the individual; captialism, the bane of socialism (just as socialism is the bane of capitalism), also cannot perish for precisely the same reason.

Let me explain.

In an earlier series of posts on Narcissism (PART I , PART II , and PART III ) I argued, using primarily Heinz Kohut's concepts of the Self, that the development of a healthy, integrated, mature Self required the integration of two separate developmental lines.



At some point, the Self and the Other--once "perfectly" merged--are now two distinct objects. This important process of separation-individuation is facilitated by the normal shortcomings(i.e. imperfections) in maternal care, which spur the child's development as an individual. For example: baby demands food, but mother is unavailable right now and doesn’t feed baby until her schedule permits (but doesn’t let him starve either!). Such natural and normal imperfections of empathy with the child are actually healthy. I won’t go into a full discussion of this, but suffice it to say that the Other must not be too perfect, nor too imperfect, as either extreme carried on for too long will interfere with the developing Self of the child.

It is because of the slow separation of Self from Other--Child from Parent-- that the two developmental lines come into being. The first line Kohut refers to as the “Grandiose Self”(or idealized self image) and the second is referred to as the “Idealized Parent Image”. Both of these images represent psychological attempts to save the original experience of "perfection" by the infant when the Mother (Other) and the infant (Self) were “one”.

The “grandiose self” will develop over time (if not disrupted) into healthy Self-Esteem; and the” idealized other” (or idealized parent image) will eventually lead to the development of ideals that give meaning to the individual’s life; to empathy and healthy interpersonal relationships.

I also argued in that series that from these two emerging parts of the self comes the predeliction for one type of social/political/economic system or another. In particular, the grandiose self prefers to live in those systems that maximize individual liberty and self expression i.e., "life, liberty, and the pursuit happiness." On it's extreme side (without any integration of the idealized self into its functioning), the grandiose self in a social context can lead to excessive ambition, narcissistic grandiosity, indifference to others, and what is commonly referred to as "narcissistic rage" when it is thwarted in its pursuit of satisfaction.

The idealized object, on the other hand, prefers the authoritarian society because it recaptures the primitive--and perfect-- union the infant once had with mother. Those social/political/economic systems that promise such a union (i.e., most religions, socialism, communism and all their totalitarian variants) are the systems that feel right.

On the idealized object's extreme side are the intense utopian urges that distinguish any cult; the submersion of individual identity and selfhood into the collective; and what I have referred to as the "narcissistic awe" one experiences in contemplating the pursuit of union, or utopia.

On their own, without the attenuating influence of the other line, either side is a distortion of human nature. Each side sees the other as the extreme expression of the opposite pole of the self, thus leading to the polarizing stereotypes that left and right political sides attack each other with. The extreme left (idealized other) sees all members of the right as sociopaths out to get whatever they can from the world at the expense of others; while the right sees all members of the left as the collective mob whose goal is to erase individuality and freedom. But the truth is that at the exreme left AND the extreme right there is a striking convergence of grandiosity and totalitarianism.

The grandiose self, left to its own devices with minimal interference from or integration with its counterpart, the idealized object, becomes the prototype of the tyrant--cold, ruthless, and without pity for others. He goes his way wreaking havoc in the world, supressing other individuals to his will and disposing of them without a thought. When thwarted his narcissistic rage and aggression are sights to behold.

With parents and a society both encouraging individuality and social responsibility simultaneously in human development; extreme individuals of this type are generally recognized as sociopaths and held to account for their antisocial and destructive behavior in society at large.

The idealized object side of the self, left to its own devices with minimal interference from or integration with its own grandiose self, becomes the human fodder that acts out the will of the tyrant. Their overwheming desire for union with the perfect god, the perfect mother--i.e, the perfect "other"-- will inevitably lead them to revere the onminpotent grandiose self of others. They see only the "goodness" and perfection of the other; and they actively and single-mindedly pursue "union" with that other; often desiring to drag others with them toward that utopian ideal.

Parents and societies that deliberately try to suppress all individualistic tendencies (as is seen in most totalitarian societies) will encourage the development of a psyche that is ripe for takeover by a strong, grandiose dictator-thug.

It is important to note that the extreme, or "pure", state of either of these developmental lines does not exist in a real, living human being. We can discuss them in this sort of abstract manner; and tease out the implications of one side's development or the other; but both sides exist to some degree in every single human because every single human originates from the same biological starting point and grows within a mother's womb; and is initially helpless and completely dependent on that mother for its existence. (And, no. I am not going to go into some of the exceptions to this at this time--even though they pose some extremely interesting questions from a psychological development standpoint)

Rather, these two processes can be thought of as flip sides of the same coin. Extremes of one side or the other occur because of breakdowns in empathy between the child and the parent or the larger environment. If these breakdowns are not resolved by adulthood, then the adult will continue to act them out, and they will flip back and forth between the two poles of the dialectic.

On the one hand, when the will of the grandiose self is thwarted, the individual will experience narcissistic rage and act out various types of aggression. When the union with the "perfect" object is not perfect (since it never will be), they experience even greater narcissistic idealism/awe and redouble their efforts to submit to the will of Big Br(other). Often they simply alternately cycle between the two extremes.

Harris discusses the myths of socialism and bemoans the fact that capitalism has no myths to compete with the romance of the former. But both of these political ideals are played out on the ultimate battleground within the developing psyche.

The "revolutionary" myth of the idealized other side of the self involves submission of the individual to the collective, and may be stated as follows:

One day, I (we) will be reunited with, and submit to, the will of the perfect other; and when that happens, utopia will be achieved and I (we) will be whole.

The counterpart myth of the grandiose self involves aggression and may be stated as follows:

One day, I will achieve total power and dominance over the imperfect other; and when that happens, I will be whole.

Both myths originate from the primitive narcissism of the infant whose needs are too imperfectly met by the parents (and secondarily by the society those parents live in).

But both political myths are delusional; in that they attempt to compensate for defects in narcissistic development by going to one extreme or the other; and hence do not recognize that human nature requires both poles of the dialectic for optimal psychological health.

If you are with me so far, then the next thought in this logical sequence is apparant. For the purposes of this essay, I will refer to these two aspects of Narcissisism as the Narcissistic Dialectic.

Somehow, a healthy individual must find a way to integrate these two opposing parts of the self into their psyche. In other words, they must achieve a true, dialectical synthesis.

In the Narcissism series referred to earlier I wrote:

We have seen that the development of a Cohesive Self is dependent on two separate, equal and parallel developmental lines that arise originally from the biological and psychological fusion of the Infant and Mother early in life. If each of these lines are not interrupted in their normal evolution the Infant will eventually become an Adult with both narcissistic poles adequately developed and be able to function in the world in a healthy way—both in his attitude toward his own physical and psychic self; and in his attitude toward other human beings.

In some ways, the rise of human civilization from the cave to the present day has resulted because of attempts through the Rule of Law and social controls to set limits on the unrestrained Grandiose Self. This is primarily due to the destructiveness of the Narcissistic Rage generally associated with that part of the Self.

Because of this, the Grandiose Self has received a bad reputation philosophically, morally, and politically. The natural development of Governments and Religions (which ultimately are an expression of the Idealized Parent Image/Omnipotent Other side of the Self)have all too often attempted to ruthlessly suppress the Grandiose Self--much to the detriment of the individual AND the success of the particular society or religion.

In fact, despite the obvious truth that governments, nations, and religions are in a much better position to wreak far more systemized misery and death on human populations, it is almost always the Grandiose Self that gets the blame. As Wretchard at The Belmont Club pointed out in a recent post, a review of the 20th century, for example, shows that all the "people's revolutions" supported by the Left and purportedly for the purpose of "freeing" large populations of people; resulted instead in enslaving them and increasing authoritarian rule.

In the second part of this essay--which will focus on Narcissistic Synthesis--I will discuss thow this process works and its implications for both individuals and society. Thus far, I have only touched on the psychology of the self; but psychology (which derives from biology) has significant implications not only for how we think about ourselves, but also for how we think about everything else-reality, knowledge, politics and ethics.

All over the world, on a daily basis we see the horrible results of narcissism gone wrong. Individuals and groups; religions and nations act out their narcissistic rage at various insults--real and imagined-- and people suffer and die for the purpose of the grandiosity of the tyrant, or the glory of the religion.

When not pursuing the objects of their narcissistic rage; the same rage-filled and aggressive individuals and groups easily submit to the will of Allah, God, the religion, the government, the collective, or the despot of the day, as they are filled with the desire for a reunification of the perfect other.

It has been said that the 20th century was the “century of the narcissist”, but the 21st is well on its way to outdoing the horrors of the past, as a seemingly never-ending epidemic of malignant narcissistic rage and idealism--both caused by a defect in narcissism and both in turn combining to crush the human spirit--all for the purpose of serving the self-aggrandizing vision of the few.

It truly seems that we just can't kill that beast--we must tame it by integrating all aspects of it into our self, if we are to be whole.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:38 PM |

 
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. Thanks for all the submissions. I try to use as many as possible! SO MANY INSANITIES! SO LITTLE TIME!!!

1. Unrequited idolatry?

2. An interesting side-by-side comparison.... The entitlement of the media knows no bounds.

3. Can you guess when a $400 million retirement package is NOT an outrage?

4. Neil Young--rivaling Spinal Tap in its subtlety and profundity

5. Just another Democrat, living in the past. For heaven's sake, moveon. I think Mary Cheney has a point.

6. None of that "love thy neighbor" stuff here. Maybe religions need to get respect the old-fashioned way--i.e., earn it?

7. Scientific progress goes boink in the Islamic world.

8. An international religious court? Didn't they have one of those during the Inquisition?

9. Yup. An unyielding defense of a book recommendation is obviously something that human resources departments should be investigating in "a university that is a beacon of intellectual freedom." How dare he think differently than you!

10. Astonishing! NPR understands the law of supply and demand! Who'd a thunk it?

11. Disability for the soccer enthusiast.

12. Well, turnabout is fair play...

13. Now this is a real dust-up!

14. NIMNS - Not is my nail salon!

15. What some brands say to the consumer.

16. Don't come any closer--or I'll kill the Iranian dude.

17. Good news for Tom Cruise perhaps.

18. I'd drop him, too. And speaking of dropping...in this case, life imitates art (or at least a comedy show)

19. Penis panic? Definitely an interesting psychological state. And here's a psychologist suffering from "tote-bag" envy. A credit to professional victimhood.

20. An unusual side-effect of increased gas prices !

21. You, sir, are no Ted Kennedy!

22. Personally, I prefer an old-fashioned ring.

23. We should have her speak at a lot of colleges if this is the result!

24. Sometimes beauty arrives in unwanted places--just enjoy (as you clean up the mess!)


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:


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:43 AM |

 
SOCCER !
I'm off to an all day soccer tournament with the Boo! It's 40 degrees at the moment and raining. Should be a lot of fun.

More blogging later tonight.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:28 AM |

 
GIVE ME THAT OLD TIME RELIGION (OF PEACE)
Update on the Religion of Peace as a leader of Al Qaeda calls for a "sea of blood" to avenge the cartoon(ish) Mohammed.

A VIDEO by an al-Qaeda member posted on the Internet overnight calls on Muslims to attack Denmark, Norway and France for publishing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed.

"Muslims avenge your Prophet .... We deeply desire that the small state of Denmark, Norway and France ... are struck hard and destroyed," said Libyan Mohammed Hassan, who escaped from US custody at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan last July.
"Destroy their buildings, make their ground shake and transform them into a sea of blood," said Hassan, dressed in military fatigues and a black turban, and holding an assault rifle.

Give me that old Islam religion,
Give me that old Islam religion,
Give me that old Islam religion,
It's good enough for me.

It was good enough for Allah...

It was great for dear Mohammed...

It's been good for Sheik Bin Laden...

It commands us to do jihad...

It beheads apostate infidels...

It will bring the world shar'ia...

It keeps lowly women veiled...

We can swim in seas of blood,
We can swim in seas of blood,
We can swim in seas of blood,
To the Islamic Caliphate

Give me that old Islam religion,
Give me that old Islam religion,
Give me that old Islam religion,
It's good enough for me!

Meanwhile, reader OhBloodyHell sends me this link about Christians rioting in India over The DaVinci Code, and comments, "Ya see, even when they over-react -- ridiculously -- Xtians do things like "Do what I want, or I'll kill myself". Contrast with the Islamic "Do what I want, or I'll kill YOU."

Hundreds of Catholic stalwarts yesterday gathered outside a convent school in the city in a bid to stop the film's release next week , blasting it as an attack on their faith. Members of the Catholic Secular Forum (CSF) have taken offence to the movie's depiction of Catholic group Opus Dei as corrupt, out-dated and at the centre of a cover-up of the truth about Jesus Christ. Csf general secretary Joseph Dias says, "Activists will go on a fast unto death if the government fails to take action against anti-Christian movies. You can't make fiction on a religious figure.

