DARK CAVES OF THE MIND

The economy obviously matters a lot; and for some people, it's all that matters with regard to the upcoming election. But, in my humble opinion, the BIG PICTURE, even more important than the economy, is the world crisis whose focal point is in the Middle East. This is the crisis that must be solved--philosophically, ideologically, and politically--because, in the long run, it is critical for the survival of western values; for the survival of America and for our children.

Yes, there are two basic economic philosophies to choose from in the Presidential race: the free market and economic liberty vs the stagnant policies of socialism, symbolized (however inadequately) by Mitt Romney and Barack Obama respectively.

But the key battle in this fight is the one that is being fought between Western values (with the concept of America as the beacon for human liberty) and Islam, the latest historical iteration of the anti-freedom, soul-killing, anti-human evil that has plagued the world since the beginning of time.

I got into blogging in the first place because of 9/11. That horrific act of Islamic fanaticism is what drove me into political activism, and changed my life forever. I will not forget it, nor can I; particularly when 11 years down the road we are still in grave danger of losing the philosophical and military battle to the jihadists.

Osama bin Laden may be dead, but Al Qaeda is alive and kicking--and so is Iran; and so is the Muslim Brotherhood; and so is Hezbollah, and so is a thousand other off-shoots of Islam's murderous and soul-crushing ideolgy around the globe.

On 9/11/12 the United States was attacked once again by religious fanatics who submit to Allah, the bloodthirsty and vile god of a medieval and backward religion determined to take over the planet. The highest vision of humanity embraced by the adherents of this religion is to take all humans back to the cave and let loose the savagery that humanity is quite capable of exhibiting, were it not for the God of Abraham and the rise of civilization. If we refuse to enter the dark caves of the mind that Islam has prepared for us, they intend to kill us all.

For me, the absolute worse aspect of the Obama Administration has been its conduct of foreign policy and its submission to evil. Obama and his minions have definitely "re-set" the button all right, and practically ensured American decline and irrelevance to the major events that will determine the future of the world.

It seems to me that our position could not be much worse off than it is now--except that I keep finding out new and improved ways this pathetic Administration seeks to make America weak.

It is said that you should never attribute to malevolence what can be attributed to incompetence, but it is hard to see mere incompetence in the way Obama and his faithful leftist base have conducted international policy over the last 4 years. Indeed, there is a obvious malevolence in Obama's consistent disdain for American values and exceptionalism; in his outright hatred of Israel; in his submission to Islamic thugs; and in his indifference to American interests and exertion of military strength.

Obama, and to some extent Bush before him, have strangled our military might in the name of the gods of multiculturalism and political correctness. It seems impossible under multicultural rules of engagement to ever win a war again; and thus, the battle is ensured to continue indefinitely; slowly with the minimal level of attrition necessary to keep it out of the public awareness. Islam has a name for this strategy. It is called hudna, and it is why Iran will get nuclear weapons; why the West will be overrun with Sharia, and why freedom and the U.S. are in decline.

Both the incompetence and the malevolence come as a direct effects of Obama's overweening narcissism, which has been fed and nurtured at every turn by his adoring sycophants in the media and intellectual community of the left. If Obama were half as smart as everyone there thinks he is, we'd all be a lot better off. But sadly, he is not even half as smart as he believes he is.

And if you want to see what I mean by his overweening narcissism, then consider that not only does the Executive Branch now encourage people to break laws that the branch is supposed to enforce; but the Administration is now trying to cover up the extent Iranian influence among jihadi groups in North Africa so as not to undermine what Obama considers his major foreign policy coup: the killing of bin Laden.

The administration, in particular, wants to keep hidden solid intelligence showing that the terrorist group behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans is now flourishing under the Muslim Brotherhood regime of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi.

Egypt was among the locations of Obama’s 2009 so-called “apology” tour, when the president criticized past U.S. policies based on what he said was “fear and anger” that prompted actions “contrary to our ideals.” He also promised “a new beginning” for the U.S. and the world’s Muslims and a radical shift in U.S. policy.

In other words Obama in his vanity handed over America’s one of America’s most important allies in the Middle East to its most deadly enemies. Osama is dead! Al-Qaeda is very much alive.

Gertz’s reports do not yet rise to the level of highly probable fact. But they do rise to the level of “let’s look under this rock”. If even half of what Gertz suggests is true — and in his defense I anticipated most of it — then the Obama administration has been either been out to lunch or in cahoots.

Wretchard then asks and gives a plausible answer to a very pertinent question:

Why send half a billion dollars to the enemy? Well the other idea I had right after the embassy attacks was in a post called Precursor....
In other words is this is part of a combination of punches? If so the haymaker is still to come, just like Sept 11, 2001. What is the haymaker? And if the administration doesn’t want to see it coming because it will damage the precious re-election bid of the President then how can we dodge it?

I think the payoff to the MB is in the hope that we can purchase peace. Or delay things until after the November elections. Personally, I’m not sure that’s going to work and even worse if it does. In fact it may turn out to be just like Fast and Furious. We may wind up shot up by our own guns.

We ARE being shot by our own guns, for what is this bizarre tolerance and submission the political left and its postmodern ideology impose on America, even when dealing with evil?
--We are to abandon free speech because it might hurt the feelings of Muslims
--We are to ignore the persecution of other religions because it is Islam that is persecuting them
--We are to ignore the subjugation and humiliation of women under Islam because multicultural dogma dictates that it is OK as long as Islam does it
--We are to ignore the religious motivations of terrorists because we want to be seen as tolerant and inclusive of Islam

And on and on and on.

We have seen this bizarro attitude play out in the microcosm of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Ask yourself how it has worked out for the Israelis, the only free country int he Middle East that shares Western values.

Year after year, Israel has attempted to bargain with the irrational and rage-filled jihadists who have NEVER sought peace at all (as evidenced by 60+ years of history); and who are always willing to bargain for new treaties and agreements, even as they break the old ones. They have never been reticent about their primary goal: the elimination of the Jewish people and the incorporation of the small Jewish state into the caliphate.

Yes, we will send Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood half a billion dollars for peace. But we will not get any return on our money, and I think Obama knows this. If we have ever had a President who understands the Islamic mind, it is this one who actually WAS a Muslim growing up (NOTE: I don't discout the possibility that Obama still harbors Islam's fundamental worldview for all his talk of "finding Jesus" in the sermons of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Anyone who "finds" Jesus through a race-baiter and malignantly charismatic preacher like Reverend Wright is just as likely to be worshipping any false prophet that might come along).

All this leads up to why America should elect Romney. Wretchard put it best in a long comment he makes on one of his posts:

What of the rest of the world? By simply governing competently a ‘President Romney’ could set the stage for new American century and in the process, save the world from catastrophe and midwife a resurgence.

The world is now in the throes of a crisis. Without a center there is a real danger that it will collapse into conflict and chaos instead of overcoming it. For you need a center in which to preserve what is precious and from that vantage to rebuild.

And where could that center be? Not the Middle East, which will be convulsed with upheaval, demographic crisis and a collapsing economy. Israel will be lucky to survive in a purely defensive mode in that soup

It will not be Europe. It’s southern half threatens to collapse and the trouble will spread north. Europe will survive and in the long term it will be renewed but only if it is not completely burned out by the storm from the southeast. Much that is valuable is in the old continent that must not be lost. Europe is at the bottom of its historical cycle. One day it will re-emerge in greatness. For now it is helpless.

Russia cannot hold things together. It’s power potential is too diminished. Nor can China, itself about to be overtaken by events. Japan, India and Australia by themselves are too weak. By themselves they can have no decisive influence on events.

That leaves North America as the hinge of fate. Properly run it could provide the anchor around which the world will eventually recover. But only if it is properly run. The real danger posed by the Obama administration is that it threatened to destroy the “last best place on earth” and leave the world with no unburned core from which to regenerate.

He was going to screw the pooch, fritter away the last reserve; cast it aside simply because he did not know the value of anything. It could have been so different for him.

