Thursday, April 30, 2009


Gagdad Bob tackles the Big Metaphysical Question of the Day:
There is no question that reality is "ambiguous" and subject to multiple interpretations. However, that should not be taken as an excuse to believe that all interpretations are of equal value. Nevertheless, this latter belief is the hateway drug into the various pneumapathologies of the left, e.g., multiculturalism, moral relativism, the "living Constitution," etc.

Again, if there is no objective way to arbitrate between competing versions of reality, then it comes down to a matter of raw power. Or, as Obama put it, "I won."

This is obviously how political correctness has slithered its slithery way into every corner of reality. In the world of political correctness, it is always 1984. Take the example of Miss California. Because even beauty pageants are run by tyrannical leftists, all points of view are of equal validity. However, if you voice the incorrect truth, then you are punished. You see? Perfect nonsense -- not the liberating kind, but the oppressive kind, AKA hell.

And it is hell, quite literally, for hell is anyplace that is beyond the rule of reason -- where reason, quite simply, does not apply. It is a world in which a person cannot simply say, "b-b-b-but a man can't marry a man. It's impossible."

Actually, it is possible, so long as you create an impossible world. And the world of the left is most assuredly an impossible world, since it is literally detached from its source, its archetype, its origin, and therefore its purpose. To put it even more simply, the "absolutely relative" is an ontological impossibility, and is therefore guaranteed to generate absurdity.

This metaphysical confusion which trashes objective reality and truth has all sorts of consequences, because all the branches of philosophy are dependent on Metaphysics, which describes existence. Metaphysics leads directly to Epistemology, which concerns itself with knowledge.

METAPHYSICS (What is existence?)----> EPISTEMOLOGY (How do we know it?)

The answers derived from these two branches lead directly to the Ethics (how should we behave?) that one chooses to adopt and to the Politics (what degree of force is permissable?) that one practices.

For those of you who think all this philosophy business is too abstract and irrelevant to your life; you are very very wrong. Catastrophically wrong.

These ideas have everything to do with your life and how you live it. They are also the crux of why the world we live in seems to be more and more incomprehensible and insane. When you start off with the belief that reality doesn't exist outside your own head, then, it is just a very short--and minor--leap to accepting that words don't matter and can change meaning; or that it doesn't matter how you behave; that everything is relative anyway, including truth and morality.

But, as Bob points out, just because reality is ambiguous and sometimes difficult to determine; it hardly gives us carte blanche to say that every interpretation is of equal value and should be treated as such. That way lies madness...and madness is exactly what we are dealing with in today's world.

Ideas matter.

Wednesday, April 29, 2009


From the WSJ:
Nancy Pelosi is "pushing back" against charges that she was aware of -- and acquiesced in -- the CIA's harsh interrogations of terrorist detainees nearly from the moment the practice began, reports the Politico Web site. Maybe she's suffering from amnesia.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Maybe, for instance, the speaker doesn't remember that in September 2002, as ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, she was one of four members of Congress who were briefed by the CIA about the interrogation methods the agency was using on leading detainees. "For more than an hour," the Washington Post reported in 2007, "the bipartisan group . . . was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

"Among the techniques described," the story continued, "was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder."

Or maybe the speaker never heard what some of her Democratic colleagues were saying about legal niceties getting in the way of an effective counterterrorism strategy....

Or maybe the speaker forgot that after 9/11, the operative question among Americans, including various media paladins, wasn't whether the Bush administration had gone overboard. On the contrary:

"I asked the president whether he and the country had done enough for the war on terror," writes Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward in his book "Bush at War." "The possibility of another major attack still loomed. . . . Was it not possible that he had undermobilized given the threat and the devastation of September 11?"

Or maybe the hapless and forgetful Democrats are suffering from... hysterical amnesia.

Hysteria is a concept characterized by a wide variety of physical and mental symptoms that result from dissociating one's cognitive functioning from one's emotions and/or behavior. The psychological defense that makes this happen is known as dissociation.

For the hysteric, emotions are primary and are not subject to objective reality.

When we speak of someone becoming "hysterical" (a more recent term is "histrionic"), we are talking about behavior that exhibits overwhelming or unmanageable emotional excess.

Welcome to the Wonderful World of Feelings, nothing more than feelings (cue music); where there really is nothing more than feelings at play. This is a world where there is no objective reality or truth; a world where, if you believe something is true, then it is. A world where it is always acceptable to "forget" what you said or did yesterday, because that was then and this is now; and consistency, honesty, or integrity are for losers who believe in reason, truth and reality.

In other words, it is a world where something can be considered "fake but accurate" or where captured enemy combatants in the middle of a war are considered to be in a a "gulag"; where an Administration who heroically kept the American public safe from terrorist attacks for 8 years is demonized and threatened with prosecution; and where the Democratic Speaker can pretend that she didn't understand that being briefed on enhanced interrogation techniques by the CIA meant that they would actually use such techniques (she's simply shocked, shocked).

It is also a world where a "religion of peace" beheads people; is so terrified of women's sexuality they must "liberate" them by forcing them to wear sacks over their bodies; and which promotes blowing yourself up in a crowd as a devout religious act.

All these things are examples of how emotions can be cut off, or dissociated from cognition and the rational process; and when that happens, some very curious things begin to happen.

Specifically, a variety of altered states of consciousness may result from the dissociative process, particularly when there is little insight or self-awareness. In one dissociated or hysterical state, sleep-walking (sonambulism), the person appears to be out of contact with his environment, is seemingly unresponsive to external stimuli, and in many cases appears to be living out a vivid, hallucinated drama. That particular emotional state essentially describes today's political left and Democratic party as they have sonambulated through the events taking place in the world of the 21st century. Or, consider hysterical amnesia itself, which differs from organic amnesia (i.e., brought about by physical trauma or disease) in that it relates to only particular memories or groups of memories, often of direct or indirect emotional significance. It's origins are causally connected with the sufferer's own needs and conflicts.

Sounds like an excellent diagnostic fit with Pelosi's symptoms, doesn't it?

Another general effect of amnesia (of any etiology) is the inability to imagine the future. And, isn't that what the hysterics on the left were initially screaming after 9/11? That Bush had not been able to "connect the dots" and predict that terrorists would use airplanes to attack us? Well, it is absolutely impossible to connect those dots when your cognition is conveniently anesthetized so you can emotionally wallow in your virtuousness.

Mass hysteria occurs when large groups of people engage in psychological dissociation; and political mass hysteria is the most appropriate name when all the emotional excitability and excess happen to serve a political function or ideological agenda.

Most political theater is extremely histrionic--appealing to the emotions (usually the most base ones -- like envy, greed, fear etc.) Drama of any sort suits the hysteric's modus operandi extremely well. The drama is designed to mask the fact that the individual is in psychological denial about some aspect of reality; and, as I have written before:
At the center of all psychological denial is a hidden agenda. That agenda is usually not completely conscious--meaning that the denier has not thought through the issues surrounding his denial; and may not even be aware of what his motivation is in asserting something is true when it isn't; or false when it isn't.

For 8 years now, views on the Iraq war transcended reasonable discussion. As Victor Davis Hanson once noted:
The war rests in the realm of emotion, warped by the hysteria of partisan bickering.

The result is that we have forgotten why we invaded Iraq in long-ago 2003. We cannot agree why we had problems after the stunning removal of Saddam Hussein. And we are not sure either whether we are winning — or why we even should....

Some of the critical points made by Hanson in that earlier article, demonstrate clearly the circumscribed memory loss that the Democrats and the left had then, and now, which are clearly the result of their own conflicts and needs; and which is driven by their ideological agenda:
  • "We invaded Iraq because after September 11 there was a consensus that state-sponsored terrorists from the Middle East had the desire to destroy the United States and the capability to do it great harm, the decade-long containment of Saddam Hussein, in light also of his serial violations of both armistice and U.N. accords, was considered inadequate. At the time, there were very few who disagreed with this assessment.

  • Both houses of Congress, backed by an overwhelming majority of the American people, authorized the use of military force to remove Saddam Hussein, at the request of President Bush.

  • Congress listed more than twenty valid justifications for the invasion, only one of which happened to be the liklihood of Saddam having WMD. When such weapons were not found in Iraq, and the insurgency imperiled the brilliant three-week victory, the case for the war, in the eyes of many Democrats, collapsed. It did so on both moral and practical grounds. For some reason, no one cared about the other twenty-some Congressional causes were still as valid as when they had been first approved in October 2002."
  • The debate, since 2003, has been almost exclusively in the minds of the left on the culpability of the U.S., and postfacto, on our reasons for going into Iraq in the first place. It has focused almost solely on American lapses, not recognition of either the capability, or zeal, or brutality of the enemy."