Ahhhh. But you can. And freedom of religion only gives you the right to practice your beliefs as an individual; it doesn't give you--or your religion-- the right to impose those beliefs on all of society. As far as freedom of speech goes, it give me or anyone the freedom to mock what we choose even if it hurts your feelings or is insensitive; or even downright historically inaccurate.

In the case of the DaVinci Code, it may be downright historically inaccurate and insensitive, but it's a damn good story. You are free not to read it or watch the movie.

In the case of depictions of Mohammed, it's a matter of historical record that his image is already all over the place in both Islamic and Western society. You are free not to look at them.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:23 AM |

 
THE COUNCIL HAS SPOKEN !
This week's winners in the Watcher's Council are now posted at the Watcher of Weasels . Every week the Council nominates posts from the blogs of the Council members, and posts from around the blogsphere. The Council then votes to select the "Best" of all these posts.

BEST COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

White House Rules Done With Mirrors

Second Place

CDS -- Christianity Derangement Syndrome Dr. Sanity

BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

Republicans and the Flight of Opportunity Cato Unbound

Second Place (a two-way tie)

Recalling the Twelfth Imam Confederate Yankee

The War We Are Fighting Needs a More Accurate Name Townhall.com

Be sure to check out all the winners at the Watcher's Site! Great weekend reading.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:58 AM |

 
WHO IS IT THAT IS BEING CHILDISH EXACTLY ?***UPDATED***
In what may be surprising news to some, most American adults are sane:

Americans by nearly a 2-1 ratio call the surveillance of telephone records an acceptable way for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, expressing broad unconcern even if their own calling patterns are scrutinized.

Lending support to the administration's defense of its anti-terrorism intelligence efforts, 63 percent in this ABC News/Washington Post poll say the secret program, disclosed Thursday by USA Today, is justified, while far fewer, 35 percent, call it unjustified.

Michelle Malkin has more.

But the MSM is not giving up hope that this issue can still be used to bash Bush's efforts to keep America safe during a time of war. Malkin quotes another MSM article which says:

The survey results reflect initial public reaction to the NSA program. Those views that could change or deepen as more details about the effort become known over the next few days.

Meanwhile, over at the sinister side of the blogsphere, we have this kind of hysteria:

We can raise red flags all we want on our side of the aisle about the violation of basic freedoms and privacy that are front and center with the Bush Administration’s behavior here. But in this post-9/11 world run by an administration that has manipulated fear to a point that a large number of Americans are scared children who would rather give up some rights in order to be protected from the bad guy under the bed, it appears that the public is fine with intrusive and illegal programs like these until it is shown that Bush did something with this information other than build a database to be used in identifying suspect calling patterns.

This represents exactly what I have been talking about. The political left in this country is completely indifferent to the real terrorist threat that faces America. The blogger quoted above refers to that threat as "the bad guy under the bed". How quaint and...infantile.

That's such a restrained way of saying how little it bothers them that there are people who want to impose shar'ia law on the world and kill all those who don't accept their religion. That's the analogy they prefer to use to describe people who cut off the heads of women and gays; who follow no rules of war and scoff at the Geneva Convention.

We have all heard the analogies they use to describe the the President and the current Administration, who--in spite of its many faults and failures--is actually making a decent effort to face the evil that confronts us in the 21st century. Newsflash: the fact that there have not been any more 9/11's in this country to date is not serendipity. Real adults have been tackling that issue for some time.

And, we can count on the fact that the same leftist idiots who minimize the risks and scorn those who are working desperately to prevent future attacks on this country, will be the loudest and angriest when another attack occurs. They are doing everything in ther power to tie the hands of the agencies and undermine the people whose job it is to protect Americans; but that will not stop them from calling them "incompetent" when the next attack occurs.

Who, exactly, are the ones behaving "childishly"? And who, in calling up the ridiculous image of a Gestapo police state that has systematically violated citizen's rights since 9/11; and saying that Bush is Hitler and worse than Bin Laden--who exactly is it that is doing the fearmongering?

Most Americans are clearly rational and sane adults who prefer to fight against the real enemy of this country. It is those who are left that are behaving childishly, irrationally, or insanely.

UPDATE: neo-neocon writes:

Even back when I was a liberal, I don't think I ever was out of touch with reality about the nature of our enemies.

For example, when the ayatollahs came to power in Iran and launched their PR campaign by taking over the American Embassy and making the Carter administration look like impotent fools, it was clear what we were dealing with. The repressiveness of the new Iranian regime (particularly vis a vis women) was clear from the start, as was its aggressive intent and its uncompromising tyranny.

Read her entire post. You will notice that I never call the left "liberal". I make a distinction. I consider myself a classical liberal in the classical liberal tradition. There was a time in the past when you could be a "liberal" without resorting to totalitarian rhetoric, political correctness, and cultural relativity. Those days are gone now. The classical liberal tradition upon which this country was founded is only found in the neoconservative and libertarian strains of thought. The left divorced itself from liberalism when it took to coddling dictators and cheering on oppression. Sadly, they delude themselves into thinking that their behavior is compatible with liberal values.

I guess it depends on what the meaning of "is" is. They are not liberal; nor are they "progressive". They are simply "The Left" - in all their sinister, narcissistic and paranoid glory.

UPDATE II: ShrinkWrapped notes:

I am troubled by a pattern of exaggeration and vilification that almost seems orchestrated. It is as if there has been a persistent effort made, primarily by Democrats but with the assistance of various Republicans and the media, to obfuscate or frame the debate in such a way that the worst possible explanation is suggested as the primary explanation. Furthermore, the language used explicitly clouds the issues in terms of the goal of the program, the technical aspects of the program, and the extent of the program. The impression is left that the Bush Administration is spying on Americans; they are going after reporters; they are labeling millions of Americans as suspects. It almost seems as if the complaints are arising from a different country in a different time period. Any day now we should start seeing stories about plumbers and enemies lists; this is disturbing.
[...]
The thoughtless comments, and the damage to our national security, performed by these "servants of the people" are excellent exhibits for why such programs demand secrecy....The opportunistic, ignorant, or duplicitous comments about the program cast no glory on those who take part in such attempts to mislead the American people.

Meanwhile, SC&A have this to say:

Guess what. Phone numbers and calling patterns have been monitored for decades. Long distance charges were determined by calling patterns. Equipment needs both long and short term, were determined when calling patterns were analyzed. Further, telecommunications are considered an industry vital to national security, so that information was already available to government.

In addition, how do you think cellular service works? That too, is predicated on collecting and analyzing calling patterns, both local and long distance. The number of cell towers, switches and the like, are all determined by analyzing calling patterns. That industry too, is considered vital to national security.

When it comes to cell phones, remember this: If you believe you have a 'right to privacy,' you are obviously ill informed. Your conversations can be hijacked from the airwaves and the phone numbers you dial are even easier to take. If you demand your 'right to privacy' from a cellular provider, well, you had best give up cell phones.

So, including myself, there are six mental health professionals (Sigmund, Carl and Alfred count as three) who can see through this latest leftist-inspired insanity.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 4:07 PM |

 
BESOTTED WITH ANGER AND ON A SUICIDE MISSION
To hear the left tell it, America is bad. Really really bad. Bush is worse than Bin Laden. Bush is a dictator. Civil rights are being trampled. No, even worse, people as we speak are being rounded up and herded into jail cells where they will rot forever, if they aren't taken out an summarily executed by the Gestapo administration. The U.S. is imperialistic and warmongering; and our enemies are peaceful, loving people. Christians are trying to take over control of the U.S. to impose a theocracy. Muslims fanatics are poor persecuted and misunderstood people whose religion is being constantly defamed by evil western values. In their warped reality, real patriotism is the act of exposing all this rottenness under the surface of decadent American life; as you enable and apologize for dictators and tyrants around the world, praising them for their progressive policies and concern for their people. Real patriotism consists of defaming the actions of the U.S. military whenever possible; and hamstringing American foreign policy to ensure defeat by any group of politically correct thugs who taunt and disparage American values.

And so on, and so on ad infinitum, repeated on daily basis with great passion.

You wonder why--if America is so terrible--we have a problem with too much immigration; and people desperately trying to get into the country. You wonder why--if America s so awful a place; on the verge of dictatorship--people (especially the loudmouths on the left--aren't scrambling for the last planes in a desperate attempt to get out to the safety of, say, Chavez' Venezuela (a much more progressive and enlightened part of the world); or peaceloving Iran (whose president genuinely seeks dialog with us).

Why, if whatever we do is imperialistic, immoral, and BAD, are re-enlistments in our warmongering military at an all-time record high? Are all those men and women stupid and foolish to throw their lives away for a system that doesn't care if they live or die--as long as it gets its oil?

Why, if everything in this country is going to hell in a handbasket, does its damn economy keep growing--at a rate faster than any other country in the world to be precise--even as gas prices rise and apparently destroy anyone's ability to put food on the table, let alone enjoy American Idol or their other favorites on TV.

If you are able to see how completely and unbelievably hysterical and ludicrous all of the above is; if there is a glimmer of reality that pokes through the window of your brain--in other words, if you are not a member of the lunatic left (and the word "lunatic" is becoming increasingly redundant), then you might want to carefully read this piece by Arnold Kling at TCS.

Kling appropriately starts off quoting Austin Bay as saying ""The American left is where the American far right was in the 1950s -- besotted with anger, boiling in conspiracy theories." I've said the same thing myself in this series.

Kling points out--rather helpfully, I think, for the brain-damaged left, several basic differences between America (the left's enemy) and what he refers to as "The Real Enemy":

1. Many people have fled radical Muslim regimes to live in the U.S. Hardly anyone has fled the U.S. to live under radical Muslim regimes.
2. In the United States, women are allowed to choose whether or not to where modest clothing. Radical Muslims deny them that right, as well as others.
3. Americans who abuse enemy prisoners cower in shame and are prosecuted. Radical Muslims celebrate war crimes, proudly display photos and videos of war crimes, and honor the criminals.
4. More Iraqis would like to see the terrorists give up tomorrow than see the Americans leave tomorrow. (If there is any doubt about that, we can put the issue up for a vote in Iraq.)
5. Americans see negotiations as a way to resolve differences. Radical Muslims see negotiations as a sign of weakness.
6. When Muslims come to live in America, we provide them with safety, tolerance, and equal rights. Jews and Christians do not enjoy equal rights -- or even safety -- inside countries run by radical Muslim regimes.
7. The American military is trained to try to minimize civilian casualties. For radical Muslims, civilian casualties are a measure of success.
8. Americans go to war reluctantly, when other means fail. Radical Muslims accept cease-fires reluctantly, when other means fail.
9. Americans desire the approval and support of the European people. Radical Muslims desire the intimidation and submission of the European people.
10. If radical Muslims would renounce violence, then we would not disturb them. If we renounce violence, then we will be conquered and brutalized.

Check out the entire article and see why the new McCarthyism being plotted by the Democratic Party wing of the left is likely to become known as "Pelosism" and will make Joseph McCarthy look like a piker.

You might also want to actually read the contents of Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush here; which contains in detail almost all the current talking points of the left; and which basically can be considered either a gentle invitation to convert to Islam, or a declaration of war--whichever analysis makes you feel more giddy with relief at the peaceful intent of the Iranian regime.

Yes, the left is truly besotted with anger and beyond reason. They will not rest until they destroy Bush, the Republicans, and those who took their power away.

For the left, it's a suicide mission.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:29 AM |

 
BACK TO ALL THAT INSANITY IN THE AM
Well, I think I am finally back online. The computer is working again and things should be back to normal in the morning. Perusing the news and blogs this evening, I see that not much has changed. Just the same old, same old.

More leaks, more hysteria by the MSM and the left...the real threat rises; and war is [once again] declared on the U.S. by Iran. The Democrats are too busy plotting to tie the hands of the President to notice; and the MSM think a group hug would help.

It was good to be away for even a brief while from all the usual insanity. I'll be back slugging it out with all the craziness in the morning.

Thanks for being patient!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:55 AM |

 
A Few Quick Notes
On top of all the Blogger problems that continue to haunt me and eat my posts; my main blogging computer has crashed. I'm posting from a friend's computer (hopefully it will get through). I don't have the heart to rewrite some of the longer posts I tried to post earlier this afternoon, only to have them yet again disappear into the ether.

Here are a few quick links:

Via Gateway Pundit, some excellent news from Iraq, that will undoubtedly make it to the headlines of your local paper--NOT.

Additional good news here.

Also, John Hinderaker at PowerLine has some free advice for President Bush, and I hope he and his advisors are listening.

My major concern in this blog has been and will continue to be the War on Terror. Thus, it grieves me deeply to see the Bush Administration grow soft and enable Hamas and rescue the dysfunctional Palestinians. No good will come of it. No good has ever come from it.