This was Obama’s historical opportunity to seize. He could have been the greatest American President of the last 150 years if he had only been big enough to see his chance. All he had to do was govern halfway decently and the natural advantages of North America would accrue.

But he grabbed at baubles, speeches and glitter and his moment passed him by. He canceled pipelines. Blockaded energy development. Sank the economy in debt. Put an American Army in a dusty, landlocked place. He wrapped everything in red tape. He was too small a man for the ball history pitched at him.

I do not think Romney has that sense of potential destiny, but he will fulfill it simply by being halfway competent. He’ll do it simply by showing up and fielding things as they come. He’ll hit the ball, even if only a single because he knows what the game is.

Romney’s challenge is threefold. To throw off the chains which shackle the US economy; to keep the nation together after it emerges divided from a traumatic 2012 presidential contest; and lastly to use American power to keep the world from completely shaking itself apart. There is not enough power to quell every disturbance. But properly used there is enough American power to preserve the core functions of the world.

Romney will see this because he can’t help but see it. He’ll do the uninspired but the logical thing in response to it. And that’s all you need to do. That’s all Obama needed to do. How he missed doing it will puzzle historians in future decades. But the obvious is not always obvious in contemporaneous time.

Not only is the future of America at stake in this election, but the future of the world. The choice for me is clear: A bright, shining city of freedom and prosperity on the hill which will stand as a beacon of liberty for the rest of the world; or, the dark caves of Islam, within which, the human mind will forever be chained.

UPDATE: It's about leadership.

THE VINDICTIVE TRUTH

Wretchard has a great post talking about "The Fifth Kind of Man":

The problem with an administration that relies upon spin is that it forgets how vindictive the truth can be. The truth bites back — and hard. But in an environment where politicized media and bureaucracy will tell its masters only what they want to hear the truth is concealed beneath the talking points until it is too late. In that regard, perhaps the Iranians should have the last word. A thirteenth-century Persian-Tajik poet, Ibn Yamin wrote that there were four types of men.

One who knows and knows that he knows… His horse of wisdom will reach the skies.
One who knows, but doesn’t know that he knows… He is fast asleep, so you should wake him up!
One who doesn’t know, but knows that he doesn’t know… His limping mule will eventually get him home.
One who doesn’t know and doesn’t know that he doesn’t know… He will be eternally lost in his hopeless oblivion!

And then there’s the fifth type of man. The man who doesn’t want to know because he thinks it doesn’t matter.

I differ a little from Wretchard on the last: it's not that he thinks it doesn't matter as much as it actually matters so much--and that is precisely why why he doesn't want to know about it.

The truth is indeed vindictive--but in a horribly passionless way. Likewise, reality, the space where truth resides, has a calm persistence and patience that is unmatched by even the most desperate attempts by the human species to avoid it.

Nevertheless, human ingenuity has discovered many ways of temporarily hiding from the truth; obscuring the truth; and when necessary, lying about the truth in order to avoid reality and its consequences.



I have written extensively on the pervasive psychological denial of the political left (see here, here , here, and here, for example). And, I frequently point out that denial is an "equal opportunity" defense mechanism engaged in by all human beings; it is an involuntary, built-in psychic response designed to protect an individual from precipitously having to face unwanted, unacceptable or threatening feelings, thoughts or behavior. The mind simply blocks out reality and truth--and sees what it wants to see or becomes blind to reality.

The consequences of denial can vary from extremely mild to extremely extreme. It depends entirely on what aspect of truth or reality is being denied.

Let's consider some of the more negative consequences of psychological denial:

• In the longer-term, denial requires a continued compromises with reality to maintain the pretense that "Everything is fine!" or "Nothing to see here, move along!" Eventually, delusional thinking, along with paranoia and its inevitable conspiracy theories begin to take the place of rational thought in those who deny reality for long periods of time. (see all the 9/11 conspiracy theorists for examples in our own country; or the more recent comments of former President Clinton--once considered a "moderate" democrat, who now fully adheres to the model that the Republicans have manufactured a culture of fear in order to fool the American public into thinking we are at war (read the transcript linked below). See here and here for some examples in the Muslim world, which is rife with conspiracies and which could not exist as a cohesive society without them).

• The denier must then place the blame for the unacceptable reality on someone else and that leads to increased conflict between those who are in denial and those who aren't. Efforts to maintain their denial consumes them and will lead them to escalate their anger, rage and attempts at external blame the denial becomes untenable and ever more obvious.

• The denier will begin distort language and logic to rationalize and justify their behavior(examples of this are too numerous to mention, but I have discussed it here , here and here) . Eventually, cognitive strategies and rational argument will be abandoned altogether by the denier, because those strategies are not sustainable and are unable to convince others; at which point the person in denial will simply refer to his feelings or emotions as the sole justification.

• The denier will feel justified in acting out against those who threaten the peacefulness of their fantasy (just ask Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the filmmaker behind "Innocence of Muslims"). Remember, for example, the attacks and attempts to silence authors like Mark Steyn because his book , America Alone, discusses the genocidal demographic trajectory of Europe as they refuse to acknowledge or deal with the reality of Islamic immigration.

Nevertheless, the degree of denial engaged in by the the Obama Administration and their supporters on the political left has been boundless and very creative.

Usually, I give the political left and its more clueless adherents the benefit of the doubt, and assumed that their unwillingness to face reality was unconscious; and was so pronounced and pervasive because they could not accept the truth that history and the real world had revealed about their beloved and bankrupt ideology. That ideology, whether it is called Marxism, communism or socialism is fundamentally anti-human .

What happens when psychological denial ceases to be unconscious and becomes a deliberate, willful, and consciously evil behavior-- in spite of all the accumulated evidence of its malignant impact on real people in the real world?

At that point we can safely assume that we are no longer dealing with a purely defensive structure in the psyche; we are dealing with aggressive, unadulterated sociopathy.

I believe that last statement accurately describes the Obama Administration.

The traditional definition of sociopathy is a personality disorder characterized by a lack of social responsibility and failure to adapt to ethical and social standards of the community.

If we think about that definition for a moment, we can perhaps begin to understand what is going on in our world today; and the reason that a huge number of people have embraced a sociopathic lifestyle.

Under the pervasive influence of postmodern philosophy and rhetoric, the ethical and social standards of the community have, unfortunately, been slowly evolving and eroding.

In western culture, ethical and moral standards used to be anchored to the real world (i.e., to reality); but in the postmodern wilderness in which the political left and most of its most visible spokespeople--i.e., leaders in the Democratic Party-- wander aimlessly, ethics and morality are relative and "anchored" to feelings and whim; which inevitably unleashes the baser and more vile aspects of human nature.

The 20th century became the playground (and litter box) for the narcissist; and by the time the 21st century rolled around, malignant narcissism was not even considered deviant, it had gone mainstream. Since psychopathology continually evolves and worsens if it is not confronted and dealt with, what we have now in our culture, particularly the political system, is the endstage of psychological evolution under postmodernism: the sociopath who disguises his or her sociopathy by selflessness (it used to be marketed as "Hope and Change", now even that has been changed to "[Ignore the truth and reality of what my policies have brought about in the economy and the world, and let's just move] FOWARD!"

These selfless sociopaths are people who couldn't care less about the individual human being. Individual human beings are expendable; even vast numbers of them--as long as they stand in the way of the implementation of the sociopath's great ideas and compassionate execution of those ideas. They are the fodder that can be used to build "great" societies, utopian fantasies and collectivist wet-dreams.

It used to be that with the rise of civilization, political sociopaths--both selfiash and selfless-- were (thankfully) few and far between. Even so, when they appeared in history, they wreaked havoc and destroyed lives with great abandon for "the greater good". Needless to say, a central aspect of the 'greater good' was always the advancement of their own glorious self and their ideas.

We can thank primarily the political left and its useful idiots for the persistent, unyielding, and willful celebration of--and ultimately mainstreaming of--malignant narcissism. We have entered the age of postmodern sociopathy and nihilism.