  • Amidst a growing clamor of voices from the left and the Democratic Party (including Reid and Pelosi and Obama)that the Iraq war was "lost"; classical arguments for victory prevailed, despite being caricatured and deemed simplistic and hopelessly optimistic.

  • Even when there was no longer serious doubt that by any fair measure the situation in Iraq had radically improved in 2007, Democrats still refused to acknowledge this fact.

  • Now, we can add to Hanson's points by adding that even though key Democratic leaders were briefed about the Administration's efforts to appropriately interrogate terrorists for crucial information to prevent future attacks--they have conveniently forgotten something they conveniently didn't want to remember.

    You've got to wonder what planet the Democrats have been living on?

    And I should point out that it doesn't even take a psychiatrist to notice the hysteria and exaggerated emotionalism that emanates from the left side of the political spectrum these days--untempered by rational thought even after they have been politically victorious.

    Here is Russ Smith in 2007:
    One of the more absurd complaints leveled against President Bush during his tumultuous tenure in office is that, in combating terrorism, he's eviscerated the Constitution. This hysteria is not confined to critics in the blogosphere or strident left-wing magazines such as the Nation but is found, as well, in mass-market newspapers and magazines. A citizen who reads, in a vacuum, editorials and oped columnists in the New York Times, say, might believe that since September 11 America, led by the Bush administration, has become a police state

    Anyone whose cognitive faculty is not completely shut down and who spends any time observing the behavior of the left can appreciate the unnatural emotionalism and the frenzy that is driving them. Winning the White House and a majority in both houses of the Congress has done little to temper either their rage or their other destructive emotions.

    When it comes to a discussion of National Security, this histrionic post demonstrates exactly why it has been impossible to engage members of the political and consistently lunatic left in any sort of rational discussion.

    It's like trying to dicuss responsibility with a self-indulgent and overly dramatic adolescent girl.

    The angry teenager who just hates it when she doesn't get her way, is particularly enraged when Mommy (usually on her side) goes along with Daddy; and we see that same dynamic rather frequently these days, as the narcissistic left raises the decibel level of their pouts and whines whenever their will or their world view is thwarted.

    None of the rhetoric has anything remotely to do with reality; but all that is necessary for the left is to feel intensely that something is so, and for them it is.

    Under Bush we were living in a police state that tortured poor innocent terrorists! Bush is still Hitler and to blame for everything that might conceivable befall the US under Obama! Christian whackjobs are trying to impose a theocracy on America! We, the poor oppressed left are being persecuted (even though we are now the ones in power we still retain the right to 'speak truth' to power and will crush any attempts to criticize us)! Blah blah victims blah oppression blah blah fascist Republicans blah blah blah! And so on and so forth.

    Engaging in "self-delusion" is the act of deceiving one's self about some aspect of reality. Self-delusion is probably the most critical cognitive "skill" a prospective political hysteric must cultivate.

    And Pelosi, the Democrats, and the left are all extremely talented in this area.

    [Cartoons by Chip Bok] h/t SC&A

    Tuesday, April 28, 2009


    A toxic variant of the Swine variety that primarily infects politicians....

    [Cartoons by Michael Ramirez]

    Perhaps I'm being unfair, though, because the Obama Administration is working very very hard on the Swine Flu epidemic. Click here to see what they are doing.


    The following letter (via Michael Ledeen from The Corner) should make any American feel awed by the incredible people we have serving in our military:
    It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain. ~ Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address

    A few nights ago, I walked a quiet mile with hundreds of other service members. It was a clear night in Bagram, Afghanistan. Although it was late, the birds were singing, perhaps roused by the unusual occurrence of people walking under their trees at the late hour. Soft voices broke the solemnity, but no words were discernible. Suddenly, as if on cue, soldiers, airmen, seamen, marines, broke off the sidewalk and lined the road, spacing themselves regularly and assuming a position of silent watchfulness. The honor cordon had formed.

    Heads began to turn right as flashing blue lights appeared far down the road. As the vehicles neared, one by one, service members assumed the position of attention and rendered the hand salute. In the back of an open truck sat eight military members, and between them, at their feet, was a flag draped casket.

    As I rendered my salute, I thought about the fallen soldier. I did not know his name, his unit or his home. I never saw his face or spoke to his family. I did not know why he volunteered for the Army or what he was doing when he was killed. But there was much I did know. I knew he had fought and died in an honorable cause, a cause that had little to do with our policy on Afghanistan. This soldier had volunteered to put his very life on the line in service to his nation and his brothers-in-arms. I see no more honorable cause that that.

    In a column, Mr. Putney has again raised the debate about the sacrifice of America's "sons and daughters" in uniform. Some have argued that we must continue the fight to honor their memory "so that they have not died in vain." Others argue we must stop the wars to save soldiers from this fate. I think an essential understanding of what motivates those of us in uniform is missing in this debate.

    We are not your sons and daughters, whom you must protect and defend. We are your sword and your shield. We are men and women who volunteer to place our lives on the line so you do not have to. We do not decide when or where we will be sent. We go. You are our advocates, not our parents.

    We trust you to care for our families, to hold our jobs, pay for our equipment, salary and medical care and yes, to honor our sacrifice. We trust you to vote for good political leadership, to speak out against bad policy decisions and to demand public accountability. However, we do not count on you to explain the honorable character of our service. We are ennobled by the very fact we serve.

    Our "high moral cause" is one of service to a nation whose principles we believe in. We miss the point of political debate when we distill it down to numbers of service member deaths. Debate should be about the policy that leads us in or pulls us out of war. I, as a soldier, am personally insulted when debate about war becomes not about policy, but about deaths, because it implies that my service is at best uninformed or ill-conceived, and at worst valueless.

    I know my life is in the hands of others because I choose for it to be that way. I am not your daughter, a child who must be guided. I have made my choice and pledge my honor to it. I will thank you to remember that because we serve our nation, none of us dies in vain, regardless of the cause; end of debate.

    Every day a new Marine enlists or an airman puts on her uniform is a reminder that our defenders come from people who still believe in our nation and the values it aspires to, as flawed as we sometimes are. War does not make our sacrifice honorable, death does not make our service honorable; service itself is our honor.

    We, your American service members, do not see the cause for which we may give our last full measure of devotion, as our nation's goals in Iraq or Afghanistan, and perhaps that is the difference. Our cause is our nation, in all her beautiful, imperfect glory.

    So on a dark night in Afghanistan we stood under a velvet sky of a million stars to honor one man who lay under 50. We never doubted what he died for. Pfc. Patrick A. Devoe II died for you, the United States of America. That, Mr. Putney, is no goof.

    Sarah Albrycht is a Bennington native serving in the Army in Afghanistan.

    The most striking part of this amazing letter is the following:
    We are not your sons and daughters, whom you must protect and defend. We are your sword and your shield. We are men and women who volunteer to place our lives on the line so you do not have to. We do not decide when or where we will be sent. We go. You are our advocates, not our parents.

    There are those in this country who insist on treating our service men and women as children; or as helpless victims who must be constantly shielded from the consequences of war and military action. Sadly, these are the same people who on the other side of their mouths are quick to describe the same warriors as sadistic killers who thrive on torture and cruelty.

    The inability to understand that these are adult men and women who have made a conscious choice to do what they do; and that they are content and proud of that choice; is something those who alternately infantalize and demonize them are unable to appreciate because of their ideologically addled thought processes.

    The Marxist dialectic be damned; these are people of integrity who do not avoid personal responsibility and committment; who do not frame their lives in terms of oppressor or oppressed.

    This one woman, Sarah Albrycht, with her simple words and shining self-confidence and pride, inspires within me more confidence that my country is in good hands than any one of the elite members of Congress; or, for that matter than our current rhetorically "gifted" but ethically challenged, pseudo-messianic Commander-in-Chief.

    Monday, April 27, 2009


    Just what I've been saying for some time now.

    Pakistani intelligence first reported this in 2005, but the rumors of his inglorious demise began in 2004. Obviously it's been in the best interest of the jihadis to pretend he's really alive and build up a myth about him.