I hope to have my computer fixed by tomorrow. I am also hoping for a miracle cure for Blogger (fat chance). Blogging should be back to normal by tomorrow afternoon...maybe.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:34 PM |

 
Woe is me!
I've been having trouble with blogger for two days now. Sometimes it is working and sometimes it just eats my posts. Unfortunately, I'm burdened with work and have a lecture to give this morning, so I can't fuss with it. Hopefully this post will get through....

I'll sort it out later this afternoon when I get home!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:01 AM |

 
A TRULY UNHOLY ALLIANCE
A translation of Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush is here.

Reading through the letter one is struck at how in tune Ahmadinejad is with today's left. Basically he makes all the key points that they have been screaming about since Bush was elected president. For example:

1. Questioning the motives of the Iraqi invasion and implying that "Bush lied" etc.
2. Guantanamo prisoners
3. Secret prisons in Europe
4. Support of Israel and their oppression of the Palestinians
5. Too much money spent on the Iraqi war while people in the world suffer
6. Conspiracy theory about September 11
7. "The increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots and the rich
and poor countries."
8. Some good words thrown in for "Latin-American" countries" for which we are supporting coups (guess which ones?)

In fact, through the long, rambling discourse, what is most apparent is that the President of Iran could easily, and without too much ideological trauma transition to the job of the director of International A.N.S.W.E.R. if he ever tired of oppressing his own people.

The piece is sprinkled with religious affirmation and dogma (which the left will most certainly forgive, since it is not GWB using the "G" word).

Of particular interest to me is this quote from it:

"Liberalism and Western-style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems."

Clearly, Ahmadinejad has hired the dictator's consulting firm organization run by Ramsey Clark and his associates to help him compose the letter.

As Cliff May notes:

At this critical moment in history, a time of global conflict, Ramsey Clark, Gore Vidal, Howard Zinn, Michael Ratner, Lynne Stewart, Mumia Abu-Jamal, and other luminaries of the left have joined together to fight what they call “our common oppressor,” the United States government.
They contend:

The house is on fire and we are all living in it. The United States government and its dependent organizations, such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), have responded to the fire... by pouring more oil on it. They call it "democratic nation building"—a fancy name for the perpetual wars, theft of the commons, exploding economic inequalities, weakening civil liberties (including the introduction of torture), and the intensifying degradation and outright destruction of our natural environment that lie hidden behind "free" trade and the promise (seldom fulfilled) of a "free" election. Billions of people outside America want this madness to stop, but what can they do? Our new and independent organization, the International Endowment for Democracy (I.E.D.), believes it will only stop if democratic nation building (the real thing, not the oil) is applied to the U.S., which is the country most responsible for these frightening global developments, and that people everywhere can play a role in bringing it about.

I will have more to say about this in detail in a future post. But for right now, simply consider the fact that the solidarity and ideological concordance that exists between today's leftist totalitarians and the totalitarians of the Islamic religious right is quite stunning.

Their common enemy is classical liberalism and its values which are the foundation of political and economic freedom, democracy, individuality.

For the last 200 years and more there has been a struggle between the totalitarians of the right and the left for the soul of socialism. All the major conflicts of the last century were when one or the other tried to take control over the world. The Marxist left bases its claim for socialist leadership on "scientific principles" --including technology--which they assert "proves" that socialism works; except of course, that it doesn't. Which is why the left has adopted the "new" quasi-science rhetoric of postmodernism. Meanwhile the Islamic right bases its claim on the word of Allah, where science and mysticism are fused and undebatable. Notable is Ahmadinejad's invocation of "science" and technology throughout his ramble.

In an historical first, these two sides have come together to engage their common enemy--and this time, they intend to win at all costs. Their very minor differences can be worked out in bloody detail later, after they get rid of Western liberalism.

Read Ahmadinejad's declaration and see what you think. I believe he represents the "perfect" fusion of totalitarian left and right. Anyone who truly believes in liberal values should be very concerned at this unholy alliance.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:18 PM |

 
Very, Very Fishy
I suspect that someone was telling a big fish story to the press the other day. And of course all the usual suspects fell for it--hook, line, and sinker!

(Important Disclosure: Picture does not necessarily represent either a "bass" or a "perch"--unless it does!)

Now there is an insane discussion on the left about whether he said "bass" or "perch" and whether the White House is "covering up his mistake."

Perhaps now you begin to understand how easy it is to develop conspiracy theories when you are paranoid to begin with? Paranoia strikes deep.

The usual paranoid and angry ranting on their part can be found here. Some examples:

-"what a complete idiot."

-"Surprize Surprize.....he's a liar!!!

Catching a fish (of questionable weight) is the high point of this man's presidency?.....

Guess the fish was in the same bubble he occupies."

-"I say IMPEACH THE LYING SACK OF SHIT!

I know that Democrats everywhere are appalled at the suggestion of impeaching a criminally insane and lethally imcompetent fool. I guess they continue to strategize in their special way that has brought our nation into international disrepute and enabled the Bush Regime to continue on the path to hell...."

Those comments are just three out of 185 or so along the same vein. There is one fairly sensible quote to the effect that maybe this is all about a translation error since the original article was in German. It is ignored by most of the commenters, who prefer to spew instead.

Personally I think Bush caught a Moonfish (otherwise known as a "Red Wag", or Xiphophorus maculatus) .
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:50 AM |

 
Ambassador Munchausen
The modern counterpart of the infamous Baron von Munchausen, who has regaled the American public with his tall tales for three years now, is finally being unmasked as the person who "outed" Valerie Plame. Clarice Feldman has some interesting details:

A shrewd reader at Free Republic has found this article. See if you can guess who was the “former state department official with ties to the CIA” who was a source for this article (which the wayback machine says was posted on July 7, 2003). Ray McGovern, who was the other featured speaker at the EPIC conference and a leading member of the VIPs—one who openly called on CIA employees to leak – is a named source. A second source is described only as a “former state department official with ties to the CIA.” I strongly suspect “former state department official” is none other than Ambassador Munchausen himself, referring to his wife’s employment to strengthen his credentials. And I have reason to believe that has been a pattern, as the witnesses Libby has announced he’ll call will certainly demonstrate.

Check out the entire article. In medicine there is a disorder known as Munchausen's Syndrom which is a type of factitious disorder, or mental illness, in which a person repeatedly acts as if he or she has a physical or mental disorder when, in truth, they have caused the symptoms themselves.

When I was a resident on the medical unit, I personally caught one such patient spitting into his own IV when he thought noone was looking. This turned out to be the very cause of the patient's spiking high fevers every night--something that was completely stumping the doctors on his case.

Ambassordor Wilson resonates not only with the Baron's personality; but with the medical/psychiatric disorder named after the tale-telling aristocrat.

Thus,at this point in time, it would hardly be a shock, let alone a major revelation, that Wilson himself was the person who outed his wife and was the source of their "problems" (if getting a multimillion $$$ book deal or becoming media darlings are considered problems these days). Nor would it be a shock from a psychological perspective if the entire thing was done deliberately (or at least post facto deliberately) to punish the Bush Administration. Then it would be simple projection again for him to innocently claim that the Adminsitration was trying to punish him.

By saying it may be psychological projection that is behind this absurd political witch hunt, I am actually giving Wilson the benefit of the doubt. It is even more likely--and both later events and the facts of the case conclusively have demonstrated-- that the Ambassador is simply a serial liar.

Reprise from It Ain't Necessarily So...

Oh Wilson, he travelled to Niger,
Oh Wilson, he travelled to Niger,
An' his wife sent him over
Then he broke her cover!
Oh Wilson, he travelled to Niger.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:05 PM |

 
POLITICAL AND RACIAL PARANOIA
In a recent post, I said:

I am repeatedly astonished at how the left in this country jumps to their pre-ordained conclusions about things. Everything that happens is instantly transformed into a "fact" that supports their fantasy. We see this in people with paranoid delusions. They take reality and then creatively rearrange it to fit the pattern they have already set up inside their heads. That's why most people with paranoia and with a modicum of intelligence develop complicated conspiracy theories over time.

Basically, their delusional system becomes the only thing they can see, and hence they are completely unable to visualize the "Big Picture". The "Big Picture" is just a shorthand way of describing reality over time.

Now, Dr. Mike Adams has helpfully put together a list of the top 10 academic conspiracy theories put forth to blame all of societies ills on white people (more specifically, Republican white people. Here are #9 and #10:

10. “911 was a conspiracy planned between the Bush administration and the Jews. They wanted an excuse to attack Arabs and the ignorant public bought into it.” (from a now-deceased college professor).

9. “I don’t want any teacher who supports George W. Bush. If Bush is elected he’s planning – along with the rest of the Republicans - to bring back slavery. I don’t want to work picking cotton in the cotton fields like my ancestors.” (college student).

They get even more bizarre and convoluted as you proceed down the list. You have to spend time on university campuses to appreciate the baseline level of intense political and racial paranoia that exists in this bastion of "diversity", where you can promote diversity as much as you want, as long as you aren't inclusive of white, heterosexual, male, Republicans. Like Type O blood, the universal donor among bloodtypes; the WHMR is the universal oppressor in the postmodern rhetoric of the left. There is nothing that can't be twisted, distorted or spun in such a way in order to ensure that this particular group gets the blame for everything bad that happens in the world.

As Adams notes, these conspiracy theories are basically politically correct--and therefore academically-sanctioned--racial stereotyping and scapegoating. Affirmative scapegoating, I guess.

Along these lines, I noticed this article today in the Washington Post:

President Bush's crop of political appointees includes fewer women and minorities than did President Bill Clinton's at comparable points in their presidencies, according to a new report by House Democrats.

Women made up about 37 percent of the 2,786 political appointees in the Bush administration in 2005, compared with about 47 percent in the Clinton administration in 1997, according to the report and supplemental data released last week by the Democratic staff of the House Government Reform Committee. Similarly, about 13 percent of Bush administration appointees last year were racial minorities, compared with 24 percent in the fifth year of Clinton's presidency, the report found.

This kind of casual racism that is so much a part of the whole identity politics/equality of outcome schtick is absolutely disgusting. Once, people marched for equal rights and opportunity. Now they demand equal results and the sanctity of victimhood.

How have we come to live in a society that once idealistically sought to permanently END the pervasive and evil racism that had made Blacks second-class citizens since the beginning of our republic; and which now has come to CELEBRATE a new and even more sinister racism as some sort of political good?

Can you think of a single person from a "non-White" background in the Bush Administration that has not been acused of being a "traitor" to their respective racial or ethnic groups--simply because they are Republicans? Instead of being role-models for others to emulate; any "person of color" who happens to be conservative is regularly excoriated by the mullahs of multiculturalism and the degenerates of diversity as "white". So, it isn't even enough for them that you be a person of color--you also must toe the ideological line, or you don't count.

This cycle of neverending racial stereotyping and politically-sanctioned racism is a fundamental political strategy of today's left, which uses the racism of identity politics to forward on their collectivist agenda.

Paranoia and conspiracy theories help keep the clueless minions under control and constantly feeling victimized and oppressed--even as those minions now feel free to victimize and oppress others. No theory is ever too outrageous if it badmouths that "universal oppressor."

Racism itself is a form of psychological projection. It results when a person does not take responsibility for their own unacceptable or angry feelings and projects them onto an identified group; so that one can feel virtuous or morally superior to members of that group. And psychological projection is as the heart of paranoia.

John Miller at The Corner makes my final point as he discusses another case of approved multicultural racism:

Can you imagine a newspaper printing a similar comment about non-whites — say, about black residents of New Orleans in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? There would be a furor, and deservedly so. But this comment, aimed at America's official oppressor race, will barely cause a yawn.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 4:43 PM |

 
DENIAL - Part IX - XI

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:21 AM |

 
Under the Weather ...But At Least I'm Sane
Although the weather is beautiful right now, I'm feeling a little under it and am going to take a break until tomorrow. Check out the Carvival below and some of the fine links on my sidebar.

If you want to be depressed and outraged, read this piece at Mudville Gazette; then read what Vanderleun has written about the left side of the blogsphere's reaction to the President saying we are in WWIII (hat tip: Larwyn). I may be under the weather, but at least I'm sane.

Sigh. These people aren't just in denial, they are drowning in in the deepest, darkest part of de-ocean of willful and spiteful stupidity.

What is it going to take before these hysterical and lunatic dingbats wake up and realize who the real enemy is?
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:51 PM |

 
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. Thanks for all the submissions. I try to use as many as possible! SO MANY INSANITIES! SO LITTLE TIME!!!

1. No, I'm sure some generals think we should be praising him instead of mocking him. I'm not a general, so I say LET'S MOCK HIM ! Perhaps he needs some maid service? He's so ronery....