What does it matter if the lives and freedoms of so many individuals are sacrificed to the murderous oppressors of the world? If you "kick out the wealthy" then you have the wonderful socialist paradise of Cuba; or the magnificent utopia of North Korea with all their misery, poverty, oppression and leftist enlightenment! We will all watch with wonder and awe as France implements the ultimate redistributionist fantasy of a 75% tax on the "wealthy". Is there anyone who can possibly believe that this will solve France's financial problems? Believe me, the next phase will be the demands for a 100% tax on those evil rich people who cause all the worlds problems with their wealth.

Under the "enlightened" and "progressive" left, wealth will be redistributed until there is nothing left to redistribute; at which point the human mind will be completely enslaved and even more scapegoats will be deivered to the altars of progressivism--but so what? As the eminent leftist and quintessential nihilist Joseph Stalin once remarked, "Death solves all problems - no man, no problem."

In the long run we are all dead anyway, right? Now there's a vindictive truth for you....

THEY'RE ONLY DOING IT FOR OUR OWN GOOD !

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.”--C.S. Lewis



[Political cartoons by Jerry Holbert]

It must be such fun to be one of a growing class of politicians that I will refer to as "postmodern busybodies"!

Imagine, if you will, the heady sense of power over others that comes with the job. You even get to tell people what to eat!

This behavior is nothing more than a bit of annoyingly intrusive narcissism displayed by a variety of politically postmodern progressive individuals and groups, whose goal is not to persuade you that their ideas are correct or even better than yours; but to force you to accept their ideas by make them laws.

We used to contemptuously call such people busybodies (which was not a compliment), and were mostly able to ignore their nitpicking power plays to control or change our lives.

Sadly, we can't do that anymore.

These a$$holes are everywhere. They are in the Democrat and Republican Party (but mostly the former); they are in the chattering classes and media; they are the elites of Hollywood.

We listen to their advice on everything from what car to buy to what deodorant to wear.

Mathhew Yglesias over at the busybody blog called "Think Progress" (actually, don't think at all--they always know what's best for you) thinks that the "trouble" with America is that we don't give our children good enough school lunches.

We give them Pizza. Oh the horror! Clearly this is the reason America is in decline!

I mock them, but Yglesias and his progressive compatriots are true believers in the soft, compassionate tyranny of the nanny state.

Their touching confidence that the government will keep us all healthy and safe from the evils of the world (or, at least the evil of pizza for lunch) is amusing, albeit misplaced. We can laugh at Yglesias because he is merely an impotent jerk.

But his kind of busybody do-goodism is rather less amusing when it emanates from the people who are currently running our government at the local, state and national levels.

Most congresscritters, be they Democrat or Republican, have never met a government program they didn't like, as long as it helps them get elected or re-elected. “Promise the Suckers Anything!” (Suckers=Us). And, of course, human nature being what it is, every single one of us are enthusiastically willing to take something when it is promised to us for nothing.

But, their ready and contradictory promises aren’t without consequences. And, they cost somewhat more than nothing.

There are two problems here. The first is how we the people casually shrug off any personal responsibility and abdicate our self-reliance and freedoms. If we do it often enough; eventually we will develop an enlarged sense of entitlement to other people's money and effort. Soon we will be caught up in aggrieved victimhood, when the gravy train stops. If you doubt this, then wake up and take note of what is happening in Europe today (and watch carefully the results of the Greek election). In EU fantasyland, people demand that everything go on as usual and that they continue to receive what was "promised" to them by their own self-absorbed and anti-reality politicians.

NOTE: Pretending that the real world doesn't exist is rather infantile—and completely narcissistic.

The second problem is the (supposedly) grown-up narcissists we the people elect to Congress who do the promising, and then refuse to face either external reality (we are going broke and running out of other people’s money to pay for it all) or internal reality (they glory in the power they have over us AND, amazingly, they always profit mightily from it).

Another example of narcissism for fun and profit in the 21st century.

From regulating and taxing the gasoline that goes into your car and the emissions that come out; from state seatbelt laws; all the federal warning labels on cigarettes (the new requirements are absolutely horrifying literally and figuratively 54, all anyone seems to want to do anymore is to micromanage everyone else's behavior.

Local school districts ban dodge ball and tag; ban peanuts from school; Congress mandates what kind of light bulbs to use; what drugs are legal and what drugs are not; whether you can gamble or have church services in your own home.

The list goes to infinity and beyond.

There is no end to what these postmodern busybodies try to control about your life and your choices. And the farther up the government food chain you go--from the local level to the federal level--the worse it gets.

Ironically, these are the same people who are presumably "pro-choice" and champion "abortion rights" and a Woman's right to choose, arguing that, since it is her body, she gets to kill the fetus if she doesn't want it. But never mind all that when it comes to athletes who want to use performance enhancing drugs. Isn't it their body? So what if I want to "defile" my body by eating pizza with 16 oz sodas for breakfast, lunch and dinner?

Ahhh, they smile happily. You gave up that right when you told us you wanted the government to manage health care. When you shirked your responsibility to take the consequences of your behavior. Now WE have to control that behavior! Of course, we'll do a much better job of it than you would anyway.

Yes, these crusaders for peace and social justice and bans on cigarettes are everywhere, but they are scariest when we ourselves give them the power to make us into children and act out their parental fantasies for our own good.

Take Nanny Pelosi, whose every action is loudly proclaimed" for the children!"—or, so she tells us. Her latest gambit is to “do for childcare what we did for healthcare.”

Soon, no child care provider will be safe from her intrusive, busybody nanny-statism.
Or, take Barney Frank (please), whose sincere devotion to social justice when he was overseeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac directly led to the housing crisis. Now, of course, he claims it was all the Republicans’ fault because they didn’t stop him from his madness.

In a rational and yes, a "just" society, these busybodies would be laughed at. In a society that valued self reliance and personal responsibility, they would rightly be considered idiots.

[NOTE: I am currently extremely busy and don't have a lot of time to post, so I am recycling an earlier post on this topic, "Sugar Daddies and the Mommy State"] Hey! If the President can recycle his speeches....

THE MALIGNANT NARCISSISM OF BARACK OBAMA

And, even more evidence of this kind of "It's all about MEEEEEEEE!" Narcissism is the Obama campaign's own video, where Bill Clinton says: "Suppose they [the Navy Seals] had been captured or killed. The downside would have been horrible for him [Obama]."

I suspect the downside for the Seals might have been just a wee bit more horrible....

THE REALLY DESTRUCTIVE MANIACS OF THIS WORLD

Over at the Belmont Club, Wretchard discusses the continued fascination with Charles Manson in a post titled "The Prophet". Read the entire piece, but one particularly insightful paragraph stood out for me:

The really destructive maniacs of this world don’t run around with knives. They work calmly, with paper and pencil, churning out one Five Year Plan after the other; drawing with geometric precision, one failed worker’s paradise on the foundations of the last one failed. A Bavarian once remarked to me that Karl Marx, not Adolf Hitler, was the single most destructive person the German nation ever unleashed upon the world. Not that anyone stopped to think about it, he said.

And, speaking about the "really destructive maniacs of this world", I wrote about Obama mentor and unrepentant terrorist bomber, William Ayers, in much the same terms:

[This] is another perfect example of malignant narcissistic idealism, or sociopathic 'selflessness' that I have written about. This is the form of narcissism that dominates the mind of a collectivist like Bill Ayers and his ilk (of which I firmly believe Barack Obama is an example).

The typical leftist collectivist--i.e., of the 'peaceful' antiwar, America-hating, crowd--considers his or her sociopathy as a form of altruism, or "selflessness".

Everyone is, of course, familiar with the "selfish narcissist"--this is the type of narcissism we all know and don't love much. Indeed, selfishness and a preoccupation with one's own needs and desires at the expense of everyone else's is what is classically associated with the concept of narcissism.

But there is in society today a disguised type of narcissism that masks itself in a selfless, compassionate concern for others, yet is really all about fueling the need to feel superior and to exert control and power over others.