    Either way, his soul has been dead for decades and he'll go down in history with some of the world's most famous perverts and sociopaths. I suspect that even Allah--assuming he is "just and merciful" as the Islamists claim he is--would surely spit in Bin Laden's face with sublime contempt.

    And, speaking of sociopathy, be sure to read the post directly below this one.

    SOCIOPATHY IN THE 21ST CENTURY: How the Craigslist Killer, the Taliban, and Today's Left are Psychologically and Ideologically Connected

    Wretchard has two excellent and separate posts up that I think are philosophically and psychologicaly connected.

    The first, titled "Predator vs Prey" is about the Craigslist murderer.
    A search for terms “sociopath” and “profile” brings up a multitude of articles which attempt to characterize the warning signs of a sociopathic behavior. But if it’s so easy to spot trouble, why do people keep getting into it? How was it, for example, that people didn’t see trouble when they saw Charles Manson?

    One reason for the continuing success of killers, I think, is that sociopaths know how to sneak up on people who are blind to them, just as on the Serengeti plain predators come in downwind of their prey. Charles Manson and Ted Bundy knew how to avoid people who would recognize them as threats. They knew how to use filters in their favor. The Craigslist killer, whoever he may turn out to be, may have employed a different approach than that of the classic stalker. He employed ambush predator tactics.

    The post goes on to discuss the ways the internet make it easy for this type of predator by bringing the gullible and unsuspecting prey to the site of the ambush, where no escape is possible. This whole article is definitely worth a read, because it gives an insight into what we in psychiatry refer to as psychopaths or sociopaths, the extreme variant of an antisocial personality.

    The second post, "Caving" which includes a horrific video (circulated by the Taliban) of a young woman being beaten for not being with her husband or a male family member, discusses the Pakistani government-sanctioned concession of the Swat Valley to the vicious Taliban and the psychological denial (though he doesn't use that term) that was behind the government's decision:
    I think part of Hanif’s problem with understanding the ascendancy of the Taliban arises from the inability to compare the toughness necessary to push back against a regular government, even one as corrupt as Pakistan’s and the toughness necessary to fight armed terror. People boast of how they fought the repression of George W. Bush and defied the fascism of America’s right wing in the same tones one would use in describing an assault on Iwo Jima, thinking they are describing their heroism when what they are really describing is their membership in the little leagues. The examples are all around us: artists who will depict a cross in bottle of urine but tremble at the thought of handling a Koran without white gloves; ‘feminists’ who are very aggressive about the life span, or lack thereof, of babies, but who can’t find their voice when women are beaten, mutilated and beheaded; countries which think it’s the height of nobility to prosecute American war criminals but depend on them for safety. It’s not surprising at all that a “Pakistani civil society [that] has driven a military dictator from power and managed to force an elected government to restore our top judges to the bench”. You could face down the first with demonstrations and civil disobedience; but try that with al-Qaeda. To them a crowd is a just a big target-rich environment. (Emphasis mine)

    He concludes with this incredibly insightful (typical for Wretchard) comment: What are they to do to fight the Taliban? Would he like to hear it? Nobody likes to hear it, and I think part of the reason Barack Obama was elected was the hope it would never have to be faced.

    Again, this is another must read post.

    Now, what links these two posts in my opinion, is a critical question: What happens when a group, culture, society, or nation facilitates the development of psychopathy in its members?

    It would seem that in the 21st century, never have so many wanted to kill or destroy so much because doing so is so essential to their identity.

    For a start, here is someone considered an "authority" in his culture, who is a bit unclear on the concept of "antisocial". One need only glance at the various translations and videos of "authorities" like this (just browse the MEMRI site) to begin to appreciate why the glorification of psychopathy/sociopathy [i.e., the glorification of those individuals who lack a conscience, enjoy manipulating and hurting others; are intentionally cruel and have an almost unlimited need for controlling others] is such a hallmark of Islamic culture.

    Why is this sort of hate and viciousness celebrated in the Islamic world? I note in a series on the psychopathology of terrorism that along with parenting issues, cultural factors play an extremely strong role in personality formation and can under certain circumstances "stack the cards" against normal develoment even if all other factors are benign (which they aren't, actually, but read the entire two-part article if you are interested).

    Several key factors that contribute to the development of psychopathy include:

  • Genetics
  • Constitution/temperment
  • Parenting
  • Culture

  • Children who happen to be born into authoritarian or tyrannical regimes are frequently systematically indoctrinated and programmed (by teachers or political authorities) to develop habits of thought and behavior at variance with healthy parenting and inconsistent with normal human values. Such programming can easily deform personility development in a variety of ways--none of them very healthy, humane, or "social". It is easy in such tyrannical regimes to become rigid; or mindlessly obedient; or cruel; or rebellious, bitter etc.

    Psychologists have studied people who are from fringe or outcast social groups (such as gangs), and found that the members of such groups often behave respectfully and honestly toward others within their own group, but treat outsiders as if they were not human, without any sense of wrongdoing.

    The ringleaders of such groups are often the the true psychopaths, and these leaders have a seemingly unlimited supply of morally weak or immature individuals (many of them very young)--who embrace antisocial behavior under group pressure.

    Having already a predisposition because of dysfunctional parenting issues, the culture of Islam "stacks the deck" further by:

  • encouraging the subjugation of women by men by giving it a religious basis
  • This is nothing new in the history of the world, and it certainly occurred throughout the history of Christianity too. But the idea that women are inferior to men has been challenged for a thousand years, and as women have taken their equal place with men in the countries promoting women's rights, there has been an incredible improvement in those countries' economic and political standings. The culturally sanctioned misogyny of Islam results in the dysfunctional family unit that has tremendous impact on both male and female personality development.

    The Koran says (Sureh 4, Verse 35) that men have authority over women (not just the wife but sisters, daughters, and all females). If they disobey, "first admonish them, then refuse to sleep with them, and then beat them". In Islamic countries, women are second-class citizens. They are counted as one-half a witness in a legal proceeding; and they can inherit only one-half as much as a man. Their sexuality is considered so inflammatory, they must be hidden under clothing that prevents anyone from seeing them. In Saudi Arabia, sons may be sent to foreign universities but daughters are not even allowed to drive. Under the Taliban, women were beaten and murdered for showing their ankles.

    Now, why are women's rights issue--or rather, the lack of them-- of importance in developing antisocial psychopathology? Well, in the case of Islam, the religion has set-up an ongoing potentially abusive situation in the family; in heterosexual relationships;and in the culture. It breeds sadism, because taking out your frustrations or impotence on the socially-sanctioned "lesser" half of the population, it teaches an important lesson that all developing psychopaths come to appreciate: "I am more important and powerful because I can hurt or kill this weak person".

    Through a process that Anna Freud called "Identification with the Aggressor" it also breeds the same sadistic tendency in women, though they have many fewer cultural options for acting it out (female suicide bombers; mothers who cheer the deaths of their sons and daughters in Allah's cause; and who are willing participants in the honor murders of their daughters--these are several culturally accepted ways for women to act out their sadistic fantasies.)

    Male children in societies that demonize or debase women must overemphasize their "maleness" in order to separate from the shameful female/mother. As grown men, far from being able to mitigate the aggressive impulses of a child, such men will actively encourage these impulses in order to "prove" to the world at large that they (and later, their sons) have not been "feminized".
    Cultures where women have extremely low status almost always encourage the development of inadequate, "macho" men, who need to prove their manliness and strength constantly because of the stark terror that female sexuality stimulates within them. It is not a coincidence that a pervasive current of homosexual behavior--which is ubiquitous, but tacitly unacknowledged and denied societally--runs through Islamic culture. With a boy or another man, you cannot be shamed by your are always in control; and this is not true in relationships with the demonized woman whose sexuality is so threatening and feared that it must be contained at all costs.

  • A second factor that culturally "stacks the deck" in personality development is the perpetual war against the infidel inherent in externalization of the concept of " jihad"

  • Those who perceive "jihad" as an inner struggle of faith will not generally evolve into psychopaths, because (one would hope) by internalizing the process it would foster insight and self-awareness, rather than brutality and violence against others.

    However, it is noteworthy that even the "moderate" practitioners of Islam do not stand up and loudly contradict the psychopathic elements in their religion; rather, they invite these elements to come "teach" at their mosques and abdicate leadership roles to them.