2. Try speaking truth to this power and seeing how far you get.... Speaking truth to hecklers.

3. Drunk Scandinavians? Everyone offends them. Their offendedness has no bounds.

4. The Law of the Blogger - a poem by Rudyard Vanderleun.

5. Subliminal advertising -- in blogs? OTOH, this must be liminal advertising! Only in Japan would this advertising go over! And here's some advertising that went horribly wrong.

6. The Money Pit.

7. Sounds like a culture of corruption to me. Another slogan down the drain. Maybe it's more a culture of addiction? If he'd read the newspaper could it have been avoided?

8. His own private paradise! The truth? They can't handle the truth.

9. Hugo (25 more years???) and Evo (Bye,Bye Bolivia!) are well on their way to becoming castro-like multimillionaires in their respective impoverished countries, too. It's called the "dictator's dividend". Ahhhh the wonders of socialism. That kind of wealth accumulation is considered fine; but anyone who actually earns it is evil.

10. Gee, it's a good think we don't use Perrier to fuel our engines ! Or orange juice. Price gouging hasn't done these guys any good, apparently.

11. But it's a really cute totebag!

12. How appropriate! A pretend international organization honors a pretend president! Bet they wish the real president was pretend.

13. An intergalactic roundtable. Puny earthlings are welcome.

14. So much insanity, so little time to fisk it all. Be my guest. Here's more.

15. Whatever it is, the body count is too high -- in Darfur. But the press just want to be fair to the Islamic regime there.

16. He should cut out being so sensitive and tell us what he really thinks!

17. BREAKING MEDICAL NEWS: A really big concern (or is it a small one?) for gardeners; and an epidemic spreading to inanimate objects ! Finally, men are living longer and the opposite gender will just have to suffer!

18. Dear soft thinkers on the left....

19. Somebody failed Economics 101... He was probably too busy taking Chai Latte 101.

20. Just a pawn of the "Big Potato Chip". How sad.

21. If this doesn't convince Iran to back down, nothing could.

22. Why would anyone hate the Yankees?

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 log" below the button to obtain the html code:




- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:31 AM |

 
THE THRILL OF VICTORY
Personally, I am not a big fan of the death penalty; but it would not have broken my heart to see Moussaoui receive that sentence. Since he feels somehow that "America lost", I hope he has plenty of time to celebrate his "victory":



..as he performs his daily tasks:



Enjoy!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:57 PM |

 
BECAUSE THEY CAN'T SEE THE BIG PICTURE
I am repeatedly astonished at how the left in this country jumps to their pre-ordained conclusions about things. Everything that happens is instantly transformed into a "fact" that supports their fantasy. We see this in people with paranoid delusions. They take reality and then creatively rearrange it to fit the pattern they have already set up inside their heads. That's why most people with paranoia and with a modicum of intelligence develop complicated conspiracy theories over time.

Basically, their delusional system becomes the only thing they can see, and hence they are completely unable to visualize the "Big Picture". The "Big Picture" is just a shorthand way of describing reality over time.

AJ Strata has an excellent example of this fundamentally paranoid process that is now occurring right before our eyes in the left's reaction to the resignation of Porter Goss in this post "Bre'r Rabbit's Briar Patch CIA Move".

Keep in mind that there is a reason why Occam's razor (i.e., that the simplist explanation for something is most likely to be the true one or "the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possibrle, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory") has stood the test of time.

Here is AJ's take:

Bush played Briar Rabbit and begged not to be forced to create the office of DNI. And he did so knowing quite well the new organization offered a once in a century opportunity to shake up moribund institutions. Bush has done more to fix government in his four years than has been done in the last 100. It is stunning to see what he did to:

-Department of Defense through Rumsfeld’s new force structure
-Department of Education through No Child Left Behind
-All the dysfunctional and competing organizations now under Homeland Defense
-Pulling the Coast Guard into a new independent status in Homeland Defense
-Redirecting NASA through the Exploration effort to the Moon and Mars
-Fixing Medicare and Medicaid by offering a Prescription Drug Plan (before it was emergency room care access only)

Look at that list folks and understand there are even more that are not well known or advertised. Goss is out because he established the proper relationship with DNI agreed upon years ago when this started. The news media never detects this kind of strategy because it takes years to implement and the media has the attention span of a gnat. That’s why they cannot fathom what is going on. But for those of us who do know, it is truly stunning.

No one has left as large an imprint as George Bush has on the Government of the United States since FDR and WW II. The media’s BDS blinds them to this amazing accomplishment. But it is for real.

It is most definitely for real, whether you happen to agree with the specific changes or not. And it has been and continues to be transformative.

This transforming ability can also be seen in the stunning developements in the Middle East, where Bush's foreign policy interventions are causing a ripple effect throughout the entire region; causing changes that no one could have even possibly imagined 5 years ago.

Most people dislike change--especially transformative change that threatens every single static picture a person carries around in his head about the world. It is such a nuisance to constantly have to adapt to reality! It's often much easier to try to force reality to adapt to your image of the world. And that's exactly what many people do if they can't visualize that Big Picture. They attach the resignation to their "culture of corruption" meme (or here); to their "the evil Bush government is spying on its citizens" meme; to the "victim" meme (in this case, the CIA is a poor victim of the evil Bush Adminsitration and is even worse off after Porter Goss).

Well, we shall see. If AJ is correct, then a new Director will be named quickly, and will be someone who can continue to clean house at the CIA and bring it even closer to integration with the DoD and other intelligence agencies.

In other words, for the conspiracy theorists who can't see the Big Picture, things are about to get even more confusing. They will be outraged--in a loving compassionate, patriotic and paranoid sort of way though.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:45 AM |

 
THE COUNCIL HAS SPOKEN !
This week's winners in the Watcher's Council are now posted at the Watcher of Weasels . Every week the Council nominates posts from the blogs of the Council members, and posts from around the blogsphere. The Council then votes to select the "Best" of all these posts.

BEST COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

The Last Boat Out of Liverpool Gates of Vienna

Second Place

You're-being-mean-to-me Liberalism New World Man

BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

Can America Still Win Wars? Villainous Company

Second Place

Of a Fire in a Field American Digest

Be sure to check out all the winners at the Watcher's Site! Great weekend reading.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:53 AM |

 
THREE STORIES AND WALL OF BIAS & DISTORTION
First, from Byron York at The Corner:

This afternoon CNN reported the news, published earlier in The Corner, that Lewis Libby's defense lawyers say they will produce five witnesses who will testify under oath that former ambassador Joseph Wilson told them that his wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, worked for the CIA, a job status that, allegedly, was classified. CNN also reported a response from Joseph Wilson:

BLITZER: And John, producer, Stephanie Katube (sp), just got a statement from Ambassador Joe Wilson. Let me read it to you and to our viewers. "The last I heard," Wilson says, "this is case is about allegations Mr. Libby lied, perjured himself before the FBI, special prosecutor and grand jury and obstructed justice. None of those charges of which he's been indicted has anything to do with me."

Wilson goes on to say, "Furthermore, the government in the person of the special prosecutor in his court filings has made it clear it believes several White House officials were engaged in a campaign to, quote, `discredit, punish and seek revenge' on me. It would appear that campaign is ongoing."

What seems notable about Wilson's statement, if CNN read it in full, is that it does not address the issue of whether or not he told people that his wife worked for the CIA.

More discussion on this can be found here.

Victor Davis Hanson lists the amazing accomplishments of the Bush Foreign Policy in neutralizing the threats of Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria over the last 4 1/2 years since September 11:

The Taliban is gone. In its place is the unthinkable—a parliamentary democracy that welcomes an open economy and foreign investment. Afghanistan is plagued still by drug-lords and resurgent terrorists, but after a successful war that removed the Taliban, the country hardly resembles the nightmare that existed before September 11.

Iran is closer to the bomb than ever, but there is at least worldwide scrutiny of its machinations, in a manner lacking in the past. Tehran is in a death struggle with the new Iraqi government, trying to undermine the democracy by transplanting its radical Shiite ganglia before a constitutional, diverse Iraqi culture energizes its own restive population that supposedly tires of the theocracy.

The thousands who died yearly under Saddam’s killing apparatus in Iraq have been followed by thousands killed in sectarian strife. Yet Saddam and his Baathist nightmare are gone from Iraq, offering hope where there was none. After three elections, a democratic government has emerged. Despite a terrible cost in American lives and wealth, so far elections have not been derailed, open civil war has not followed from the daily terror, and Americans are looking to reduce, not enlarge, their presence.

Libya is perhaps the strangest development of all. The United States is slowly exploring reestablishing diplomatic relations. Moammar Khadafy is giving up his WMD arsenal. And the country is suddenly open to cell phones, the Internet, satellite television, and is no longer a global financial conduit for international terrorism.

Pakistan is still run by a military dictator. But as a result of American bullying and financial enticement, it is slowly weeding out al Qaeda sympathizers from its government, which on rare occasions attacks terrorists residing in its borderlands. Indeed, al Qaeda seems to hate the present Pakistani government as much as it does the United States.

Saudi Arabia has gained enormous leverage as oil skyrocketed from $30 to over $70 a barrel. Yet under American pressure it has cracked down on al Qaeda terrorists and has cleaned up (somewhat) its overseas financial offices—perhaps evidenced by a wave of reactive terrorist attacks against the Riyadh government. American efforts to urge liberalization have met a tepid response—given Saudi reliance on the oil card, and its sophistic argument that for the present an autocratic monarchy is the only alternative to a terrorist-supporting theocracy.

Syria is out of Lebanon by popular pressure. It still supports terrorists against Israel—and now Iraq too—but judging from its rhetoric it must be feeling squeezed by a democratic Turkey, Iraq, and Israel on its borders, and a new tough stance from the United States.

So where does all this leave us? In every case, I think, far messier—but far better—than before September 11.

The final story I want to highlight comes from the Media Research Center, which discusses how the media by hyping the gasoline situation have basically ignored the incredible economy over which the Bush Administration has presided since the devastation of 9/11:

During the Clinton years, network journalists argued (correctly) that strong economic growth, a rising stock market, low unemployment and low inflation were the benchmark indicators of a good economy. Today, economic growth is a phenomenal 4.8 percent, the stock market has been climbing for three straight years, and inflation and unemployment are both low.

But instead of trumpeting the amazing “Bush economy,” TV news has downplayed this recent good news while hyping the bad news of rising fuel costs. Indeed, a new Media Research Center study suggests the broadcast networks are not just noting the discontent about prices but actively stoking public outrage.

What is the moral of these three articles?

Hanson notes what the real problem with the news he lays out is:

"What is lacking has been a consistently spirited defense, both unapologetic and humble at the same time, of our efforts since September 11."

But he is wrong. There has been a spirited and unapologetic defense in all these areas. I have heard them. I have heard them conducted by Bush and Cheney and other members of the Administration at talks all around the country and only occasionally covered and reported on the 24 hour news stations. I have witness a spirited and unapologetic defense in blogs--particularly the military blogs-- on a daily basis. I have even written some of those defenses myself.

But it doesn't seem to be making a big difference in making people aware of the truth. The truth is indeed out there, but unless a person is a news junkie like myself, who spends hours pouring over blogs; searching the back pages of the MSM newspapers; and listening to the 24 hour news programs for far too long every day--you will not find it.

The Bush Administration has been completely unable to penetrate the wall of silence that MSM has erected to cut off, downplay and minimize any news that doesn't conform to fundamental leftist dogma.

In the first article, the fact that Joe Wilson is a liar and has been lying since he first came to public prominence after his ridiculous trip to Niger in a valiant attempt to discredit Bush has now been obscured by a snark hunt for the person who supposedly "outed" his CIA wife, who sent him on that mission; and whose desire for media attention (note how she stays demurely out of the public eye by going to highly publicized parties and is currently negotiating her own book deal) is only exceeded by his own.

Meanwhile, the entire "Bush lied to take us to war" and the "16-words in the SOTU" dogma is repeated regularly in the news stories. Which, no matter how often it is thoroughly and completely debunked and shown to be a distortion, still somehow seems to be resurrected in its original leftist version by the MSM on an almost daily basis as they report on the Libby case, which as Wilson so disingenuously notes , has nothing to do with him and is about lying under oath--except, of course, that Wilson himself resurrects the same meme in the next sentence.

The second article by VDH demonstrates the absolutely incredible and unbelievable transformation that is going on in the Middle East today. A transformation that would have been considered wishful thinking and idle fantasy, as well as completely impossible prior to 9/11. The remarkable achievements of our military in Afghanistan and Iraq continue to this day to go unreported and discounted. Military history has been made, but the MSM only reports that history through the lens of the Cindy Sheehans and the antiwar movement--who are even more determined than the MSM to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for the sake of their dogma.

The third article brings us even closer to the forces at work obscuring and distorting the truth. The MRC notes that, "MRC analysts reviewed ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news shows from April 12 through May 2. During those 21 days, the networks collectively aired 183 stories about rising oil and gas prices — 125 full reports or interview segments, plus another 58 brief anchor-read items."