This second type of narcissism is more subtle, but equally (if not more so in human history) destructive and dysfunctional as the first. It derives from an aggressive idealism/utopianism which is pursued despite the misery it causes in other people's lives; and despite the dead bodies it leaves behind. This malignant narcissism is always justified because it is "for your own good"; or, "for the common good"; or, "to make the world and people better."

Along with the selfish narcissist (whose overt preoccupation is "ME, ME, ME!" and using others for their own aggrandizement and reward), the selfless narcissist ("LOOK AT HOW WONDERFUL I AM FOR MAKING YOU BETTER!") does not see other people as distinct individuals with needs and desires of their own, but only as fodder for the expression of aome IDEAL; or as pawns to achieve the utopian fantasies of their own ideology. And because they think they are the "superior" ones who know what is best for all, if they happen to benefit financially, socially and culturally--all the better! They deserve it for their extraordinary compassion and good works.

People with this malignantly 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" 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.

At least the selfish narcissist is limited in the chaos and havoc he wreaks. But, the "really destructive maniacs of this world" are the ones who do it for your own good.

PSYCHOPATHY ON PARADE

Remember the "Axis of Evil"?

President Bush was mercilessly vilified for stating that Iraq, Iran and North Korea constituted a clear and imminent danger to the free world:

Axis of evil is a term initially used by the former United States President George W. Bush in his State of the Union Address on January 29, 2002, and often repeated throughout his presidency, describing governments that he accused of helping terrorism and seeking weapons of mass destruction. Bush labeled Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the axis of evil.

That was in 2002; and, at the time Bush acted to deal with what he believed was the most dangerous member of the Axis: Iraq.

Ten years later, President Obama (one of villifiers) is now facing threats from both North Korea and Iran.

The three countries of the Axis all shared two factors in common: (1) the essential psychopathy (i.e., malignant narcissism) of their leadership; and (2) a shame culture.

The Kims of North Korea (Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il and now Kim Jong Un) appear to have a heritable trait, (passed down from generation to generation) of malignant grandiosity/psychopathic behavior.

The darling young son of the darling son of NoKo's founder, Kim Il Sung, is now in charge of a country that gets it's way on the world stage by orchestrating temper tantrums and threats of annihilation towards the people it demands send them help for their starving people.

Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs, keep pushing the West to the brink with their delaying tactics and ongoing lies about their intents. They certainly must feel that Allah is with them in their deceit of the West, because they have had to deal with European and American Administrations who keep on believing the lies--just as they do for the North Korean dictators.

Promise them anything! It's good for a few billion in foreign aid and then you can do whatever you want anyway! What a deal!

What interests me most are the psychodynamics of these sorts of narcissistically grandiose leader; particularly when they operate within a "shame" culture. The dynamics of a Kim are not much different from those of a Saddam or a Ahmadinejad; and the manipulative and malignant--even catastrophic-- behaviors they engage in are reasonably predictable and consistent.

Even in the context of a treaty or signed agreement, there will be provocation and brinkmanship on the part of such leaders. They will "push the envelope" of bad behavior, always testing to see what they are able to get away with; secretly delighting in and reinforcing their sense of grandiosity whenever they succeed in putting something over on the rest of the world (particularly the U.S., of course; and to a lesser extent the more gullible international community.

So, what is the point of their trickery and subterfuge?

For at least part of that answer, we must go back to the essentials of a "shame" culture--the type of culture that not only dominates the world of the Middle East, but also is rampant in many Asian countries. I discuss "shame" versus "guilt" cultures here.

What ties the megalomaniacs of North Korea and Iran together is their obsessive shame-avoidant behavior, a cultural attribute which is the flip side of their individual malignant grandiosity.

Let me first address the narcissistic grandiosity that is characteristic of all dictators and tyrants, particularly the three mentioned above. Typical symptoms of grandiosity that can be observed in your typical autocratic ruler/megalomaniac like Kim, Ahmadinejad and the ex-leader of Iraq:
• Continual claims for attention and admiration
• Cold and uncaring behavior toward others
• Other people are seen only as an extension of the self to be manipulated and/or eliminated as needed; an inability to relate to people as people or separate from oneself
• Inflated/exaggerated sense of self-importance
• Hypochondria, or an obsession with individual body parts and illness

For this type of leader, the existence of individuals who are "not them" is simply of no real consequence. Other people exist only for the convenience of the tyrant and can be eliminated at will. Their psychopathy is always on parade and the masses are needed only to cheer them on--otherwise, they are disposable.

These kind of toxic personality characteristics certainly can occur in any type of society; but appear to be more easily cultivated in shame cultures, which by their very nature are usually collectivist-oriented. Thus, it is not unusual to find the toxic combination of individual narcissistic personality traits with those behavioral attributes encouraged within a shame culture; specifically, preserving honor and avoiding shame at all costs.

For both the grandiose and shame-avoidant person, reality itself must be distorted in order to protect the self from feeling low self-esteem or shame. Blaming other individuals or groups for one's own behavior becomes second nature, and this transfer of blame to someone else is an indicator to the observer that such individuals are experiencing internal shame.

In a typical shame culture, what other people believe has a far more powerful impact on one's behavior than even what the individual himself believes. These powerful, preening dictators, who hold complete power over people and who present themselves as little gods, are totally wrapped up in what other people think of them. Humiliation and shame are to be avoided at all costs; and this cultural imperative is only emphasized by the individual grandiosity of the near-omnipotent "great" or "dear" leaders.

From a psychological perspective, it is ridiculous to maintain that it is America's --or any other country's-- "fault" when such leaders behave badly or break their agreements. If they can get away with breaking agreements without consequences they will. Their distorted perspective arises from a perverted notion of what self-esteem is really all about.

The excessive self-esteem you see in a bully comes from a distortion of reality that person has with regard to their self. It was widely believed that low self-esteem could be a cause of violence, but in reality violent individuals, groups and nations think very well of themselves. Do you really suppose that people like Kim Jung Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad suffer from poor self-esteem? On the contrary. Exaggerated self-esteem is one of the hallmarks of a pathological narcissist or psychopath. Such individuals turn violent toward others who fail to give them the inflated respect they think they deserve.

Nor does high self-esteem deter people from becoming bullies, according to most of the studies that have been done; it is simply untrue that beneath the surface of every obnoxious bully is an unhappy, self-hating child in need of sympathy and praise. Rather, it is more consistent with exactly the opposite--a narcissistically inflated sense of self that much be preserved at all costs.

Let's remember that these tyrants are not psychiatric patients. They do not seek help; nor do they believe that anything is wrong with them. They believe they are entitled to unlimited praise and deference. They believe that their will and their desire is all that is important. Many people who enthusiastically surround such dictators and admire them are sycophantic and self-abasing appeasers (these people genuinely admire the power and ruthlessness of the omnipotent dictator and want some of that aura to rub off on them--see an example here).

One of the most important expressions of the shame culture, as well as shame-avoidant and grandiose persons in general, is the rampant psychological projection and refusal to accept responsibility for any inappropriate behavior--up to and including the most disgusting of atrocities. It is always someone else's fault. In this way the shame-avoidant person can successfully avoid the shame that is inevitable when a mature individual takes responsibility for their own malignant behavior.

When they do break the agreements or accords they engage in, the narcissist will blame the other party for their behavior. It will never be their fault or responsibiity. If they blame America as "causing" their duplicity, they will have a lot of anti-Americanism in the international community and the political left to support their description of events--this is called "enabling" behavior). All of this is just a part of the classic shame-avoidant dance that leads into the blurry realms of delusion these leaders and their supporters/enablers engage in.

Iran's leader clearly understands this dynamic, because he suffers from it himself. It is always someone else's fault that forces you to behave insanely when you are humiliated. There is no responsibility for one's own actions; or even for one's own thoughts or feelings.

Psychological health (which dictators, tyrants and thugs clearly lack, since their operating principle is to obtain power over others, rather than exert power over their own aggressive impulses) and healthy self-esteem depend on overcoming shame by progressing to a level of maturity that recognizes objective reality and truth; a level where taking responsibility for one's actions and accepting that the truth about one's self is not determined by other people's opinions. When that level of maturity is reached individually and culturally, both shame and guilt become important reality checks to an individual--or to a culture.