    Those who are not strong personalities become the disposable fodder that can then act out the psychopaths' scripts for them. They become the stooges--the suicide bombers--who mindlessly carry out their leaders' orders without every once considering that if holiness and sainthood are guaranteed by becoming a human bomb for Allah , then why is it that their leaders are not jumping with joy to grab the opportunity for themselves?

    Islam has become toxic, infusing the entire Middle East with a culture inimical to not just the 50% who are female; but equally to the half who are male and consider themselves "superior". Children are raised in a misogynist family and cultural environment and the young boys are thus encouraged to hatred and violence. This has been going on for decades among the Palestinians in particular; but everywhere the jihad mindset has spread it cancerous message.

    The educational tenets of this toxic culture, centered in the Saudi Arabian madrassas are exported around the Middle East and the entire globe. Even the most balanced analysis that I read of these schools (here) suggests that many madrassa students have violent personalities due to long harsh treatment by their teachers. They are politically charged and attached blindly to their respective interpretations of their faith and ideology. They seldom have the capability to analyze developments taking place around them. Although they are not a formal part of any pan-Islamic movement or Muslim Brotherhood campaign, and they are not being trained by bin Laden or anyone else against a superpower for jihad, they have a love bond with Islam and the Islamic ummah, and this can trigger the violent man inside them as they have blind faith and rigid standards. Certainly, then, they are catalysts for jihad because of the influence and education they receive in the madrassas.

    But you can also think of many of these madrassas as being a Stanford Prisoner Experiment as it applies to a larger culture. Even a normal, loving child can be carefully molded and shaped into a monster who is more than willing to hate, kill and destroy his fellow man.

    Every culture has its share of psychopaths and predators like the Craigslist murderer, who undermine and subvert those values that facilitate the growth and maturation of the culture. When they are in positions of political power (e.g., the leaders of Iraq, North Korea or Venezuela for example) they can cause a great deal of societal and cultural damage.

    But, culture is not a neutral participant in personality development.

    It is an important source of values and as such is one of the most important factors responsible for either encouraging or discouraging the psychopathic traits that are biological or genetic. A culture that actively and enthusiastically encourages psychopathy and the accompanying sadistic and terroristic behavior, is in the process of destroying itself. A group, culture, society, or nation that encourages the predator within is going backwards in the establishment of civilized behavior.

    SC&A note:
    How does political and/or ideological indoctrination work? Surprisingly, the process is fairly simple. Wilfrid Bion explained the process:

    The child (or even adult) is taught that he is part something much bigger than him or herself. The individual is taught that because of that affiliation, the are very special, and expression of narcissism that celebrates the self (an expression of which is necessary component of every healthy individual) is frowned upon. It is because of that affiliation with the group, they are loved.

    Those outside the group are rejected at best and hated and reviled at worst. This is not hard to grasp: Within the group, there is love. Non members or members of different groups are ignored or rejected- they are outsiders. If and when those outsiders reject the group or cling to their own group, they become hated.

    It bears remembering that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

    When the ‘love’ offered by the group by virtue of attachment to that group is so strong, so to is the hate proffered by that group, directed at outsiders. The group leaders control the ‘volume’ of hate. The closer group leaders control their followers, the more they focus that hate on the chosen ‘others.’

    What we see in the Middle East are members of a group so desirous of love (worthiness) and attention, that they make a deliberate choice to opt out of the rules that define civilized society.

    A combination of cultural and social factors in Islam facilitates the development of many traits that make up the psychopathic or antisocial personality type. The predominance of this personality pattern both fosters and feeds on the phenomenon of terrorism and in turn recycles the cultural underpinnings that support and insure its continuation.

    Let us turn for a moment to consider why there is so much hate and viciousness in the words and behavior of the political left. I wrote about this most recently here where I discussed the idea that the left is united in hate with America's foes. As a result, I was the recipient of the most vile and vicious emails and comments attacking me personally--from my looks to my professional credentials and behavior. Quite noticeably, there was little in the way of actual comment on the points I raised to document the thesis. But then, most conservative or Republican writers are the object of such attacks on a regular basis. I speak about a group and an ideology; while they attack me individually.

    Don't get me wrong, thepolitical left does not have exclusive rights to hatred or viciousness by any means--it is a human trait, but as a group in thrall to a toxic ideology, they truly fit in with the "ambush" predator psychopath discussed in Wretchard's first article above. The internet is a perfect way to ambush prey and remain anonymous and out of reach (often changing IP addresses each time) while going in for the kill. As a writer and blogger, I am out to destroy toxic ideas and the ideologies they come from; the various trolls and those who pen the personal and ad hominem diatribes are out to destroy me personally.

    This is because they are so wrapped up in their ideology that it totally defines them, and any questioning of that ideology; any alternate view threatens to puncture their artificially inflated self-esteem and delusional view of themselves and their motives.

    In this post, I discuss two types of malignant narcissism: sociopathic selfishness and sociopathic selflessness.

    It is the latter that is rampant among the minions of today's left, and which helps them disguise their sociopathy under the veil (so to speak) of "compassion" and "love". They want to manipulate and control you--for your own good and the good of the collective. Just as the Taliban beat that woman who transgressed against their particular ideological utopian vision of the world.

    As Wretchard notes,
    People boast of how they fought the repression of George W. Bush and defied the fascism of America’s right wing in the same tones one would use in describing an assault on Iwo Jima, thinking they are describing their heroism when what they are really describing is their membership in the little leagues. The examples are all around us: artists who will depict a cross in bottle of urine but tremble at the thought of handling a Koran without white gloves; ‘feminists’ who are very aggressive about the life span, or lack thereof, of babies, but who can’t find their voice when women are beaten, mutilated and beheaded; countries which think it’s the height of nobility to prosecute American war criminals but depend on them for safety.

    But he is mistaken in thinking these guys are in the "little leagues". Yes, when it comes to heroic or "virtuous" behavior--which the way they like to look at themselves, much like the Taliban, I would suggest--but they are definitely in the big leagues when it comes to sociopathic behavior. It is true that they manage to rid their conscious mind of the incredible damage they do to the larger society and culture as they pursue their oh-so-virtuous utopian agenda; but, like the ambush predator that Wretchard describes, they rearrange rhetoric and reality (the tools they use in the hunt for those who oppose their will) in such a way so as to bring their prey to them.

    SC&A have also written the following regarding the Arab world:
    In their world, heroes are mass murderers… In our world, heroes come to liberate and give life.

    What shame there must be in the Arab world…

    But, in a way, he could also have been writing about today's left, whose heroes are dictators and thugs; and who demonize those who liberate and save lives.

    It is not an exaggeration to say that most of human history has been a battle between forces which advocate one or the other of these two absolute ethical imperatives. The self-GS[or ,the "GRANDIOSE SELF] says unequivocally that I should always pursue my own happiness, regardless of its impact on others; while the self-IO[or, the IDEALIZED OBJECT/SELF] demands that I always sacrifice myself for others and/or the "greater good"; or, that an individual's happiness is nothing compared to the happiness of others.

    Individuals, as they go through life, often run head-on into this seeming dilemma; and if they do not find a way to resolve it within their psychological self they will forever bounce back and forth between what I have termed "sociopathic selfishness" and "sociopathic selflessness".

    It is my contention that the adoption of either of the extreme ethical systems derived from the developing self will inevitably leads to disastrous consequences for both for the individual and for society, and is the cause of most human suffering. Both extremes represent a form of malignant narcissism with which our world is plagued.

    The unopposed Grandiose Self gives rise to tyrants big and small; to megalomaniacal dictators and dictator wannabees; to unbelievable corporate greed and plundering; and to the typical criminal sociopath in all his/her glory. The damage that such individuals do in individual relationships, in business, in politics and in all spheres of human behavior, is well documented and appreciated in the world. Most children are abjured repeatedly never, never to be "selfish". To always consider others. Laws are set up to protect people from victimization at the hands of these unrestrained grandiose monsters, unable to see other people as distinct individuals separate from their own self. These "others" exist only as the means to achieving their own desires.

    But far more menacing to humanity is the unrestrained IO, which has unlimited potential to cause human misery and death; and whose destructiveness we have seen dominate the 20th century. The countless dead bodies that are the direct result of this form of malignant narcissism are quickly forgotten because they died as some nations, religions, ideologies attempted to implement their IDEAL in the real world.