And yet, the incredible accomplishments of the Bush economy continue to get no respect from either the MSM or the left. As Betsy comments:

Sure, the gas prices are an important story, but not to the exclusion of all other economic news. Add to that the miserable job that the media has done in explaining why gas prices have gone up and you have a textbook example of how media bias is done.

Indeed, unless you look at business pubications and track business data or blogs, the typical American believes that the economy is doing badly, even as indicators of consumer behavior (i.e. consumer confidence) continue to rise. And don't expect to learn anything about supply and demand from the MSM--they failed Economics 101 and went staight to Socialist Theory 101.

Three stories that are seemingly unconnected, but are representative of the kind of news that is hidden securely behind a solid wall of MSM silence, bias and distortion; and carefully guarded by leftist dogma to make sure that nothing gets through.

If only we had such efficiency and single-mindedness in our border control and enforcement! The problem is, of course, that it would be nice if truth could be given a place at the front of the entry line.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:58 PM |

 
DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN
Charles Krauthammer:

[Hitler]demonstrated that modern anti-Semitism married to modern technology -- railroads, disciplined bureaucracies, gas chambers that kill with industrial efficiency -- could take a scattered people and "concentrate" them for annihilation.

The establishment of Israel was a Jewish declaration to a world that had allowed the Holocaust to happen -- after Hitler had made his intentions perfectly clear -- that the Jews would henceforth resort to self-protection and self-reliance. And so they have, building a Jewish army, the first in 2,000 years, that prevailed in three great wars of survival (1948-49, 1967 and 1973).

But in a cruel historical irony, doing so required concentration -- putting all the eggs back in one basket, a tiny territory hard by the Mediterranean, eight miles wide at its waist. A tempting target for those who would finish Hitler's work.

His successors now reside in Tehran. The world has paid ample attention to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's declaration that Israel must be destroyed. Less attention has been paid to Iranian leaders' pronouncements on exactly how Israel would be "eliminated by one storm," as Ahmadinejad has promised.

Former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the presumed moderate of this gang, has explained that "the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam." The logic is impeccable, the intention clear: A nuclear attack would effectively destroy tiny Israel, while any retaliation launched by a dying Israel would have no major effect on an Islamic civilization of a billion people stretching from Mauritania to Indonesia.
[...]
When Iran's mullahs acquire their coveted nukes in the next few years, the number of Jews in Israel will just be reaching 6 million. Never again?

For the record (and not that it matters what I think), I completely concur with Charles Krauthammer's analysis (which should be read in its entirety) and Glenn Reynold's response:

Given the Iranians' words and actions, I think that Israel is legally and morally justified in launching whatever sort of preemptive strike it chooses.

Anyone who fails to see the parallels between the evil rising in the world today under the auspices of a preening Islam, and the posturing of Hitler and Germany prior to WWII is either asleep or already dead.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:52 PM |

 
THE NEXT IRANIAN HOSTAGE CRISIS
Victor Davis Hanson argues that we should continue to give Iran enough rope to hang itself--or at least to prompt others into demanding that the US do something:

Meanwhile, the United States, for a variety of understandable reasons, is not eager to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. A current parlor game imagines the nightmares of such a preemptive strike: It would be hard to know whether we eliminated all the centrifuges. Oil prices would get even worse. Some Shiites in Iraq might turn on our troops. Terrorists could be unleashed with dirty bombs in Western cities.

So, in the lull before the storm, the U.S. should pause, and allow its critics a chance to offer some utopian third-party or multilateral solution.
[...]
Notice: George Bush has been relatively silent during the crisis; Ahmadinejad is the one losing his composure on center stage. Nearly daily he shouts to the cameras about wiping Israel off the map or unleashing his Islamic terrorists throughout the globe.

In the brief present window between Iran's enrichment and its final step to weapons-grade production, we must keep calm and give Ahmadinejad even more rope to hang himself. As his present hysteria grows, exasperated Europeans or jittery neighbors in the region may even prod the U.S. to take action - indeed, to be a little more unilateral and preemptive in letting the Iranians know that their acquisition of a nuclear weapon will never happen.

For now, our best peaceful weapon in the little time that we have left is, oddly, our own quiet and hope that a democratizing Iraq stabilizes, and in turn destabilizes undemocratic Iran. So let the loud Ahmadinejad continue to make our case why such a psychopath cannot be allowed to become nuclear. Meanwhile, give confident multilateral internationalists their long-awaited chance at diplomacy, and prepare for the worst.

No one realistically believes that negotiation will work (except the most diehard, out-of-touch-with-reality utopians).

Personally, I think that Osama's latest rant has given us a clue how we might deal with Iran. He warns us not to go into Darfur. I say, we send troops to Darfur--enough to do the job there and attract all the nutcase jihadists to the region. We could even suggest that there's nothing Iran can do to stop us there (hence insuring that they focus their attention exactly there).

Additionally, our intervention in Darful will have the following advantage: the international left and the Democrats in our own country--who represent, without a doubt, the most serious impediment to dealing appropriately with Iran and will do everything possible--consciously and unconsciously-- to enable the mullahs to achieve their ultimate nuclear ambitions-- will be outmaneuvered. Darfur can be the bone we throw them to shut them up--and we will most certainly also be doing good--a win-win situation.

The left will like this move on our part because it serves no obvious national interest of the U.S. to intervene in Darfur at the moment. At least they would think of it as a selfless intervention. We will be doing real humanitarian good and hopefully the lunatic mainstream left will be sufficiently distracted for the necessary time (one can only hope). If they have any objections to intervention in Darfur, then we can totally and completely ignore them as the meaningless and irrelevant hypocrites they really are underneath all their lovely rhetoric.

As far as I'm concerned, that would be a tactical goal worthy of seriously considering. Who could possibly ever the left seriously again--especially on international matters--if they didn't even have the will to intervene in the slaughter in Darfur?

It could be a perfect feint on our part that will have the advantage of getting most of the world behind our actions--possibly even the UN. As we engage the terrorists there, we would simultaneously be optimizing our covert operations in Iran (I certainly hope that we are already pushing full steam ahead on that front) which would be the primary strategic target and at least one of the real military goals of our move into Darfur.

Under that cover we could carefully set things up for taking down the mullahs and their puppet president; and as many identified nuclear sites in one fell swoop with a minimum of fuss and bother. We could make sure Iranian opposition is in the right position to take over at the proper moment.

Targeted assasinations? You bet.Tactical nuclear weapons? Possibly. Whatever is deemed necessary. Send that 12th Imam scurrying back to his hiding hole and prepare as many nasty surprises we can muster for the ruling bastards in Iran--who fully intend to hold the world hostage as they become the leading edge of the new Islamic caliphate.

If you thought the 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis was a humiliating fiasco; then wait till you see what Iran has planned when they can hold, not just the U.S., but the entire world hostage to nuclear blackmail. You think their rhetoric is bullying now? Wait until they believe they can threaten anyone with impunity; and wipe whole countries off the map at their whim.

Ahmadinejad really believes things will go pretty much the same way they did in his youth, when he was one of the triumphant hostage-takers and cowed the gutless Jimmy Carter into submission.

If I read George W. Bush accurately--who, thank God, is no Jimmy Carter-- then I suspect that Mahmoud will eventually be diabused of his quaint notion.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:01 AM |

 
HUMOR VS DISPLACEMENT
Comedian and commentator Richard Cohen nails it:

The commentary, though, is also what I do, and it will make the point that Colbert was not just a failure as a comedian but rude. Rude is not the same as brash. It is not the same as brassy. It is not the same as gutsy or thinking outside the box. Rudeness means taking advantage of the other person's sense of decorum or tradition or civility that keeps that other person from striking back or, worse, rising in a huff and leaving. The other night, that person was George W. Bush.
[...]
Why are you wasting my time with Colbert, I hear you ask. Because he is representative of what too often passes for political courage, not to mention wit, in this country. His defenders -- and they are all over the blogosphere -- will tell you he spoke truth to power. This is a tired phrase, as we all know, but when it was fresh and meaningful it suggested repercussions, consequences -- maybe even death in some countries. When you spoke truth to power you took the distinct chance that power would smite you, toss you into a dungeon or -- if you're at work -- take away your office.

But in this country, anyone can insult the president of the United States. Colbert just did it, and he will not suffer any consequence at all. He knew that going in. He also knew that Bush would have to sit there and pretend to laugh at Colbert's lame and insulting jokes. Bush himself plays off his reputation as a dunce and his penchant for mangling English. Self-mockery can be funny. Mockery that is insulting is not. The sort of stuff that would get you punched in a bar can be said on a dais with impunity. This is why Colbert was more than rude. He was a bully.

Read the entire piece, which accurately deliniates the significant difference between humor and displacement. Both are psychological defenses. True humor offers a catharsis for more than just the person using it; and while displacement may be funny to some, it is the childish/adolescent version of humor that is more like disguised cruelty.

As I have noted many times in this blog, humor is an extraordinarily mature and healthy psychological defense. It is the overt expression of ideas and feelings (especially those that are unpleasant to focus on or too terrible to talk about) in a creative manner that gives pleasure to others. Often humor can let you call a spade a spade in a way that transforms the negative into a positive. As an example, President Bush himself displayed consideral humor of the self-deprecating variety in his own skit with the Bush double. As Cohen notes above, self-mockery can be funny; and it can also demonstrate maturity and honesty.

So, what are we to make of Colbert's humor at that dinner? Rude and insulting is too nice a word for it (and I must admit that I usually find Colbert rather funny). It was very revealing precisely because it revealed something about Colbert and any of those who found it hilarious--it revealed immaturity and intolerance. To be precise, it was just another attempt at displacement, the underlying psychological motivation of Bush Derangement Syndrome. The purpose of this kind of "humor" is to hurt. It makes very few feel pleasure except at the pain of someone else.

This kind of humor is found in children and adolescents mostly. The "ha-ha!" shout of the character Nelson, who makes fun of everyone's pain; while blissfully unaware of his own family's psychopathology in The Simpsons is an example; or one of the three stooges beating up on another.

Kids love that kind of humor because it lets them act out their aggression in a slightly less...physical manner (and therefore a more socially appropriate). While displacement may be a bit psychologically healthier than actually physically hitting the President over the head with a baseball bat, it is hard to see how those on the "caring and compassionate" left--so sensitized to others people's feelings-- are not exactly aware of how insensitive and loutish it was to attack someone who cannot respond. They rationalize their own behavior by making Bush a monster. This is only projection, however.

In short, Colbert's behavior and that of those who approve of it (and see him as some kind of courageous hero for speaking "truth to power"); are the typical kind of adolescent behaviors that allow the immature and uninsightful to be indifferent to their own cruelty and insensitivity towards others.

This is why noone at the dinner actually laughed at Colbert's jokes. Such rudeness in the name of humor is actually painful to witness (i.e., not funny) because when someone resorts to it, they are unintentionally revealing their own deepest--and darkest--soul.

The closest example I can think of is the intense embarassment a person feels when they accidently walk in on someone using the toilet.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:31 PM |

 
Gently Cut Their Heads Hair Off...
Up at The Corner Michael Ledeen post an email with a photo of how the Tehran police force intends to impose a "kinder, gentler", more compassionate kind of Islamofascist shar'ia. To quote from the translation:

a.. If you see women with thick lipstick, don't use a razor blade to slash their faces (as has been permissible and very much done by the disciplinary forces patrolling the cities), use Kleenex.
b.. If you see too much makeup on women's faces, don't spray their faces with acid (as has been permissible and very much done by the disciplinary forces patrolling the cities), use rosewater.
c.. If women are wearing too short of a dress, give them a free chador (veil).
d.. If their scarves is too short, don't use the slogan of: "yaa roo sari, yaa too sari" (which means "either wear a scarf, or get smacked on the head"...this has been one of the regime's most disgusting comments to Iranians women since the very early days of the revolution).
e.. Either cover their entire hair or gently cut their hair off.
The caption, in the bottom of the photo reads: The head of the police force of Tehran said: "The Irshad (guidance) Patrols should not treat people with an antagonistice approach."

I await the angry, outraged rhetoric; and the demands that the oppression of Iranian women cease from the usual "champions of the oppressed" on the left any day now....that is, when they are finished doing everything possible to prevent the U.S. from doing anything useful about the Iranian situation; and when aren't to busy bashing Bush to notice that real abuse of women going on in the world.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:46 AM |

 
IDEOLOGICAL RHETORIC DU JOUR -How The Left Rewrites History
The left is continually revising history so that it conforms with their current rhetorical ploys to undermine their opposition. Let's look at an example where there is a concerted effort to minimize the idea that in liberating Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush has freed millions of women.

As Iraq struggles to establish the basic institutions for democracy and recover from decades of Saddam's looting and oppression, we have the following kinds of arguments being made:
Hilary Clinton:

Sen. Hillary Clinton said this week that Iraqi women were better off under Saddam Hussein, arguing that when the brutal dictator ran the country women were at least assured the right to participate in Iraq's public life.