When a culture determines that the avoidance of shame is necessary no matter what the cost, the result is a culture of fanaticism, bizarre behavior in the name of "honor"; and simultaneously the cultural oppression, subjugation, and humiliation of women and others perceived as "weak" (and therefore "shameful"). It also inevitably results in the projection of one's own unacceptable behavior and shameful feelings onto another individual or an outside group. When a narcissistic and grandiose individual is steeped in such a culture, they easily become monsters and think of themselves as "gods" (or the special envoy of a god in the case of Ahmadinejad).

It should come as no surprise that North Korea has for decades, counted among it’s allies terrorists and rogue nations and regimes that openly call for the destruction of other nations and entire peoples.

Compromise and negotiation are not a valued part of any shame culture. There can be no compromise with their concept of "honor", for any compromise brings "shame". Thus, in order to maintain honor, lying and any other kind of deceit is completely acceptable--even encouraged. Multiply this times ten when dealing with the malignant narcissistic leader of the culture or nation.

This reality is hard to grasp for the western mind which places a higher value on truth and honesty. Thus, western diplomats seem incredibly naive and laughable to both Asian and Arab minds because they believe in the sanctity of agreement, treaties, and the like. The idea that deliberate deceit or lying as a political strategy is considered acceptable--even honorable --in some places of the world doesn't seem to occur to them.

North Korea and its infant leader is unlikely to live up to any diplomatic agreement no matter how earnestly negotiated by the Obama Administration. Nor will the leaders of Iran--and for the same reasons.

Eventually, these leaders will bring things to the brink, where they (and most narcissists and psychopaths) like to operate. And, they will be counting on the west and in particular, the U.S. to take the step back and give in when he does. Both countries have every historical reason to be encouraged that this will happen. Jimmy Carter did it; Madeleine Albright did it; Bill Clinton did it. Even Bush put off dealing with these regimes as he focused on Saddam Hussein.

Our current shame avoidant-leader is betting his Presidency that he can talk to these malignant leaders and show them the way to hope and change through the wonderfulness of Himself and his glorious recipe for whirled peas.

Too bad that Obama and his minions in the Democratic Party and the progressive left have been enabling their behavior for a number of years now.

I don't know about you, but I have a really bad feeling about what is coming down the road--and I'm an optimist.

ESSENTIAL SOCIOPATHY OF THE LEFT ON DISPLAY

All around us today we are witness to the essential sociopathy of the "compassionate" and "loving" left. In the matter of Trayvon Martin, we have seen our own clueless President increase the hatred and fan the flames of racial divisiveness. Of course, he has not a word to say about his Justice Department's darling Black Panthers placing a monetary bounty on one of the characters in the ongoing national psychodrama. You would think that would be illegal (or, at the worse, uncivil; but you would be wrong--this is Obama's America we are now talking about; and in it, his political opponents are the ones who are always to blame.)

Let's move on to a more subtle expression of the sociopathic narcissism; i.e., the veiled threats that are being uttered directed toward the SCOTUS, who in the last several days have been annoyingly uncooperative in following the accepted narrative of the postmodern political left on the issue of Obamacare. How dare they question it!!

In a post, "Nice Court You Have There; It Would Be A Shame If Something Happened To It"; Wretchard writes:

By saying Obamacare is so self-evidently wonderful and legitimate that only someone crazy would disagree with it, Blumenthal makes you wonder why this matter is even before the Court in the first place. For the answer to that question, see “begging the question”.

What is less clear is whether Blumenthal, in reminding the court that the Executive Branch had the monopoly on physical power, was not engaged in a kind of subtle menace. After all, the Court’s power is not based on “credibility”. It is based on power vested in it by the Constitution. What would the administration say if someone argued that the president’s authority was based on “credibility” rather than his legal power as chief executive?

The left will seek to de-legitimize the Supreme Court, possibly the same way that the President did in his 2010 SOTU speech when they had the audacity to disagree with his position. How dare they rule contrary to his position? Remember, as Obama has reminded us with regard to Obamacare--He cares doncha know? Any who oppose his benevolent policies for the good of all are uncaring, racist, sexist, wealthy jerks.

And that's the essence of the argument. The left cares deeply about these things. We Republican and conservative and Libertarian troglodytes are throwbacks in human evolution, too stupid to appreciate the scientific workings of the minds of Progressives like of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid--let alone Barack Obama! (the solution is to re-engineer humans to conform to the progressive dream!)

Isn't it interesting that the progressive postmodern left always seems to FEEL that their emotions are...scientific? That just because they FEEL something is good that it is "reality-based" and necesarily and undebatably true? Isn't it interesting that they always think they can re-engineer humans to adapt to their silly schemes--make them better somehow?

If that's not an affront to reality, then I don't know what would be. It is also the hallmark of people in a psychological fantasy bubble, sometimes called psychological denial.

I have written extensively on the pervasive psychological denial of the political left (see here, here , here, and here, for example).

It is important to point out that denial is an "equal opportunity" defense mechanism engaged in by all human beings--progressive or conservative; Democrat or Republican. It is an involuntary, built-in psychic response designed to protect an individual from precipitously having to face unwanted, unacceptable or threatening feelings, thoughts or behavior. The mind simply blocks out reality and truth--and sees what it wants to see; and feels what it wants to feel.

Psychological defenses can be a symptom of a much larger psychological problem; or they can be a temporary and even healthy adaptation to reality.

Feelings can be useful pieces of data with which to understand reality, but they are certainly not the best tool for that purpose; and a reliance on them to the exclusion of using reason and critical thought is a strategy that cannot succeed for long-term survival. When assessing how appropriate one's feelings are in a given situation, it is often necessary for the contents of the unconscious to be explored and brought to the conscious level and considered. Unconscious internal conflicts--such as the desire to always please or displease your parents; or the need to feel superior and more compassionate than others, for example-- can easily mask the inappropriate aspects of the feelings, making them worthless as a means of understanding the external world.

Taking this kind of action as a method of checking and understanding one's own feelings is a process called "insight" or "self-awareness". Some people do this quite naturally and honestly. Some learn in therapy or when they are in crisis. But if insight is absent then one's feelings have the potential to do great harm --both to one's self and to others.

Some unconscious factors, or psychological defenses, that can make one's feelings untrustworthy are: 1) the person you are responding to has become symbolic of someone else in your life (displacement, fantasy, or perhaps distortion); 2) focusing on one particular aspect of a person, you ignore other, more objective data that are available to you about the person (denial); 3) you place your own unacceptable feelings onto the other person--e.g., I'm not an angry person, -- he's an angry person! (projection or full-blown paranoia).

The truth is that there are countless ways that unconscious processes within ourselves can distort our responses to others and to reality itself.

Growing up and attaining maturity requires that we take a moment to consider such factors playing a role in our emotions before we act on those emotions. If we come to know ourselves and understand our own weaknesses, vulnerabilities, limitations and secrets; then our emotional responses to people or to the world can be very valuable tools to help interpret the world. But they are only tools, and if not used wisely, they can do more harm than good. Feelings cannot be used in a court of law--for good reason. And they are not ultimate truth in the court of reality, either.

All too often, mistakes are made; feelings can simply be wishes that have nothing whatsoever to do with the reality. If we are lucky, we discover this before too much damage is done.

The key to gaining control over behavior that is motivated by unconscious defenses is to make them conscious. This requires that a person be able to reflect on his or her behavior or feelings and on the contents of one's mind; and with honesty and forthrightness develop some insight into why one feels, thinks, or acts a certain way. This is particularly important if the way one is thinking, feeling or acting is causing serious problems to one's self or to others.

The inability to reflect on one's own behavior or the contents of one's mind and motivations is exactly why so many political debates boil down to acrimonious accusations.

YOU'RE PROJECTING! NO! YOU ARE. YOU'RE IN DENIAL. NO, YOU ARE!

How can you decide if someone is "projecting" versus accurately responding to and interpreting objective reality? How do you determine if someone is "in denial" or responding to reality?