    This second type of evil is more subtle, and it derives from the ethics of the IO side of the self. The IO also does not see other people as distinct individuals with needs and desires of their own, but only as fodder for the expression of an IDEAL; or as pawns for the wishes of a deified GS. People with this narcissistic defect completely reject the needs of the individual and enslave him or her to the service of their IDEAL. Eventually, the enslavement--whether religious or secular--snuffs out human ambition, confidence, energy, self-esteem, and life. These mindlessly malignant "do-gooders" -- like our Nobel Laureate mentioned at the start of this article-- do far more harm than good and their ideologies can lead to genocidal practices and unbelievable atrocities on a grand scale, all in the name of an IDEAL or GOD.

    The malignant and sociopathic potential of both the grandiose self and part of the self derived from the idealized object are inherent in the human species. One side cannot exist without the other--in other words, they are flip sides of the same narcissistic coin. And unless a balance or synthesis is found within each individual; unless the culture or society encourages the development of that balance or synthesis; then you have all the makings of malignantly narcissistic (i.e., sociopathic) individuals and the cultures and societies in which they thrive.

    UPDATE: John Derbyshire is absolutely correct that the left is the "True Stupid Party":
    Is the political Left the true Stupid Party? I've been hearing versions of the following argument over the past few days. (See, for example, the blog titled The Cold Equations.)

    The administration is going all out to discredit the intelligence services and neuter the War on Terror, while downgrading border & entry security. If there is another major terrorist attack, it will be a terrific blow to the Left. Everybody will be saying: "At least W kept us safe for seven years. Then this new crowd came in, dismantled the security apparatus, and we got hit again."
    From a game-theoretic point of view, the administration strategy is simply terrible. The only advantage to releasing these memos, gutting immigration control, and striking moral poses on torture — or "torture" — is to get cheers from the hard-Left base. The downside is potentially lethal to the administration (not to mention a possible several thousand Americans).

    As a strategy, it's barely even rational. The Left is what it is, though. Like the scorpion in Æsop, they can't help themselves.

    When you have to expend so much psychological energy just to maintain a high degree of denial and projection so that your unbounded narcissism does not take a hit, then reason, truth, and reality all have to be thrown under the bus. I would almost feel sorry for them--except it is all Americans who will suffer for their stupidity.

    Saturday, April 25, 2009


    Forget the economy...our new president has achieved several major foreign policy triumphs in only his first 100 days in office! First, there' the significant change he's mad in our image abroad:

    [Cartoons by Dana Summers]

    Then, there's the advances in prosecuting the war on terror overseas contingency operations:

    [Cartoons by Michael Ramirez]

    Without a doubt, both of these courageous actions have made America safer. I mean, I feel safer, don't you?

    I have discussed the Democrats' and Obama's fundamental psychological strategy in a previous post, but it is worth revisiting, because even I did not appreciate how desperate they were to "undo" the last 8 years and revert back to September 10, 2001.

    In fact, they are in an absolute frenzy of undoing, and the smell of hysteria is overwhelming.

    This hysteria is absolutely essential for them to be able to remain on the [psycho]path of denial: the Democrats and the left have staked so much--their entire self-concept, in fact--on losing in Iraq and the evil of George Bush and the Republicans, that they cannot be satisfied with merely winning the Presidential election. 'Hope and Change' was just a motto for them, it was the only way they could continue to keep their eyes closed.

    This is emotional excess that disguises a severe, disabling anxiety; an anxiety that has been tenously held in check by the psychological denial that came before. It is as if the bizarre national depression the media have been hyping for the last eight years suddenly flipped into a full-blown mania--with all the euphoria, grandiose ideas and plans, delusions of grandeur, wildly impulsive spending, irritability and inappropriateness one sees in an acute manic episode.

    It is the Greek temples and the Obama Presidential Seal to the nth power. And it is symbolic of the lengths to which many in this country, led by the political left and the Democrats, will go to in order to maintain their psychological denial at all costs so so as to continue to be oblivious to the danger in our world. They will even go so far as to erase any evidence of events that have transpired since the beginning of the millennium when Bush took office and including 9/11--especially 9/11--so as to pretend they never happened.

    They will simply 'undo' the last 8 years; rewrite the history and take us across the bridge back to the 20th century.

    UNDOING is a psychological defense mechanism in which a person attempts though contrary behavior to ward off threatening thoughts or feelings. Undoing can also be a convenient way to 'explain away' habits or behaviours that are not considered in line with an individuals' (or group's) personality; and, finally, by using the defense of undoing, one can rid oneself of gnawing feelings of guilt by compensating the injured party either symbolically or actually. Undoing can be thought of as the behavioral component of reaction formation, a psychological defense in which any unacceptable thoughts or feelings are turned into their opposite.

    The Democrats and the left have a lot of undoing to do. They must, in short, wipe the Bush Administration off the map; as if it never existed. Because if they do that, they can go back to pretending that there is no real threat from terrorism--only from BusHitler and Darth Cheney.

    Now that they are indisputably in charge, they can easily segue from expressing their dysfunctional emotions about this to actually acting on those dysfunctional emotions. It will even be ok to fly the flag again, since, ya know, it doesn't represent oppression and evil anymore!

    Just look at what they have managed to achieve in only 100 days! I have every confidence that we will witness in the next 100 days an orgy of self-righteous, petty, and vindictive assaults by the ever-so-virtuous, and denialist Democrats in Congress. Their fearless leader will, in his passive aggressive way, weakly object to such goings on (just to be able to have it both ways), but won't stop the circus because he is actually the ringleader for the clowns in Congress.

    UPDATE: Obama = Carter on steroids ? I'd say he's more Carter on stimulants, which would explain the mania and the latent paranoia.

    Friday, April 24, 2009


    A wise person--I think it was P.J. O'Rourke--once quipped, "If you think health care is expensive now, just wait till you see what it costs when it's free." I couldn't agree more.

    [cartoons by Eric Allie]

    Thomas Sowell gives a dose of reality to counter some of the latest 'health care' rhetoric:
    Insurance is not medical care. Indeed, health care is not the same as medical care. Countries with universal health care do not have more or better medical care.

    The bottom line is medical care. But the rhetoric and the talking points are about insurance. Many people who could afford health insurance do not choose to have it because they know that medical care will be available at the nearest emergency room, whether they have insurance or not.

    This is especially true for young people, who do not anticipate long-term medical problems and who can always get a broken leg or an allergy attack taken care of at an emergency room -- and spend their money on a more upscale lifestyle.

    This may not be a wise decision but it is their decision, and there is no reason why other people should lose the right to make decisions for themselves because some people make questionable decisions.

    If you don't think government bureaucrats can make questionable decisions, then you haven't dealt with many government bureaucrats

    Read it all, of course, twicea day, as needed. Then call me in the morning if symptoms of political insanity persist.

    Thursday, April 23, 2009


    1. Let's be more like North Korea ! (and other backward, tyrannical countries and cultures)

    2. Let's scare the children and completely warp their impressionable little minds with how the evil humans are killing the planet.

    Here's a story from Jay Nordlinger to brighten your day:
    My daughter’s expensive private school is generally not very lefty, but they do go in for some green propaganda. They had a speaker come extol the virtues of vegetarianism, and the school cafeteria went meat-free for Earth Day.

    My twelve-year-old decided this was in the “We should be more like North Korea” category — a reference to this poster [note: the one above] — and brought her own lunch: a steak sandwich. One of the other kids called her “a meat-eating monster.” She said it made her day. (She also subscribes to the view that if you aren’t making leftists unhappy, you probably aren’t doing something right.)

    and this:
    Care to hear from Middletown, Pa.? I love that place-name. It sounds so: representative. In today’s Impromptus, I have an item on American education, and environmental alarmism: You know, the wee ones are told that the earth is dying — no, that we, human beings, are killing the earth — and that they must be afraid, very afraid. The environmental nightmares of children must be something. How about teaching them to be afraid of political unfreedom? Of the suppression of unpopular, or unfashionable, ideas?

    Anyway: A reader from Middletown writes,
    Yes, the public schools do in fact teach that we are killing the planet by driving our cars, etc. When my daughter, who was in 3rd or 4th grade at the time, and I were driving somewhere, she said her teachers had told her that driving cars was harming the earth. I clutched the steering wheel and calmly asked her if those teachers drove their cars. She paused — I could see the lightbulb over her head — and said, “Yes, they do.” It was priceless.

    Of course, you can decry something even as you engage in it. But still: Well done, by that mom. And how about Al Gore’s jetting around? Etc., etc.