In comments that went unreported by the mainstream press, the former first lady told the Brookings Institution on Wednesday that since Saddam's removal from power, Iraq's post war governing councils had engaged in "pullbacks in the rights [women] were given under Saddam Hussein."

Sen. Clinton noted that while Saddam had been "an equal opportunity oppressor," women were at least assured certain constitutional guarantees.

While ignoring reports about the brutal dictator's rape rooms and other forms of persecution that were routine for women under his regime, Sen. Clinton insisted: "On paper, women had rights."

And for Iraqi women, those paper promises translated into real benefits, she claimed.

"They went to school; they participated in the professions, they participated in the government and business and, as long as they stayed out of [Saddam's] way, they had considerable freedom of movement," Clinton insisted.

But since Saddam's removal, the plight of Iraq's women has taken a significant turn for the worse, she contended.

Or, how about the always useful U.N. (useful to dictators anyway):

Despite widespread reports of Iraqi women being brutalized in rape rooms before the U.S. liberation, the United Nations is now claiming that women were better off when Saddam Hussein was in power.

In a report issued this week, the Integrated Regional Information Networks, a U.N. news agency covering sub-Saharan Africa, maintains:

"Women's basic rights under the Hussein regime were guaranteed in the constitution and more importantly [they were] respected, with women often occupying important government positions. Now, although their rights are still enshrined in the national constitution, activists complain that, in practice, they have lost almost all of their rights."

Howard Dean:

Howard Dean, the Democratic National Committee chairman who was the hero of his party's anti-war wing before his gaffe-prone 2004 presidential candidacy crashed and burned in Iowa, still doesn't think the Iraqis are better off with dictator Saddam Hussein out of power and in prison.

Appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation" yesterday, the fiery former Vermont governor said, "It looks like today, and this could change, as of today it looks like women will be worse off in Iraq than they were when Saddam Hussein was president of Iraq."

I could go on as there are a lot of leftist organizations that continue to insist on how progressive and pro-women Saddam's regime was; and that now--because of the evil Bush's oppressive policies, women are being forced to take the veil by their menfolk; and that Iraqi women will never have equal rights in Iraq etc. etc. etc. blah blah blah.

I certainly can't predict what will happen in Iraq over the next decade; or how women's lot will evolve within an Iraqi democracy (after all, we know that people can vote against their own best interest--look at the Palestinians who would rather kill Jews than have their own functioning state); but at least we can go back and look at the real history of Iraq under Saddam and his thugs, where the lives of women were far from idyllic, no matter how much Clinton, Dean and others pretend now that it wasn't.

Yasmine Rassan has something of to say about that history:

Some radical feminists and anti-war liberals have very short memories. It's just three years after Saddam Hussein's ouster and some would have us believe the tyrant was in fact a protector of women's rights in Iraq. That Iraq under Saddam actually had progressive, pro-women policies that are now being "rolled back" thanks to the Bush administration.

A recent report by "Global Exchange" and "Code Pink" entitled "Iraqi Women Under Siege" concluded that "the occupation of Iraq has not resulted in greater equality and freedom for women" than they had under Saddam Hussein. Published by two radical feminist anti-war groups whose primary activities include protesting military recruiting stations, organizing anti-WTO protests and sympathizing with the regimes in North Korea and Cuba, this report echoes a long line of blatant pronouncements. Hillary Clinton who once said that after liberation there were "pullbacks in the rights that [women] were given under Saddam Hussein" and Howard Dean's infamous remark that "Iraqi women were better off under Saddam Hussein."

Anti-war revisionist liberals and radical feminists alike are trying their best to come up with comparisons of the Saddamist and post-Saddamist eras in Iraq with the aim of discrediting the historic liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein in 2003. With Iraqi women they think they have found a seemingly incontrovertible argument since Saddam, according to his apologists, was a "secular" ruler who gave liberal rights to women.

In a complex society like Iraq's, with its labyrinthine political and social development over the past 40 years, it is foolhardy to make simplistic comparisons based on a mere three years of post-Saddam liberation. Still, it is worth setting the record straight on how women really fared under the rule of this allegedly "benign" dictatorship. Revisionist history-writing must not prevail.

Much of the anti-war propagandists' defense of Saddam as a champion of women's rights rests on his willingness to allow women to vote (for him), drive cars, own property, get an education and work. What they choose to ignore, however, is the systematic rapes, torture, beheadings, honor killings, forced fertility programs, and declining literacy rates that also characterized Saddam's regime. A few examples can only begin to illustrate the cruelty and suffering endured by thousands of Iraqi women.
One torture technique favored by Saddam's henchman and his sons involved raping a detainee's mother or sister in front of him until he talked. In Saddam's torture chambers women, when not tortured and raped, spent years in dark jails. If lucky, their suckling children were allowed to be with them. In most cases, however, these children were considered a nuisance to be disposed of; mass graves currently being uncovered contain many corpses of children buried alive with their mothers.

During Saddam's war with Iran, nearly an entire generation of Iraqi men were killed, injured or captured, leaving a dearth of men of military age in Iraqi society. As a result, Saddam launched "fertility campaigns" that forcibly administered fertility drugs to school girls as young as 10 in an effort to drive up the population rate.

After the Gulf War--particularly after crushing the Shiite and Kurdish uprisings of 1991--Saddam reverted to tribal and "Islamic" traditions as a means to consolidate power. Iraqi women paid the heaviest price for his new-found piety. Many women were removed from government jobs and were not allowed to travel without the permission of a male relative. Men were exempted from punishment for "honor" killings--killings carried out on female relatives who had supposedly "shamed" their family. An estimated 4,000 women died from honor killings in the ensuing years. By 2000, Iraqi women, once considered the most highly educated in the Middle East, had literacy levels of only 23%.

Under the pretext of fighting prostitution in 2000, Saddam's Fedayeen forces beheaded 200 women "dissidents" and dumped their head on their families doorsteps for public display. These women obviously lost whatever "rights" granted to them once they got in Saddam's way.

Saddam Hussein was an equal opportunity killer who tortured, raped and gassed men, women and children alike. From Dujail in the South (the murder of hundreds of villagers for which he is on trial now) to the chemical obliteration of Halabja in the North, all Iraqis bore the brunt of the tyrant's wrath.

The revisionist history offered by those opposed to the Bush administration--whether it comes from bad judgment, a lack of information or a desire for political advantage--has grave consequences. A brutal dictator who tortures his own people cannot be a champion of women's rights. To pretend otherwise is to dishonor the memory of the thousands of innocent Iraqi women who died in a senseless brutal reign of terror. It also does a grave disservice to the men and women of this country who died or were injured to liberate Iraq.

Betsy also notes that Saddam Hussein was hardly a feminist--even as he is defended now by feminists.

The purpose of distorting history in the way that Clinton, the Democrats and the left are doing is simple. They want to undermine any possibility that Bush or his policies are working. It is not in their interest that the U.S. be successful in the Middle East. It is not in their interest that women be free to determine their own destiny. It is not in their interest that Iraq succeed in finding a path that combines democracy with their religious beliefs.

How did we come to the point where one of our major political party's only strategy to regain power is--not through rational argument or developing alternative strategies to solve problems--but by making sure that people believe the U.S. is run by a tyrant ("BusHitler") worse than the most brutal dictator in generations? Worse than the man who coldly and ruthlessly killed millions of his own people? How did it come to be "patriotic" to ensure your country lose a war on the battlefield of public perception; even as we achieve victory in reality?

As citizens of the old Soviet Union frequently joked, they were certain of the future. It was the past that kept changing. This dry humor reflected the communists' tendency to simply keep revising history as they went along in order to give support to their present policies and attitudes. As it is in most totalitarian regimes, reality was viewed a fluid, flexible thing to be altered in order to conform to the dogma of their ideology.

That is, of course, the hallmark of the true ideologue and fanatic. Reality be damned! History must make room for the ideologic rhetoric du jour.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:26 AM |

 
INSANE MOTHERING
The Democrats-- and all those who never learned about the concept of supply and demand (or, who don't believe in it)-- are responsible for the fact that no new oil refineries have been built in this country since 1976. They have repeatedly blocked additional drilling for oil in the U.S. because of concerns about "pollution" and various other environmental issues.

This is a little like the severely malnourished child whose mother would rather let him starve to death than allow him to eat a McDonalds' hamburger. It's just not good for him to pollute his system with such junk. In my book, that is child abuse--child abuse derived from the most enlightened variety of psychosis; but child abuse nonetheless.

But that's what the Democratic party has become: Insane mothers who are completely delusional and believe they are doing what's best for their child even as they kill him.

Then, they blame the child's father.


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:24 PM |

 
IT AIN'T NECESSARILY SO
It ain't necessarily so
It ain't necessarily so
The t'ings dat yo' most
Likely read in de Post,
Dey ain't necessarily so.

Johnny Bolton is gruff, but oh my !
Johnny Bolton is gruff, but oh my !
He's such a straight shooter,
An' stands up to dose looters!
Johnny Bolton is gruff, but oh my !

Wadoo, zim bam boddle-oo,
Hoodle ah da wa da,
Scatty wah !
Oh yeah !...

Oh Wilson, he travelled to Niger,
Oh Wilson, he travelled to Niger,
An' his wife sent him over
Then he broke her cover!
Oh Wilson, he travelled to Niger.

Ol' Saddam was found in a hole.
Ol' Saddam was found in a hole.
He was once de leader--
A true bottom feeder,
Till he done got put in a hole.

Wadoo ...

Well, it ain't necessarily so
Well, it ain't necessarily so
Dey tells all you chillun
Dis country's a villun,
But it ain't necessarily so !

In order to get at what's true,
Dere's lots o' dat bias ta undo,
Don't ever believe anyt'ing dat yo read
An' just take dese newsfolk
As if dey's a big joke,
'Cuz when it bleeds it'll lede.

Billy Clinton he ruled for eight years,
Billy Clinton he ruled for eight years,
But all da time he was kissin',
He somehow kept missin',
Dat evil was risin' for years

I'm sayin' dese things just ta show,
It ain't nece-ain't nece
Ain't nece-ain't nece
Ain't necessarily ... so !

(Sorry, Mr. Gershwin!)
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:01 AM |

 
THOSE DARN FREETHINKERS
In case you had doubts about what Bin Laden's Islamic caliphate is all about, here is the Osama himself as quoted at MEMRI:

Freethinkers and Heretics who Defame Islam Should Be Killed
"To the entire Islamic nation...: This speech comes to further urge you and prompt you to [come to] the aid of the Prophet and punish those responsible for the vile crime being committed by some journalists from amongst the Crusaders and the apostate heretics, who have insulted the Prophet Muhammad…

"Imam Ahmad [3] said: 'Whoever reviles the Prophet or belittles him, be he Muslim or infidel, should be killed.' The freethinkers and heretics who defame Islam, and mock and scorn our noble Prophet - their case and the law concerning them have been clearly expounded by Imam Ibn Qayyim [Al-Jawziyya]. [4] He made it clear that the crime committed by a freethinker is the worst of crimes, that the damage caused by his staying alive among the Muslims is of the worst kind of damage, that he is to be killed, and that his repentance is not to be accepted...

"Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya said, commenting on [Koran 9:12]: 'Whoever defames our religion is a leader of disbelief.' Many are the leaders of disbelief in our days in the lands of Islam, and many are the followers of Ka'b ibn Al-Ashraf in the Arabian Peninsula. [5] Many of them are writers in newspapers, and many of them are actors and broadcasters in the media. We warn here that a Muslim is not allowed to listen to any program that includes discussion with heretics, or any show that makes fun of Islam and of religious Muslims, for this is one of the greatest sins.

"How numerous are the heretics who are [government] ministers! And the foremost among them is the minister of labor in the Land of the Two Holy Shrines [i.e. Saudi Arabia], Ghazi Al-Qusaybi. Whoever wants to see the official fatwa proclaiming him guilty of disbelief and apostasy - such a fatwa was issued by former chief mufti 'Abd Al-'Aziz bin Baz, just as he issued a fatwa on the disbelief and apostasy of the heretic Shamlan Al-'Issa in Kuwait. [6]

"Among these heretics is Ahmad Al-Baghdadi [7] in Kuwait, and Turki Al-Hamad [8] in the Land of the Two Holy Shrines - a fatwa concerning the latter was issued by Sheikh Hamud Al-'Uqala - and many others like them. The book Modernity in the Balance of Islam [9] contains many of their names. Sheikh Sa'id Al-Ghamidi has also warned against them in his audio tapes..."