In other words, how do you tell if the use of a defense is a SYMPTOM of some underlying psychological problem versus whether it is ADAPTIVE AND HEALTHY and indicative of an acceptance of truth or reality?

In order to be adaptive, a defense:

• should regulate, rather than remove affect – that is, instead of totally anesthetizing a person, the defense would just reduce the pain (and therefore make it easier to cope; rather than to avoid coping altogether)

• should channel feelings instead of blocking them (i.e., allow a healthy expression of those feelings in a way that can discharge them in socially acceptable ways rather than keep them hidden and motivating behavior)

• should be oriented to the long-term; and not simply the short-term

• should be oriented toward present and future pain relief; and not focused past distress

• should be as specific as possible (i.e., be as a key is to a lock; not as a sledgehammer applied to a door)

• the use of the defense should attract people and not repel them (Vaillant points out that the use of the mature defenses --i.e., humor, altruism, sublimation etc.-- is perceived by others as attractive and even virtuous; while the immature defenses are perceived as irritating, repellant, and even evil).

Having laid out the tools, the reader can decide for him or herself if the current responses of the political left--either to the Trayvon Martin case; or to the "unexpected" questions of the Supreme Court Justices on Obama's Health Care Initiative--are symptomatic of a larger issue; or are a healthy adatation to reality.

Now, what happens when psychological denial ceases to be unconscious and becomes deliberate, willful, and consciously evil behavior-- in spite of all the accumulated evidence of its malignant impact on real people in the real world?

At that point we can safely assume that we are no longer dealing with a purely defensive structure in the psyche; we are dealing with aggressive, unadulterated sociopathy.

Let me go back to the beginnings of Obamacare.

Jay Nordlinger at National Review described a perfect example of this kind of deliberate, malevolent sociopathy:

Several readers have asked me to respond to Diane Watson. I do so wearily. She is the Democratic congresswoman from L.A. who said last week that President Obama’s health-care critics were racist — and who heaped praise upon a) Fidel Castro, b) Che Guevara, and c) Cuban health care. She said,

You need to go down there and see what Fidel Castro put in place. And I want you to know, now, you can think whatever you want to about Fidel Castro, but he was one of the brightest leaders I have ever met. And you know the Cuban revolution that kicked out the wealthy — Che Guevara did that. And after they took over, they went out among the population to find someone who could lead this new nation, and they found . . . an attorney by the name of Fidel Castro.

It was clear, from her tone, that she regards Castro as a kind of Christ figure. (To listen to the congresswoman, go here.)

I’m afraid I can’t say anything more about these subjects than I have already said. Let me offer a piece from 2000: “In Castro’s Corner: A story of black and red.” And a piece from 2007: “The Myth of Cuban Health Care: Michael Moore gives it a powerful boost.” And, in this FAQ column, you will find suggestions about what to read concerning Che Guevara.I’m afraid that mythologizing about Guevara, Castro, and the Communist dictatorship will never end. Indeed, it will get worse after the Castros and Cuban Communism pass. I used to think — I’ve had arguments with Armando Valladares about this (he is the heroic Cuban dissident who wrote Against All Hope) — I used to think that Castro-lovers in the United States were merely ignorant: They knew not what they said or did. How could all these “liberal Democrats” support a police state? A totalitarian dictatorship?

But, some years ago, I stopped thinking that: I had to swallow that these people — certainly some dismaying percentage of them — actually like it: actually like the dictatorship and all the murderous oppression that goes with it. You can’t remain entirely ignorant or naïve after 50 years of this dictatorship. And that is a very, very bitter pill to swallow.
One more point: Many of the leaders of the Cuban democracy movement are black — “Afro-Cuban.” President Bush gave the Medal of Freedom to one of them (the political prisoner Oscar Biscet). Many of Castro’s most ardent supporters in the United States are black: Charlie Rangel, Maxine Waters, Randall Robinson, and so on. What must the black Cuban democrats think of these Castro champions?

Very, very little, I can tell you. (Emphasis mine)

The traditional medical definition of sociopathy is a personality disorder characterized by a lack of social responsibility and failure to adapt to ethical and social standards of the community.

If we think about that definition for a moment, we can perhaps begin to understand what is going on in our world today; and the reason that a huge number of people have embraced a fundamentally sociopathic--and "progressive" lifestyle, all the while convincing themselves that they are "compassionate", "post-racial" and just.

Under the pervasive influence of postmodern philosophy and rhetoric, the ethical and social standards of the community have, unfortunately, been slowly evolving and eroding.

In western culture, ethical and moral standards used to be anchored to the real world (i.e., to reality); but in the postmodern wilderness in which the political left and most of its most visible spokespeople--i.e., leaders in the Democratic Party-- wander aimlessly, ethics and morality are relative and "anchored" to feelings and whim; which inevitably unleashes the baser and more vile aspects of human nature.

The 20th century became the playground (and litter box) for the narcissist; and by the time the 21st century rolled around, malignant narcissism was not even considered deviant, it had gone mainstream. Since psychopathology continually evolves and worsens if it is not confronted and dealt with, what we have now in our culture, particularly the political system, is the endstage of psychological evolution under postmodernism: the sociopath who disguises his or her sociopathy by selflessness (now marketed as "hope and change").

These selfless sociopaths are people who basically could not care less about an individual human being.

They think in terms of movements and achieving some grand scheme of "social justice"--which is far from real justice and the search for truth.

Individual human beings are expendable; it is the collective or State that matters; and, as long as they stand in the way of the implementation of the sociopath's great ideas and compassionate execution of those ideas they can be ignored, marginalized and even killed. To this type of mind, individuals are merely the fodder used to build "great" societies from the all the utopian fantasies and collectivist wet-dreams.

It used to be that with the rise of civilization, political sociopaths--selfless and selfless-- were (thankfully) few and far between. Even so, when they appeared in history, they wreaked havoc and destroyed lives with great abandon for "the greater good". Needless to say, a central aspect of the 'greater good' was always the advancement of their own glorious self and their ideas.

We can thank primarily the postmodern political left and its useful idiots for the persistent, unyielding, and willful celebration of--and ultimately mainstreaming of--malignant narcissism. We have entered the age of postmodern sociopathy and nihilism.

What does it matter if the lives and freedoms of so many individuals are sacrificed to the murderous oppressors of the world; or, for that matter, even the compassionate oppressors of the Democratic Party--who, after all, want only the best for you of?

If you "kick out the wealthy" then you have the wonderful socialist paradise of Cuba or the currently evolving one of California; or the magnificent utopia of North Korea with all their misery, poverty, oppression and progressive enlightenment!

Under the uber-enlightened and progressive reality-based left, wealth will be redistributed and the human mind enslaved--but so what? As the eminent leftist and quintessential nihilist Joseph Stalin once remarked, "Death solves all problems - no man, no problem."

In the long run we are all dead anyway, right?

THE LIBERAL SOLUTION: FOSTERING DEPENDENCE

The hysteria on the left regarding Newt Gingrich's calling President Obama the "Food Stamps President" and asserting that more people are no on food stamps than at any other time in history, is fascinating.

Tom Blumer says that Gingrich was factually correct, both narrowly and broadly, then goes on to document why. Blumer cites Gingrich's response to the Food Stamp question and the resulting charge of "racism" leveled at him:

When conservatives care about the poor and conservatives offer ideas to help the poor, and conservatives suggest that the poor would rather have a paycheck than a food stamp, the very liberals who have failed them at places like the New York Times promptly scream “racism,” because they have no defense for the failure of liberal institutions which have trapped poor children in bad schools, trapped them in bad neighborhoods, trapped them in crime-ridden situations. Liberal solutions have failed, and their only answer is to cry “racism” and hide.

It used to be that "welfare" was thought of in this country as a compassionate and temporary means of supporting those in poverty, with the overall goal of helping them in various ways to get out of poverty and providing for themselves as quickly as possible. Gingrich's stark contrast between the "Paycheck vs Food Stamp" attitude reflects this attitude; and it also reflects the deeply held belief that welfare, particularly in the long run, has detrimental psychological effects on the recipients and can make them permanantly disabled.