    3. Green Behavior for Thee but Not for Me (see above)

    4. Why don't we all just go kill ourselves to save the planet?

    Think I'm kidding? Check out this site, which calls for "voluntary human extinction". No shit. Of course they aren't really advocating going and killing yourself, they would like humans to live a good, fun life...then die. In fact, one of their FAQ's is:
    Q: Are we all supposed to kill ourselves?
    SUMMARY: Increasing human deaths will not improve population density. Many people are advocating an increase in the death rate to reduce human population numbers. However, increased death has historically increased births. Promoting reproductive freedom, economic opportunity, and education will shrink our masses faster and nicer.

    You must admit, the world would certainly be a better place with these environutjobs contaminating it. Just go take a look at the site for sheer reading pleasure. I am a psychiatrist and I must say that the people I treat are relatively mentally healthy compared to the sheer insanity (and unrelenting hatred of humanity) on display here.

    There are some real "monsters" out there, all right. But they are not the meat-eating ones that the child in #2 decries--they are the human-hating ones.

    But, why am I not surprised? The political left embraced a hatred of humanity long ago, and their principles insanities haven't changed much no matter what ideological guise they wear at any given moment, be it neo-Marxism, neo-fascism, or radical environmentalism.

    In fact, it is their hatred of all that is human that defines them.


    Under the new, improved 'hopenchange' Obama Adminstration, tyranny has begun to rack up the victory points against freedom:

    Ahmadinejad Claims Victory:
    Ahmadinejad, returning to Tehran yesterday, gave a speech before a group of students lauding his own performance in Geneva and promising a consistent strategy of, in effect, hijacking international organizations and conferences:
    After this I will participate in all international summits to the displeasure of all enemies. . . . If they leave, we will arrange all the summits, but it is such a strange thing that they are not ready to even listen to parts of the crimes they have committed against humanity. How are they going to prepare for the prosecution [awaiting them] . . .?

    Thanks to divine wisdom, the criminal heads of state of Western countries will soon be tried for their crimes against humanity. . . . Those arranging the summit had planned everything, they had invested a lot to weaken the Islamic Republic, but as usual they had not counted on one thing, which is the divine cunning from which the Islamic Republic benefitted. . . .

    So much for Obama's reliance on the virtues of international bodies. What's our strategy, Mr. President?

    And, Hugo the clown has been inspired by Obama's genial reception and handshake:
    Inspired by his meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama at the Americas Summit, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez declared on Sunday that Venezuelan socialism has begun to reach the United States under the Obama administration.

    “I am coming back from Trinidad and Tobago, from the Americas Summit where, without a doubt, the position that Venezuela and its government has always defended, especially starting 10 years ago, of resistance, dignity, sovereignty and independence has obtained in Port of Spain, one of the biggest victories of our history,” Chavez said.

    “It would seem that the changes that started in Venezuela in the last decade of the 20th century have begun to reach North America,” he added.

    Then there's this:
    Former Cuban President Fidel Castro said President Obama misinterpreted remarks by his brother and successor, Raul, and bristled at the suggestion that the island should free political prisoners or cut taxes on remittances from abroad as a goodwill gesture to the U.S.

    Raul Castro touched off a whirlwind of speculation last week that the U.S. and Cuba could be headed toward a thaw in nearly a half-century of chilly relations. The speculation began when the Cuban president said leaders would be willing to sit down with their U.S. counterparts and discuss everything, including human rights, freedom of the press and expression, and political prisoners on the island.

    Obama responded at the Summit of the Americas by saying Washington seeks a new beginning with Cuba, but he also said Sunday that Cuba should release some political prisoners and reduce official taxes on remittances sent to the island from the U.S.

    That appeared to enrage Fidel Castro, 82, who wrote in an essay posted on a government website that Obama "without a doubt misinterpreted Raul's declarations."

    The former president appeared to be throwing cold water on expectations for improved bilateral relations -- suggesting that Obama had no right to urge Cuba to make even small concessions. He also seemed to suggest too much was being made of Raul's comments about discussing everything with U.S. authorities.

    And let's not forget that Kim Jong Il is on base, waiting to steal home.

    Now, here's the deal: it's only the first inning of the game, with one out;Hamas and Hezbollah and a whole lineup of thugs still to bat...

    UPDATE: A sad commentary:
    In New York this week, I asked a former Eastern European dissident who spent time in prison under the Communists: "If you were sitting in a cell in Cuba, Iran or Syria and saw this photo of a smiling American president shaking hands with a smiling Hugo Chávez, what would you think?"

    He said: "I would think that I was losing ground."

    Wednesday, April 22, 2009


    Charles Krauthammer recently commented on Obama's response to Ortega's diatribe against the US:
    The most telling moment, however, was when Daniel Ortega, the president of Nicaragua, delivered a 53-minute excoriating attack on the United States. And Obama's response was "I'm grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for the things that occurred when I was three months old."

    Does the narcissism of this man know no bounds? This is not about him. It is about his country. This is something that occurred under John Kennedy — the Bay of Pigs is what he is referring to. And what he is saying is that it's OK that he attacked John Kennedy, as long as it wasn't me.

    Doesn't it occur to him that he ought to defend his country even if stuff happened before him? It doesn't all start with him.

    As Krauthammer knows all too well, since he is a psychiatrist, a real narcissist actually does believe everything starts with him, and that he is the center of the universe.

    As far a Barack Obama is concerned, it is all about him.

    L'etat, c'est moi! Soon, like Louis XIV, and every petty tyrant and political demagogue since, Obama the First will declare himself to be above the law. His massive ego will demand no less.

    Meanwhile, Jay Nordlinger has a moment of fantasy:
    Do you know what I wish our president had said? Something like, “Well, the Bay of Pigs was terribly executed. But it was a noble cause: the overthrow of a heinous dictatorship. One that denies an entire people their natural, God-given rights. Had that operation succeeded, Cuba would have been infinitely better off, and the world would have been better off. And many good and brave men died in that operation. If we are to be sorry for anything, it’s that the operation did not succeed, not that it occurred.”

    ...Can you imagine the American president yukking it up with a thug like Ortega about an ignominious moment in the American past? You don’t have to imagine. That’s the kind of president we have. The kind the people voted for, apparently. Great.

    'Great' pretty much sums it up. We have a president whose narcissism already appears to know no bounds; and whose ego is fed constantly by the MSM and the left in whose eyes he is a major celebrity, i.e., a god (same thing these days). You will see them get annoyed and even impatient with their god, but truth be told, they adore him and know he will be merciful and forgive them for their disbelief--as long as he keeps throwing them fresh meat to feed their anger and resentment.

    We are dealing with a bunch of narcissistic, entitled children, because that's what the political left has devolved into. I think it's important to realize from all this, that the left is scared. REALLY scared. Quoting from a psychiatrist that Byron York tapped for his column on "In Time of Victory, Why is the Left So Angry?" (an extremely good question):
    I asked William Anderson, a friend who is a political conservative, a medical doctor, and a lecturer in psychiatry at Harvard. "They are angry, but I think they are also scared, and I think it's because they have a sense that their triumph is a precarious one," Anderson told me. Democrats won in 2008 in some part because of the cycles of American politics; Republicans were exhausted and it was the other party's turn. Now, having won, they are unsure of how long victory will last.

    "They see that they have a very small window of opportunity to do all the things they want," Anderson continued. "They see the window of opportunity as small because they know in their deepest hearts that the vast majority of the American people wouldn't go for all of the things they want to do." So they are frantic to do as much as possible before the opposition coalesces. And the tea parties might be the beginning of that coalescence.

    Then there is the question of self-image. Watching Garofalo and Olbermann discuss the tea parties, it was impossible to avoid the sense that they saw themselves as two good people talking about many bad people. "One of the things about narcissism is that it looks like people who are just proud of themselves and smug, but in fact narcissism is a very brittle and unstable state," Anderson told me. "People who are deeply invested in narcissism spend an awful lot of energy trying to maintain the illusion they have of themselves as being powerful and good, and they are exquisitely sensitive to anything that might prick that balloon."[emphasis mine]

    You see, these are the two sides of of this political narcissism that defines Obama and his leftist base. The grandiosity and smugness on the one hand; and, on the other, the brittleness and anxiety that comes with maintaining a false self-image.