Do Not Consult Anyone About the Killing of These Heretics

"Indeed, this is our Prophet's law regarding anyone who mocks him, and belittles Islam and scorns it... They should be killed... Take an example from Muhammad ibn Maslama and his companions [who assassinated the poet Ka'b ibn Al-Ashraf]. It is intolerable and outrageous that the heretics are among us, scorning our religion and our Prophet.

"Therefore, you must fear Allah and do His will. Do not consult anyone about the killing of these heretics. Be secretive in carrying out that which is required of you.

"So much for the apostate heretics."

He's right, you know. Those "freethinkers" will get you every time. Just when you think you are safe from truth and reality and ideas that can destroy your entire ideological house of cards--along comes those darn freethinkers who have...ideas. And...think all on their own and don't follow the holy script. No wonder Bin Laden and his religion are so terrified of them.

And, as I noted yesterday in discussing leftist identity politics and the intolerance and hatred directed toward any freethinking person from an approved victim group (see the update on this post); this obsession with making sure people don't think for themselves and only think in the approved manner, is one that is shared by all totalitarians of whatever political stripe.

It is one of the many reasons why the left is so cozy with and can relate so well to Islamofascist thugs like Bin Laden and his ilk.

UPDATE: Another example of the alliance.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:44 AM |

 
Guilt, Minimalist Wars, And Making Room For Insurgencies ***UPDATED***
A brilliant piece of analysis by Shelby Steele today:

There is something rather odd in the way America has come to fight its wars since World War II.

For one thing, it is now unimaginable that we would use anything approaching the full measure of our military power (the nuclear option aside) in the wars we fight. And this seems only reasonable given the relative weakness of our Third World enemies in Vietnam and in the Middle East. But the fact is that we lost in Vietnam, and today, despite our vast power, we are only slogging along--if admirably--in Iraq against a hit-and-run insurgency that cannot stop us even as we seem unable to stop it. Yet no one--including, very likely, the insurgents themselves--believes that America lacks the raw power to defeat this insurgency if it wants to. So clearly it is America that determines the scale of this war. It is America, in fact, that fights so as to make a little room for an insurgency.

Steele connects this minimalism in war as a direct consequence of White guilt; and I must say that I think he has something here. White guilt over past racism and imperialism is today being constantly exploited by those whose primary desire is to disunify people by promoting class warfare and the marxist dialectic. Either you are oppressed (a poor brown person) or an oppressor (a rich white person). This makes it hard for even the morally transformed White nation (which Steele admits America has become) to fight even the most vicious enemies--if they happen to fit the oppressed victim stereotype.

Steele notes:

Possibly white guilt's worst effect is that it does not permit whites--and nonwhites--to appreciate something extraordinary: the fact that whites in America, and even elsewhere in the West, have achieved a truly remarkable moral transformation. One is forbidden to speak thus, but it is simply true. There are no serious advocates of white supremacy in America today, because whites see this idea as morally repugnant. If there is still the odd white bigot out there surviving past his time, there are millions of whites who only feel goodwill toward minorities.

This is a fact that must be integrated into our public life--absorbed as new history--so that America can once again feel the moral authority to seriously tackle its most profound problems. Then, if we decide to go to war, it can be with enough ferocity to win.

Sadly it is not simply a matter of eliminating the guilt. We must also call to account those in our society who make a living off of this guilt; promote it and stoke the fires of envy; and then fan the fire for their own political agenda. Otherwise we will always be winning the war, but losing the battle.

UPDATE: Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom has some additional insight:

At the heart of what Steele is saying here is an idea that I have critiqued at length in other contexts (particularly, the formation of identity narratives, and their impact on how we deploy “history” epistemologically). In short, the only way this guilt works is if we come to believe that we are, by virtue of certain cosmetic or superficial or logistic similarities, responsible for the actions of those in the past who were in many other respects “like us”. And this can only come to pass if we internalize certain historical occurrences as a form of cultural “memory”.
But it makes no sense to say we “remember” things that we took no part in, and so it makes no sense to culturally hamstring ourselves over events that we are under no obligation to take ownership of.

Which is not to say it is inappropriate even to acknowledge past national sins (and so be circumspect about letting shameful history repeat itself); rather, it is to say that acknowledging “learned” history is materially different from being told we must “remember” that history—and the difference is not at all trivial.
[...]
As I’ve mentioned here on numerous occasions, the first fight we must win is internally and domestically. And it is a fight for the soul of classical liberalism, which is being undercut (in my estimation) by nearly 40 years of a concerted effort by those whose goal is power and control to relativize meaning and deconstruct, through incoherent linguistic assertions that have unfortunately been widely adopted out of self-satisfied feel-goodism (specifically, an ostensible deference to the Other that allows us to convince ourselves we are “tolerant” and “diverse,” when in fact we have created the conditions to turn those ideas into something approximating their exact opposites).

Jeff has been a master at exposing the pervasively irrational postmodern rhetoric and politics, that together are the primary strategy used by the left to obscure its totalitarian plans. The political left lost the intellectual debate in the last century; and now depends on the distortion of language; identity politics/cultural relativism; and political correctness to push its ideological agenda forward.

UPDATE II: If you want to see an example of the kind of identity politics that Jeff Goldstein alludes to in his post; and what I discuss at length in multiple posts besides the main one above; then go read Oliver Willis' response to Steele's essay. For Mr. Willis, the entire issue is simple identity politics. Black conservatives, he says, "essentially serve as painted-on black faces over conservative policies that hurt blacks either by design or coincidence."

This is nothing more than the new progressive kind of ideologically-sanctioned racism so popular in social circles of the left. In Willis' world, it is not your ideas that matter; it is the color of your skin. That predetermines everything, including what you must think. If you don't think that way then there must be something wrong with you.

I especially liked his casual swipe at one of the great economic thinkers of our time, Thomas Sowell. That Sowell is an amazingly intelligent voice of clarity, reason and sanity in the world of economics, matters not a whit to the Oliver Willises of the world. He is BLACK and therefore is only allowed to think in a certain way. Otherwise it is "shuck and jive". Willis, fortunately for political correctness, can get away with making such an outrageous racially stereotyped statement because he himself is black. You are automatically absolved, and all is forgiven with regard to any PC crime of being insensitive and loutish towards others--but only if you already are a member of a sanctioned victim group yourself. If someone said it about him, I'm sure he'd be appropriately outraged.

Now, who would you say is the person here suffering from a fundamental racist view of the world? Whose attitudes would you might be a wee bit "destructive" --or at least condescending--toward his fellow blacks? Oh dear. I'm white, so I guess I'm not supposed to say such things.

Willis is hardly the only leftist whose ideologically-sanctioned racism wears a "painted-on mask" of concern and compassion for the "oppressed". It is in his political interest to punish any black person (or any other individual member of an accepted "victim" group) for the crime of independent thought. He doesn't see them as individuals--he only sees them as "blacks".

Let me summarize Mr. Willis' argument against the ideas in Shelby Steele's essay: Mr. Steele is black and is not saying what we enlightened people think all blacks should be saying. If someone who is black has ideas or thoughts that are not approved by us (i.e., the left), then they are not real blacks and are traitors to their race.

In case you have forgotten what the definition of racism is, let me quote it for you: Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

As I recall, Martin Luther King wanted people to be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. The left's identity politics is effectively dragging us back to the days when the only thing that mattered about a person was the color of his --or her-- skin. Now, that's really progressive, isn't it?

Willis's comments on Steele and Sowell demonstrate yet again, the profound intellectual and moral bankruptcy of today's left.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:36 PM |

 
THE TOTALITARIAN IMPULSE OF THE LEFT
Here is a piece by Dennis Prager at RCP that dovetails nicely with the Christianity Derangement Syndrome post yesterday. Prager is discussing how to identify the totalitarians in American Society :

The totalitarian temptation is not confined to Nazis and communists; it can rear its head in any society and gradually destroy it. And as the Soviet dissident joke notes, one quick way to identify totalitarian threats to liberty is to identify those who falsify the historical record on behalf of their cause.

In America today, two groups are most actively engaged in falsifying history: the ACLU and the anti-smoking movement.

The ACLU is suing cities and counties to remove crosses from their city and county seals. One of the ACLU's greatest victories was getting the Board of Supervisors in a 3-2 vote (the three were the three leftist supervisors) to remove the tiny cross from the seal of Los Angeles County. Of course, this was done in the name of separation of church and state; no one falsifies history without some higher motive. But falsifying Los Angeles County's history was the issue. The cross was on the seal because Los Angeles was founded by Catholics. That is why it is named "Los Angeles," "the angels." (Once the ACLU successfully removes all crosses from cities and counties, will it move on to changing religious names such as Los Angeles, San Francisco and St. Louis, not to mention Corpus Christi?)

The attempts by the ACLU -- and the Left in general -- to expunge the Judeo-Christian roots of America from American history are mirrored by the attempts of America's anti-smoking organizations to expunge the history they object to -- images of Americans smoking.

Examples of anti-smoking fanatics doctoring photographs are so legion that I can only offer a few examples in the space of a column.

It is always interesting to me as a psychiatrist how the left side of the political spectrum (and I use the term "left" the way ShrinkWrapped so excellently defined it) continually employs the psychological defense mechanism of projection. Projection is an elegantly simple defense mechanism. You simply take your own unacceptable thoughts, feelings, behaviors and impulses and put them into some other individual or group. That way, you don't have to take responsibility for those thoughts, feelings etc.. Another payoff for the defense is that by eliminating these unacceptable items from your own psyche, you magically begin to feel morally superior to the object(s) of your projection. You become their victim, even as you victimize them!

This defense is not limited to the left side of the political spectrum, of course. Back in the 40's and 50's it was the right that almost exclusively employed it (when they were out of power). But unquestionably, today's world is rampant with the political paranoia of the left. And it is just as destructive now as it was in the past.

At the extreme of this psychological strategy, are the depths of paranoia and delusion, which can always be tapped when the stress of daily projection becomes too much. Complex delusional systems and conspiracies will serve to help you keep your distance from reality and maintain a crumbling worldview. The worldview that is falling apart today happens to be the one of the totalitarian left--and they are hard-pressed to keep it together.

These days, the ACLU--which still envisions itself as some sort of champion of freedom--has become the sacred keeper of the leftist totalitarian flame in America. In the name of the left's secular religious ideology; multiculturalism; and political correctness (i.e., in the name of the Mother, the daughter, and the holy ghost) they repeatedly seek to root out and destroy all competition for the hearts and minds of the masses. Even if it means rewriting history and destroying the religious roots of this country--their moral fervor in spreading their ideology is unbounded. No breach of their dogma is too small or minor to pursue and condemn.

The left is so obsessed with things like the imminent imposition of a Christian theocracy; the imminent imposition of fascism; and the imminent loss of freedom of speech etc. etc., they have failed to notice that THEY are the ones who are imposing their religion; THEY are the ones who want to control all aspects of society; and THEY are the ones who have shut down free speech in the name of cultural sensitivity and political correctness.

I was struck the other day when I saw an editorial cartoon (which are almost 100% hostile to Republicans) where a person at the voting booth says, "Now I'm the decider!". The person who drew this cartoon seems to have conveniently "forgot" that the people actually did decide not that long ago in a national election who would be president. But those foolish people decided WRONG--so it doesn't count, and their choice must be undermined until they choose according to the proper ideological script.

We can alsways depend on the left to lead us away from the sin and error in our evil thoughts and actions; to the worship of the one true faith that will guide us to the promised land of eternal peace and justice.

This totalitarian impulse so characteristic of the left, is done with the best of intentions--for our own good, you know--and with the complete and utter blindness of the true [paranoid] believer.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:12 PM |

 
What's Wrong With This Picture?
Cliff May notices something extremely interesting:

A hundred years ago, Americans could use typewriters, the telegraph and primitive telephones. Today, Americans have computers, the Internet, cell phones, satellite television and radio, DVDs, iPods, email and instant messaging.

A hundred years ago, Americans could have personal vehicles powered by internal combustion engines running on gasoline. Today, Americans can have personal vehicles powered by internal combustion engines running on gasoline.

Think about that, and read his column here.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:10 AM |

 
A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE OR A HIDDEN AGENDA?
neo-neocon in her usual thorough fashion has written an important series that delves into the issue of national security leaks. Here is a sample from Part IV:

Those who argue that leaks to the press are never justified, and should always be punished severely, believe that the framers have already put sufficient checks and balances in place so that the system can deal with any situation that could come up without the need for the press to get into the act and sensationalize and publicize the situation prematurely. The proper course of action for a national security employee would be to launch an internal investigation within his/her own agency, and if that fails to remedy the prolem, to go to the committee in Congress charged with Congressional oversight. The legislative branch would be acting in time-honored fashion as a curb on the executive branch, just as the Constitution intended.

Those who disagree with the above base their contention on two ideas: distrust of government oversight (fostered by such events as the initial My Lai coverup, as discussed in Part II), and the public's right to know. In general, they also tend to routinely downplay the security repercussions of disclosures such as the CIA detention centers in Europe (I discuss the origins of this attitude here and here).