Indeed, the primary psychological consequences of such long-term charity, especially for those who are aware on some level that they are not disabled, is the slow, steady erosion of genuine self-esteem and feelings of self-worth.

In typically pervere manner, the "progressive" political left has developed a strategy to cover that problem as they forge full steam ahead in creating a permanent class of people dependent on the State. In the same way that they have distorted "self esteem" in childhood development and hyped it to the point that it fosters and enables an unhealthy narcissism, they have managed to foster a narcissistic sense of entitlement in welfare recipients, by eliminating any sense that handouts are a negative thing; and neglecting to mention that they foster dependence, passivity and continued poverty.

No, everyone is ENTITLED to handouts. Poverty is just something bad that happens to them and not ever the result of bad choices on the recipient's part; but rather the result of greedy rich people taking away their share of the American pie--nothing more. And the solution is always--not private charity (how demeaning!), but state-sponsored redistribution of wealth.

Strange as it seems today, people used to object to being the objects of handouts and charity , and the concomitant pity and condescension that it implied; except perhaps in dire circumstances. They looked to their own extended families and friends; or their church for help.

You might put aside your sense of pride and accept it for a while but, again, the goal was to "get back on your feet" as soon as possible.

Not any longer!

In an article in the NY Times from exactly 1 year ago, we are informed that, "Once Stigmatized, Food Stamps Find Acceptance":

A decade ago, New York City officials were so reluctant to give out food stamps, they made people register one day and return the next just to get an application. The welfare commissioner said the program caused dependency and the poor were “better off” without it.

With millions of jobs lost and major industries on the ropes, America’s array of government aid — including unemployment insurance, food stamps and cash welfare — is being tested as never before. This series examines how the safety net is holding up under the worst economic crisis in decades.

Now the city urges the needy to seek aid (in languages from Albanian to Yiddish). Neighborhood groups recruit clients at churches and grocery stores, with materials that all but proclaim a civic duty to apply — to “help New York farmers, grocers, and businesses.” There is even a program on Rikers Island to enroll inmates leaving the jail.

“Applying for food stamps is easier than ever,” city posters say.

The same is true nationwide. After a U-turn in the politics of poverty, food stamps, a program once scorned as “welfare,” enjoys broad new support. Following deep cuts in the 1990s, Congress reversed course to expand eligibility, cut red tape and burnish the program’s image, with a special effort to enroll the working poor. These changes, combined with soaring unemployment, have pushed enrollment to record highs, with one in eight Americans now getting aid.

Commenting on the article, The Weekly Standard noted at the time:

As with any social program, there are many people on it who are indeed needy, but the article makes clear that the revival of food stamp popularity has more to do with state and local officials who are glad to curry favor with local constituents using federal dollars.

Since they're not paying for it, local officials and a network of aid organizations happily aid the federal government in recruiting more food-stamp recipients, regardless of how much they actually need the assistance. Meet Juan Diego Castro, who demonstrates how the system works:

Juan Diego Castro, 24, is a college graduate and Americorps volunteer whose immigrant parents warned him “not to be a burden on this country.” He has a monthly stipend of about $2,500 and initially thought food stamps should go to needier people, like the tenants he organizes. “My concern was if I’m taking food stamps and I have a job, is it morally correct?” he said.

But federal law eases eligibility for Americorps members, and a food bank worker urged him and fellow volunteers to apply, arguing that there was enough aid to go around and that use would demonstrate continuing need. “That meeting definitely turned us around,” Mr. Castro said.

Of course it is morally correct, Juan! Especially in this day and age. Dependence is GOOD! Accepting a handout shouldn't make you even in the slightest bit anxious or impact your fragile self-esteem at all! You are entitled to other people's money, even if you are able to support yourself now!

The Food Stamp program (or SNAP, or whatever it is called now) is not the only program that started out with a good premise intended to help people or make life a little easier. But somehow with programs like this it always ends up fostering dependence and making eventual independence a mere pipe dream.

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that it is wrong in any way to help people in need. I am not saying that people who need help are bad. I am suggesting that the specific approach that has been favored by the political progressive left and the Democrats has serious, psychologically damaging consequences that lead to never-ending dependence, passivity, and continued poverty.

And that approach is to let the government do it, i.e., to use other people's money to redistribute wealth in the manner the progressives want. Donating to private charities is clearly UNprogressive. Witness their personal stinginess in this area: Romney gives 15% of his large income to charity, while Obama gives 1%. But Obama and those of his political persuasion believe they are better people because they want to give YOUR money away to help people. Romney to them (and to some deluded people on the right) is just another evil, money-grubbing capitalist.

Paychecks or Food Stamps? The Free Market or Crony Socialized Capitalism? Private charity or Government Redistribution of Wealth? Independence or Dependence? Obama-style hopeychangey or Real Hope and Real Change?

Two visions of where America should be heading couldn't be more sharply defined than these choices.



[Cartoons by Chip Bok here]

EVERY FOUR YEARS, AMERICA HAS A MAJOR EXERCISE IN POLITICAL NARCISSISM

It's called the Presidential Campaign, and it starts earlier and earlier with every iteration. And, of course, in between the campaigns for both parties is the usual, everyday political narcissism we see emanating from Washington DC like some bad odor hovering over the country.

What do I mean by an exercise in political narcissism?

Far too often, narcissistically flawed individuals are hopelessly attracted by the grandiose opportunities of the political arena (as well as the Hollywood arena) like moths to a flame. Their sense of self is starkly invested in the desire for power over others (always, of course, "for their own good") , constant admiration and adulation and grandiose ambitions. This makes them remarkably adept at what is called the "politics of personal destruction".

For the narcissist it is always a zero-sum game he or she plays with other individuals. From the perspective of the narcissist, if someone else "wins", the narcissist "loses". It cannot be otherwise, since on some level they know that their own talent and skills are way overblown. Hence, they cannot hope to "win" based on those talents alone. Thus, the behavior of the classic narcissist is mostly directed toward making others lose so they can win by default. To that end, there is no behavior or tactic that is considered out -of-bounds or over-the-top.

This leads us to the current state of political discourse in this country and the ubiquitous personal attacks that have become the trademark of all political campaigns in both the Republican and Democrat parties.

If you want to understand why political campaigns have become so virulent and personally vicious you need not look any farther that this sad truth. While politics still occasionally brings out those who have strong personal integrity and values; often it is the people of no demonstrable integrity and elastic values who are obsessively attracted to the field and who triumph--and that is true on both sides of the political spectrum.

By that, I mean that those who would actually make the best leaders generally opt out of the process, because they tend to be too healthy to generate the continual all-consuming rage necessary to destroy all opponents; or they lack the required-- and mostly distorted --sense of personal "perfection" and grandiosity that drives the power-hungry.

Clearly, there can be other conflicts that motivate people in politics other than a broken sense of self. This is not an indictment of all politicians; but it does apply to many. Healthy self-respect and self-worth, i.e., healthy narcissism is essential for functioning in any profession; or, for that matter, for simply functioning effectively.

There are few politicians who are deficient in grandiosity and self-serving behavior. It becomes an issue of character when their identity gets re-invented regularly to please people. A healthy individual would not want to be POTUS if in doing so he would regularly have to violate his own sense of personal honor and integrity.

Such a committment to values and ideals is based on narcissism too, but it is the healthy kind of narcissism; the kind that generates values and ideals to begin with (for a discussion of this see here).

For a typical pathological narcisssist, the only value and the only ideal is himself.

I am frequently reminded that it is hopelessly naive these days to expect the electorate to vote for a person based on what that person actually stands for; instead, these days most people respond to the negative campaign ads that slice and dice the other guy; and are mainly influenced by botoxed faces and Hollywood-packaged good-looks rather than the content of any candidate's character. The less they know of that character, the better!

Unless you can dig up some dirt; then it becomes like a reality TV show and everyone is entranced.