    One of the ways the left can continue to deflect that anxiety and keep their fear at bay; AND at the same time pump up their already over-inflated egos and self-righteousness is to perpetually persecute and blame Bush Administration. The left externalized blame for their own inadequacies when they weren't in power, so it is hardly likely that they'd stop now once they are in power. They remain completely inadequate and fall quite short of even the simple tasks of leadership. That's why Obama's every other utterance has to do with blaming Bush and Republicans (who certainly share some of the real blame for the fiscal mess; and ALL of the "blame" for having kept us safe for the last 8 years. Interesting, isn't it, that it is for the latter crime that they are to be severely punished?). Also, be sure to watch closely in the coming months for the Obama administration to externalize blame on another favorite scapegoat of today's left--Israel.

    Bush has to be kept in the media spotlight because the left's malignant narcissism demands to be fed. By bashing Bush they can preen and strut, stroke themselves to orgasmic heights of self-congratulatory moral superiority. The safety of their country is completely irrelevant--it's all about them.

    That's why the anger and rage that the left has nurtured and cultivated over the last 8 years will not go away. They need it desperately to keep their fragile, rotting narcissistic and grandiose self image--even if they have to destroy this country to do so.

    Narcissism without bounds; to infinity and beyond.

    Tuesday, April 21, 2009


    Cliff May reminds us that there is a reason why the political left in this country has made common cause with Militant Islamists:
    Ask those on the Left what values they champion, and they will say equality, tolerance, women’s rights, gay rights, workers’ rights, and human rights. Militant Islamists oppose all that, not infrequently through the application of lethal force. So how does one explain the burgeoning Left-Islamist alliance?
    In a new book, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror, Jamie Glazov takes a hard look at this unholy alliance. A historian by training, Glazov is the son of dissidents who fled the Soviet Union only to find that, on American campuses, they were not welcomed by the liberal/Left lumpen professoriate.

    Glazov’s book indicts artists and intellectuals of the Left — e.g. George Bernard Shaw, Bertolt Brecht, and Susan Sontag — for having “venerated mass murderers such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, and Ho Chi Minh, habitually excusing their atrocities while blaming Americans and even the victims for their crimes.”

    Following the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Left spent several years wandering in the wilderness. Many of them, Glazov suggests, looked upon the terrorist attacks of 9/11 less as an atrocity than as an opportunity to revive a moribund revolutionary movement.
    Glazov concludes that the Left’s “romance with Islamism is just a logical continuation of the long leftist tradition of worshipping America’s foes. . . . The Left clearly continues to be inspired by its undying Marxist conviction that capitalism is evil and that forces of revolution are rising to overthrow it — and must be supported.” On that basis, militant Islamism is regarded as a “valiant form of ‘resistance’ against American imperialism and oppression.”

    If such values as equality, tolerance, and human rights are crushed in the process, that’s a price many on the Left are willing to pay. Those on the Left who disagree should perhaps speak up more loudly and more often.
    In the few short months that the dedicated leftist Barack Obama has been in the White House, we have seen a rapid acceleration of the "forces of revolution" rising to overthow this country. Obama's World Apology and America Bashing Tour is nothing if not a crystal clear deliniation of the sides of this battle. There is no dictator or tyrant he won't abase himself to, or belittle his country for; there is no ally that he is not willing to give up or betray in order to demonstrate his willingness to submit to Islamic bullying.

    But, as I have mentioned before in "The Four Pillars of the Socialist Revival", appeasement and enabling of terror is only one way that the political left hopes to advance their ideology; it's important to remember the other three prongs of their strategy. Our new President seems intent on implementing all four as quickly as possible so as to achieve the "foundation" of this new leftist utopia.

    Multiculturalism and political correctness are two key aspects of the strategy. Both are fundamental pseudo-intellectual, quasi-religious tenets for the left. The third is radical environmentalism which is a clever emotional substitute for Judeo-Christian religious traditions and dogma, for which the left has nothing but contempt.

    All four of these strategies arose from the metaphysical, epistemological and ethical dead-end that traditional Marxism found itself in toward the end of the 20th century. Fortunately, postmodern philosophy has led them out of the "wilderness" of rational thought and objective reality, and brought them to the promised land; which, as it turns out, is a neo-Marxist revival, accelerated by the fascist goals of leftist environmentalism.

    The intellectuals of the left have been unable to abandon their totalitarian/collectivist ideology, even after communism and national socialism proved to be crushing failures in the 20th century. But the new face of their same old tired ideas has been rehabilitated and madeover by their clever adoption of postmodern metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. Slowly, but relentlessly, the dogma of multiculturalism and political correctness has been absorbed at all levels of Western culture in the last two decades--and after the end of the cold war, it has been accelerating. Slowly but relentlessly they have found new ways to discredit freedom, individuality and capitalism.

    The new face of collectivist and totalitarian thought has been seamlessly integrated into most K-12 curricula and all other learning environments. 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.

    If the left understands anything, it is that in order for their ideology and its promised utopia to be born, they must thoroughly destroy America and undermine everything America stands for in the world. Once that has been accomplished, then their way is clear. Of course, they truly believe they will be able to control the Islamist genie they have encouraged, appeased and enabled along the way. That's why they are so nonchalant about terrorism and the threat of Islamic jihad. First, they see themselves on the same side politically; and second, they believe they won't have any trouble stopping the Jihad once they are in power. What's the big deal? They also intend to roll back the rising seas, stop global warming, and heal the planet, after all.

    The left has rigged the debate so that there is no possibility of debate any longer: anyone who question any of the four tenets' validity or value is routinely met with hysterical accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, imperialism, bigotry, or--worse of all --intolerance or insensitivity.

    Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Radical Environmentalism and Terrorism are the four pillars that are the foundation of an evolving epistemological, ethical and political strategy that the socialist/collectivist remnants in the world are using to resurrect their failed ideology, which now takes the form of neo-Marxist fascism.

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

    With the new leftist Messiah in the White House and the Democrats in congress in thrall to collectivism (and not a few of the Republicans as well), we can see how all four of these strategies are being politically enacted with great haste since the ascension of The One.

    (1) LEFTIST ENVIRONMENTALISM - The left hopes to destroy capitalism, wealth and American productivity and sacrifice it all to the environmental gods. Human activity, human wealth are evil and are destroying the planet. The Obama administration is using the current economic crisis as an opportunity to undermine capitalism in general, but the coup de grace is going to be the untenable economic burden that the envirofascists intend to deliver with all the rules and regulations designed specifically todestroy America's economy. This radical agenda--which was just unveiled by Obama's new EPA--is completely irrelevant to "saving the planet" or even "preparing America for the future" with so-called "green jobs".

    On the contrary, the rules and regulations are quite deliberately designed to strangle a free economy. The left believes capitalism is evil and has no qualms about destroying it. And, since they haven't a clue where real wealth comes from, they truly believe that they will always be able to steal it--i.e., "redistribute it"-- from the people who create it.

    (2) MULTICULTURALISM - The left firmly believes that American imperialism and oppression are the source of all the evil in the world. American culture corrupts and, while multiculturalism dogmatically preaches that all cultures are special and good; it turns around and gleefully contradicts itself by saying that Western--particularly American--culture is uniquely evil (see here). This is pure cultural and moral relativism punctuated by anti-American dogma. For years we have listened while all the thugs and dictators of the world unite to castigate and denounce our country and all it stands for. Now we have to listen to it out of the mouth of the American President himself, the narcissistically enhanced under-achiever, Barack Obama.

    (3) POLITICAL CORRECTNESS - As far as political correctness, just listen to the rants of morons like Janeane Garafolo who is rather typical of the the dedicated leftist grunt (better known as the "useful idiot") and who sees anyone who opposes the left's magnificent ideas as racists; or homophobes; or whatever term they think they can get away with. It is purely ideologically driven and not based on any principle except the principle of the moment. Meanwhile, the "anyone who disagrees with Obama must be a racist" meme has the effect of squelching debate and free speech--which is precisely what the left intends.

    (4) TERRORISM, or the application of direct physical violence for ideological purposes - Obama's DHS that has reclassified terrorism as "man-caused disasters" and chosen to focus, not on Al Qaeda or the Islamic fanatics, but is preoccupied with the religious right and returning Iraq war vets and other members of the political right. Meanwhile, the President shakes hands with dictator clowns; promises to talk without preconditions to genocidal fanatics; and encourages the delusions of psychotic cultures. Terrorists everywhere are rejoicing.