The issue is how do you tell when a leak is really a matter of principle versus acting out a political agenda?

There appears to be a simple metric used by the MSM. When the leak hurts the policies of a Republican administration, it is a matter of principle; when it is hurts a Democratic administration it was obviously done out of a political agenda. When a Republican leaks it's BAD and unethical. When a Democrat leaks it's because she is acting from the highest possible ethical (and patriotic) motives.

Perhaps I have become too cynical, but it seems that national security has very little to do with it one way or the other these days.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:50 AM |

 
MAY DAY 2006
Have you noticed that May Day, 2006 is just some more of the usual Marxist BS foist upon the American public?

I would imagine that most people like myself have no problem whatsoever with legal immigration. Why should we? Many Americans are proud of their ancestors who came to this country and became citizens.

But why in heaven's name should there be protests for illegal immigrants? I don't believe for one second that our economy depends on illegals--no matter how hard-working they may be. But, if you prove to me that it does, then I support whatever economic hardship is necessary so that we lose our dependence on illegal foreign workers.

This position on my part is consistent with my attitude toward gasoline prices and America's dependence on foreign oil. If there is a problem, the Law of Supply and Demand should be allowed to take care of it-- without all the political posturing and hysteria.

That fundamental economic law will also take care of the problem without all the marxist/socialist/communist rhetoric that is raining down on us at the moment. Many of the people who want something for nothing; and scorn America and its laws, while at the same time wanting a piece of its pie, would do better to emigrate elsewhere.

I suggest Cuba or Venezuela, where I'm sure they will be welcomed with open arms by their emotional comrades.

On second thought, here's an idea. I'll gladly take the hard-working illegals who truly want to be a part of the American Dream and are willing to integrate into American society and culture. America can always use people who want to work and pursue their own life liberty and happiness. We can surely find an acceptable compromise to help those people move toward legal status as we stem the flow of new illegals. Instead, I'd like to get rid of the persistant socialist and communist elements whose goal has always been to destroy this country; and who are using the illegal immigrant issue to drive yet another wedge between Americans. I'm sick to death of their identity politics and their class wars. I say, let's deport them to where they truly belong. Just a thought.





From Day By Day
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 4:27 PM |

 
OH BY THE WAY, AL QAEDA LOST
Oh, by the way, we have defeated Al Qaeda in Iraq. But don't expect to hear about it on NPR or in the pages of the NY Times. Both are in a quagmire of denial:

Despite the many brickbats of the media, al Qaeda has been defeated in Iraq, and is now retreating to lick its wounds where it can. If it can. Just over four and a half years, al Qaeda has gone from being the dominant terrorist group in the world to a defeated shell of its former self. In trying to defeat the United States, al Qaeda made three big mistakes: They fought the last information war, they underestimated the American leadership, and they also managed to anger the Iraqi people.

From the moment the United States and al Qaeda began fighting in Afghanistan, the terrorists were looking for a chance to re-create images similar to those of American troops being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu in 1993 or Walter Cronkite calling the Vietnam War a stalemate in 1968. It was hoped that such a moment would cause a dramatic drop in support for the war among the American people and force the United States out of Iraq. It did not happen.

Read it all. And then read Fareed Zakaria's article in Newsweek that puts it into perspective:

Imagine if a few months after September 11 someone had said to you, "Five years from now, in the space of a single week, Osama bin Laden will issue a new call for worldwide jihad, the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq will threaten a brutal, endless war, and there will be two terror attacks in Egypt." Chances are you would have been quite unnerved. Yet the most striking aspect of last week's news was the reaction to it—very little.
Radical Islamic terror made big, violent and scary moves and—whether you judge it by media coverage, stock-market movements or international responses—the world yawned.

Al Qaeda Central, by which I mean the dwindling band of brothers on the Afghan-Pakistani border, appears to have turned into a communications company. It's capable of producing the occasional jihadist cassette, but not actual jihad. I know it's risky to say this, as Qaeda leaders may be quietly planning some brilliant, large-scale attack. But the fact that they have not been able to do one of their trademark blasts for five years is significant in itself.

Yes it is. And whose fault is it that Al Qaeda is now merely just another big media production company; with its sad little leaders morphing into contentants on an international version of American Idol--each sparring for their time in the limelight of public opinion?

I'll give you just one guess.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:58 AM |

 
CDS - CHRISTIANITY DERANGEMENT SYNDROME
Charles Krauthammer defined Bush Derangement Syndrome: as:
"the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush."

I discuss some of the psychological foundations of Bush hatred in this earlier post, and today want to directly address a parallel process that has developed in the fevered swamps that used to be the fountains of leftist intellectual thought. Specifically, there is a peculiar derangement of thought related to Christianity that seems run in parallel with BDS. As we shall see, this is not a coincidence. In fact, it is a carefully developed delusional system that serves the function of protecting those who believe in it from having to deal with reality.

A definition of Christianophobia or Christianity Derangement Syndrome (CDS), could be formulated thusly:

"The excacerbation of acute and severe paranoia about the imminent imposition of a Christian theocracy in the U.S.; in an individual already suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome as a reaction to the very existence of (1) the Christian religion; (2) the practitioners of Christianity; and (3) symbols of Christianity anywhere within the culture; while simultaneously completely ignoring and dismissing any threat from the religious fanatics of Islam who repeatedly and clearly have stated that their goal is the imposition of a world-wide Islamic theocracy (or "Caliphate")."

So, as a result of this interesting disorder, here we are in a war with Islamic fundamentalism, and many on the left seem to think that the U.S. is at risk in having a Christian theocracy imposed and that the Bushitler is more dangerous than Bin Laden.

During the 2004 Presidential campaign, one of my friends was so pre-occupied by this issue, she literally could not understand why I would vote for Bush, since it was clear to her that he intended to usher in a religious state.

Since that time, I can't help but have noticed that all the women of my acquaintance are now wearing nun habits; that holy communion is being forced down the throats of unrepentant leftists; and that there has been a dramatic decline in sexually explicit material everywhere as the purveyors of same have been rounded up and summarily executed by the religious police.

Why, last week I (a professed, unrepentant agnostic) was forced to enter a church to obtain sustenance (they were having a bake sale).

You may be asking youself, "What in heaven's name are these people so frightened of?" How do we make sense of symptoms of paranoia so bizarre? So....displaced....from the real threat?

The President has repeatedly reassured people about his personal faith; and quite frankly, his practice of religion is not different in any respect from previous presidents. At a news conference last year, he said:

I think faith is a personal issue. And I take great strength from my faith. But I don't condemn somebody in the political process because they may not agree with me on religion.

The great thing about America is that you should be allowed to worship any way you want. And if you chose not to worship, you're equally as patriotic as somebody who does worship. And if you choose to worship, you're equally American if you're a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim.

And that's the wonderful thing about our country and that's the way it should be.

But this does not reassure them. Bush is now in the 6th year of his Presidency. When is this supposed theocratic state going to be imposed?

What we have seen is a dramatic rise in Christianophobia. It is my observation that it is not so much the religion per se that people are afraid of; but the simple fact that our country itself was founded on Judeo-Christian values and that those values quite naturally have infused the intellectual life and symbolism of America for over 200 years now.

It seems to me that there is a concerted effort to eliminate these values and the symbols of these values wherever they might be found within the culture (e.g., in government logos and such) in an attempt to replace them with different values and symbols. While the stated objective of the replacement is to be "inclusive" and make the U.S. a "multicultural" society (which it always has been without their help), the upshot is a careful substitution of a particular secular set of values for a value system which has its origins in traditional religion

The hysteria generated by the left on this issue is quite unbelievable--that is, if you don't recognize the simple fact that leftist intellectual thought has itself become a religion--with high priests and holy beliefs that must not under any circumstances be questioned; because non-believers are made apostate and persecuted by the true believers.

Thus, the first explanation of CDS resides in the political fact that the intellectual leaders of the left wish to replace the dominant religion of this country with their own secular religion (not too dissimilar to how the Soviet Union tried to ban traditional religion and impose their own secular version of belief--communism--on the population). Along these lines, they clearly wish to impose, not a theocracy, but a simple autocracry, that will be headed by their belief system (which is unable to tolerate the existence of any other).

There is also an important psychological factor at play. The political wing of the left's ideology has taken this point in history to make its stand because events have come together at the millennium to create an confluence of emotional factors.

At the end of the 20th century, it was apparent that both leftist and rightist totalitarian forces had been soundly beaten by on the battlefield of reality. Sadly, neither was out for the duration, and what we have seen since that time is a alliance between leftist intellectual thought (via postmodern philosophical attempts to compensate for the reality of their intellectual defeat) and the rightist religious fascism of Islam as it is practiced in most of the world.

Islam wherever it exists is trying to impose a theocracy. What the leaders of Hamas, Al Qaeda, Iran and others say explicitly, openly, and repeatedly, doesn't ever seem to register on the intellectual leadership of the left. If you doubt the message, then listen to this video of an interview with three reformed Arab terrorists, which is quite chilling. Read archived accounts of what Imams and religious leaders in Islam are saying about Jews and Christians over at MEMRI. Browse a few of the english-speaking sites for jihad on the internet.

The intellectual leadership of the left consciously know all this, but have allied themselves with this particular theocracy anyway. In their arrogance, they do not feel threatened by Islam, because Islam has shown itself to be compatible with their ideology of totalitarianism and social tyranny. They believe that when they and Islam get rid of their mutual enemies--freedom, capitalism, and individuality--they will be able to handle the the religious details and come out on top.

In the meantime, the psychological displacement and denial that they actively encourage works to their advantage in the general population, who became genuinely and realistically fearful of Islam and its adherents after 9/11.

Displacement is a psychological defense mechanism where there is a separation of emotion from its real object and then redirection of the intense emotion toward something less threatening.

When was the last time you heard of a Christian fundamentalist nation? When was the last time that Christianity killed non-believers and tortured those who ran afoul of the religious laws?

If you answered, "the middle ages"--you are correct.

Why just last year, there was a peaceful transition of power in the only Christian theocracy in the world--the Vatican. Not a single person was killed or tortured as the new Pope was elected and installed.

But, as we all know, there is a religion-- now, today-- that encourages its adherents to kill non-believers. That relegates women to second class citizenship and makes their sexuality a sin punishable by death. There is a religion where homosexuality is not tolerated and individual thought is suppressed.

There is a religion practiced today that rules as a totalitarian theocracy in a number of countries; and its religious leaders regularly give permission to its beleivers to kill Americans, Christians, and Jews. Devoted believers of this religion piloted airplanes into American buildings, killing thousands. They would do it again if they get the chance. Devoted believers in this religion behead people who disagree with them and can be convinced to blow themselves up in order to kill people they don't like.

Between Christianity and the religion described above, which do you suppose is the real threat to America and its citizens? The one that advocates peaceful solutions to problems? Or the one that advocates jihad and death to America?

The left and their political front, the Democrats, would have you believe that because some Christians disapprove of abortion or homosexuality on moral grounds; or that they are vocal in their objection to the state-sanctioned murder of innocents that this is a sign of the impending theocracy. Thus, instead of rational argument and disagreement, the left has chosen to IMPOSE their particular beliefs on each of these topics by passing laws--exactly what they accuse the religious right in this country of trying to do. This psychological technique is called projection; and the political technique of imposing one set of beliefs--religious or not-- on another group by law is known as tyranny. Neither side is correct in trying to impose their particular religion across the nation. But, as the city of San Francisco continually reminds us, local populations may vote to be as ridiculous and amoral as they choose over whatever issues they desire. They simply have to stick within the general guidelines of the Constitution of the U.S. and their particular state.

However comforting it is to believe that Christianity is the religion that poses a threat to freedom and democracy, the real world eventually intrudes on such fantasies. While these clever people "bravely" confront the straw man religion they have set up as the enemy, the real danger slips in unnoticed and without hindrance. Doesn't it strike you as somewhat bizarre that we are exhorted to be "sensitive" to the grossly oppressive beliefs of Islam (e.g. in the case of the rather innocent and childlike Danish cartoons); yet, it is considered avantgard and progressive--and an issue of "freedom of speech" to display pornographic images of Christ or dung-laden images of his mother?

When do you suppose the "secular humanists" and Leftists will organize a conference to discuss the threat that Islam poses to their political freedoms? Don't hold your breath. They actually share the same politics with those who explicitly desire to impose a religious theocracy.

Once again, denial, projection and displacement are at work. They brought us the phenomenon of Bush Derangement Syndrome; and have simultaneously caused a co-occurring disorder: Christianophobia, or Christianity Derangement Syndrome, or antichristianism--call it what you will.

From a psychological perspective, the inherent denial, projection and displacement of antichristianism of the left is no different in theory than the antisemitism that the Jews have had to cope with centuries as the official scapegoats of the world.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:41 AM |