    This behavior we are seeing now in the Obama Administrationw was completely predictable. Obama's behavior now as President is not any different than it was when he was a mere community organizer. The people he associated with then, he continues to associate with; only now he is able to appoint them to key roles in the U.S. government. He has been a member of the New Socialist Party and enjoyed their support when he ran for office; he hobnobbed with former terrorists who are now "education experts"; and his wife and many of his friends and close associates at work and church never liked America much to begin with.

    Yet, he is the candidate who the majority of Americans voted for; and I can't blame them entirely because essential information was kept from the general population by the media about Obama's character. But mostly they didn't want to hear it anyway. They wanted to prove they weren't racist by voting for a charismatic and glib demagogue, who promised to usher in a "post-racial" America of hope and change. Yeah, right.

    A majority of Democrats have been slowly sliding toward a preference for tyanny over the last decade and pretty much subscribe to all the major ideological points of the far left anyway. Oh, they see it as a "benign" sort of tyranny--one that is imposed "for our own good."

    So, is it any wonder that the political left has made common cause with Islam's fanatics? They have united in hate with America's foes, because America is all that stands between them and their respective utopian dystopian visions.

    [Cartoons by Glenn Foden]

    UPDATE: As Michelle Malkin writes today, "Welcome to civility and tolerance in the age of Obama." If the people coming here to comment from leftist sites like Firedogpuddle (I refuse to call them a lake, they are too shallow) exhibit any degree of "civility" or "tolerance", it is only because they probably remembered to take their medication today. I suspect most days they forget since being in touch with reality is such a painful experience for them. Funny isn't it how angry and intolerant they were when they were out of power; and now that they control the White House, Congress, and most of the MSM, they are still enraged.

    I must have hit a very very sensitive nerve. They are scared shitless.

    UPDATE II: Unfortunately, I will have to close the comments on this post because of the infestation of incivility and abuse that "progressive" types specialize in. You should see my emails! A testament to the hatefest of the left.

    Monday, April 20, 2009


    The law of unintended consequences strikes again:(h/t:OBH)
    In September, ethanol giant VeraSun Energy opened a refinery on the outskirts of this eastern Iowa community. Among the largest biofuels facilities in the country, the Dyersville plant could process 39 million bushels of corn and produce 110 million gallons of ethanol annually. VeraSun boasted the plant could run 24 hours a day, seven days a week to meet the demand for home-grown energy.

    But the only thing happening 24-7 at the Dyersville plant these days is nothing at all. Its doors are shut and corn deliveries are turned away. Touring the facility recently, I saw dozens of rail cars sitting idle. They've been there through the long, bleak winter. Two months after Dyersville opened, VeraSun filed for bankruptcy, closing many of its 14 plants and laying off hundreds of employees. VeraSun lost $476 million in the third quarter last year.

    A town of 4,000, Dyersville is best known as the location of the 1989 film "Field of Dreams." In the film, a voice urges Kevin Costner to create a baseball diamond in a cornfield and the ghosts of baseball past emerge from the ether to play ball. Audiences suspended disbelief as they were charmed by a story that blurred the lines between fantasy and reality.

    That's pretty much the story of ethanol. Consumers were asked to suspend disbelief as policy makers blurred the lines between economic reality and a business model built on fantasies of a better environment and energy independence through ethanol. Notwithstanding federal subsidies and mandates that force-feed the biofuel to the driving public, ethanol is proving to be a bust.

    In the fourth quarter of 2008, Aventine Renewable Energy, a large ethanol producer, lost $37 million despite selling a company record 278 million gallons of the biofuel. Last week it filed for bankruptcy. California's Pacific Ethanol lost $146 million last year and has defaulted on $250 million in loans. It recently told regulators that it will likely run out of cash by April 30.

    How could this be? The federal government gives ethanol producers a generous 51-cent-a-gallon tax credit and mandates that a massive amount of their fuel be blended into the nation's gasoline supplies. And those mandates increase every year. This year the mandate is 11 billion gallons and is on its way to 36 billion gallons in 2022.

    To meet this political demand, VeraSun, Pacific Ethanol, Aventine Renewable Energy and others rushed to build ethanol mills. The industry produced just four billion gallons of ethanol in 2005, so it had to add a lot of capacity in a short period of time.

    Three years ago, ethanol producers made $2.30 per gallon. But with the global economic slowdown, along with a glut of ethanol on the market, by the end of 2008 ethanol producers were making a mere 25 cents per gallon. That drop forced Dyersville and other facilities to be shuttered. The industry cut more than 20% of its capacity in a few months last year.

    What's more, as ethanol producers sucked in a vast amount of corn, prices of milk, eggs and other foods soared. The price of corn shot up, as did the price of products from animals -- chickens and cows -- that eat feed corn.

    Texas Gov. Rick Perry reacted by standing with the cattlemen in his state to ask the Environmental Protection Agency last year to suspend part of the ethanol mandates (which it has the power to do under the 2007 energy bill). The EPA turned him down flat. The Consumer Price Index later revealed that retail food prices in 2008 were up 10% over 2006. In Mexico, rising prices led to riots over the cost of tortillas in 2007. The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization and other international organizations issued reports last year criticizing biofuels for a spike in food prices.

    Ethanol is also bad for the environment. Science magazine published an article last year by Timothy Searchinger of Princeton University, among others, that concluded that biofuels cause deforestation, which speeds climate change. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration noted in July 2007 that the ethanol boom rapidly increased the amount of fertilizer polluting the Mississippi River. And this week, University of Minnesota researchers Yi-Wen Chiu, Sangwon Suh and Brian Walseth released a study showing that in California -- a state with a water shortage -- it can take more than 1,000 gallons of water to make one gallon of ethanol. They warned that "energy security is being secured at the expense of water security."

    For all the pain ethanol has caused, it displaced a mere 3% of our oil usage last year. Even if we plowed under all other crops and dedicated the country's 300 million acres of cropland to ethanol, James Jordan and James Powell of the Polytechnic University of New York estimate we would displace just 15% of our oil demand with biofuels.

    But President Barack Obama, an ethanol fan, is leaving current policy in place and has set $6 billion aside in his stimulus package for federal loan guarantees for companies developing innovative energy technologies, including biofuels. It's part of his push to create "green jobs." Archer Daniels Midland and oil refiner Valero are already scavenging the husks of shuttered ethanol plants, looking for facilities on the cheap. One such facility may be the plant in Dyersville, which is for sale. Before we're through, we'll likely see another ethanol bubble.

    This is invariably the result when lawmakers who "mean well" ignore economic and environmental reality and pass laws that disrupt complex systems.

    These people never learn, and always think they are smarter than the forces that drive the real world. They are not. The sad truth is that they really don't much care whether their lovely interventions actually work or not; they really don't care one way or the other about the (often) devastating consequences that ensue when they force their fantasies on everyone else; because their real purpose is only to make themselves feel good.

    The Obama Administration and the EPA (if ever there was a government agency that should be obliterated, the EPA is it) are set once again to wreak havoc on the economy and the ripples of their lunacy will spread wide and far, even beyond the U.S. And, on top of that, they have the audacity to claim that they are science-driven! These fools have no understanding of science, or what makes science work; but again, they DON'T REALLY CARE.

    Embracing the assumption of linearity (from their Perfect Law and Good Intentions ----> Perfect Result), they continually (and conveniently) forget that the world is largely non-linear and couldn't care less about their Good Intentions.

    The only reality--the only universe-- that matters to them is the narcissistically powered one inside their own head that tells them what Good People they are for "saving" the environment.

    Oh, and for all those credulous people who believed in the Obamessiah:
    Remember, this will involve no tax increases on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. But those five or six guys who’ll be left still earning that much, man, are we going to sock it to them.

    What they are doing when they mess with the environment has nothing to do with science, but everything to do with religion:

    And, as we have seen already, some of the unintended consequences of their do-goodism are horrific:

    Sunday, April 19, 2009


    Watch and learn about true cultural insanity, brought to you by the animals of Hamas:

    And these are the people our new Messiah intends to cozy up to in the immediate future--but then, who among those who hate America doesn't the Big O want to cozy up to?) I guess it's the loving and compassionate religious rhetoric that reminds him of his old pastor and mentor.

    Saturday, April 18, 2009


    Hey, Bro, let's talk!

    Well, they do have common ground, after all.... and there's no telling what amazing things they might be able to accomplish by working together to make the world a happy family!

    [Cartoons by Dana Summers ]