As far as good looks, do you imagine that a Golda Meir or a Margaret Thatcher would have a chance to become the first woman president of the US. Not these days, for sure where there is favored a certain overly-thin, botoxed, plastic look--not only for the women, but for the men.

Real personal integrity and character comes from having a consistent set of values and exhibiting behavior driven by those values. Today's classic narcissistically-driven politicians can only flutter in the political winds, and, Zelig-like, easily adopt whatever characteristics their adoring public care to project onto them.

It is easy to be tough and ruthless with political adversaries in the US political battlefield. The kind of threat political adversaries pose is hardly life-threatening (though in other, less civilized nations it may well be). Political bullies in both parties feel perfectly safe in viciously attacking and denigrating those who oppose them. And, when it happens occasionally that a political adversary unexpectedly shoots back and won't go away, the bully easily falls back on the "victim" role and whines about "vast right or left-wing conspiracies" or sheds a few tears on cue; or belligerantly attacks anyone within reach.

This is not the kind of person who can face real threats in the real world very effectively because this is not the kind of person who can effectively deal with threats they do not perceive as personal--why should they care much about any other kind, unless the latest polls indicate they should?.

The best leaders are not obsessed with themselves; or with polls; or with accumulating power by pandering to all sides.

Those leaders may, in truth, have many other personal flaws--but not particularly of the dangerously narcissistic variety. Whatever those flaws (and we all possess them), they are characterologically able to be more concerned about dealing with external reality; rather than in preserving a distorted and fragile internal one. Avenging petty slights and insults is not a high priority to a psychologically healthy person. Those healthy individuals are far more likely to direct their psychological energy toward dealing with real-world geopolitical threats that endanger both their country and the people they have the responsibility to protect; rather than using that country or the power of their office to counter threats to their endangered self and act on their grandiose fantasies about themselves.

The latter is the same psychological pathology that is rampant among dictators and dictator wannabes of all stripes. Their concern about others in their group/nation is purely of the “l’état c’est moi” variety.

That the needs of the nation, or the people they serve, might be different from their own; or that doing the right thing is often different from doing the popular thing, are foreign and dangerous concepts to the political narcissist.

The only reality they know--or care about--is the one inside themselves.

Having said all this, the voters of this country should also do a little introspection, because frequently these voters of all political persuasions, enable and encourage the narcissism of their leaders.

The sad truth is that negative campaigning works.

It appeals to the average voter who does not bother to look past the headlines or news bites to seek truth about a given situation. Oftimes, there is no "truth" to be discovered; or that can be discovered; and one must make voting decisions based on little things like character, integrity, past behavior, and mitigating factors.

It's not easy when accusations against character and integrity are hurled around unthinkingly and without consideration for facts.

And then, there is always the reality that candidates for public office, even that of the Office of the POTUS, cannot be held to an impossibly high standard of behavior, i.e., they cannot be expected to be "perfect" in every way.

If such a candidate were ever found by either political party, then I would be the first to do everything I could to ensure theat he would not get elected. Such candidates are either lying or hiding something about themselves, since such perfection is not generally a characteristic of the human species.

"Let him who is without sin, cast the first stone" seems like a good idea for these political campaigns, along with the vignette: "There is no one who has not sinned."

So, what is a voter to do?

First, we have to stop rewarding excessive political narcissism. No one is a God; no one is The One; no one is The Messiah who will lead us out of the Wilderness. While it is tempting to want to place all our faith and hope into one vessel, it is an abdication of personal responsibility and a flight into dependency and the desire for someone to take care of us.

Been there, done that as a nation--fairly recently, in fact.

It is also fairly natural, i.e. human, thing that we should flock to someone who promises to give us lots of free stuff. Children especially are attracted to such individuals. But,when you are grown up you usually have realized that getting "something or nothing" is a con, and that anyone proposing such a thing is nothing more than a con artist.

A real leader will not make unrealistic promises; his personal integrity and honesty would compel him to do what he thinks is the right thing, even if it is unpopular and difficult to do; and he would be able to state his reasons for doing what he did; and be able to persuade you that it was indeed the right thing to do--or be willing to live with the consequences afterwards if he doesn't. A real leader has nothing to hide and is honest about his mistakes.

This does not mean that a real leader is unable to compromise when the situation calls for it; but an honest man or woman who is not narcissistically preoccupied with pleasing or manipulating everyone does not compromise with fundamental values and understands when those values are at stake and when they are not.

That's why it is so important to understand a politician's basic character, because character underlies values.

Isn't it time America had a real national debate about what constitutes character in a politician?

I am not particularly satisfied with the Democratic Party answer to this quesion, because they are more concerned with demonizing anyone they label as "hypocrite" (i.e., anyone who espouses some high ieal what they consider the Good, but who personally fails to live up to it and lies to themselves about their own failures). The Democrats seem to believe that you just make every "sin" a political virtue; or accept that "anything goes" in the personal integrity sphere as long as the person is ideologically pure. They justify the way they treat corrupt or immoral Democrats is justified because Republicans are "hypocritical".

The Republicans aren't that much better, constantly espousing personal virtue and even legislating it onto others (something that the Democrats do as a matter of principle, for "our own good"). While Republicans are often intolerant of human frailty, at least they don't actively promote it like their political adversaries, whose relativistic morality makes excuses for everyone's behavior, except when it suits them politically to use such information to demonize their opponents.

Nevertheless, "demonizing one's opponents" is what it's all about these days. Candidates who refrain from doing it are punished at the polls. Candidates who try to speak about the issues have trouble gaining traction unless they too join in the demonization, even when it is against potential allies and not opponents.

So, now we come to the Republican Presidential Primary. How is one to choose?

Character does matter and so do Ideas. So does behavior and performance in both the personal and public spheres.

Each of us much decide for ourselves which candidate's character and ideas; behavior in the past and present, are most appealing to us and will work for our nation. Each of us much decide, based on past performance, past displays of character, what each candidate's future performance and character is likely to be.

As we say in psychiatry: The best predictor of FUTURE behavior is PAST behavior. Other factors may be involved, of course; and obviously, people can change for the good and give up their bad behaviors.

That doesn't necessarily mean that they are entitled to our vote. I believe in redemption for even the devil himself--but I wouldn't vote for him for President.

For example, most people will take into consideration the fact that Gingrich's past behavior in his personal and public life indicates that he had some serious character flaws which led to erratic performance and (to be blunt) narcissistic gratification chosen over responsibilities and committments. People can make mistakes and be genuinely sorry and changed for the better. The behavior I refer to happened quit a number of years ago in the past (I believe). I do not denounce Gingrich: he is only human. The question is, has he changed as he claims? Has his character improved? How will he function under stress? Will he continue to seek narcissistic gratification over his responsibilities and committments--to his family, his party and his nation? I do like his ideas; and I will be watching closely how he behaves during this primary season. In the end, he may be the best possible candidate to support--but I have not made up my mind based on the information provided and the behavior observed recently.

As for Romney, he has also some things in his past that indicate a flawed and weak character. He is definitely a good-intentioned person, but his political ambitions have lead him to support and believe in things all over the political map, left and right and East and West--a serious charge when considering character and values. I do not denounce him either for his time at Bain and I find it rather reprehensible that any conservative would, assuming such a conservative believes in the free market at all.

Santorum for me is pretty much WYSIWYG. He is politically consistent and his character seems steady. He says what he thinks wheter or not it is popular; and there is a lot to admire in that, even if you don't agree with him on some issues. He may be too much like the kind of Republican who wants to legislate morality for others, and I, for one, don't care for that. But he has some interesting ideas and he argues that he would leave most of the morality issues to the state and local levels. He will be demonized forcefully by Democrats and the Obama Administration because they disagree on policy as well as ideology. They will attempt to make it a character issue.

Paul has much to recommend him from an economic and idea perspective. But he too was so narcissistically engaged in the pursuit of his own personal glory, that he allowed some very nasty stuff to be published in his name in the past. I think he is unable to see the Big Picture in the foreign policy area, but some of his ideas there bear open discussion and debate and I am glad he is in the race to bring them up.

The only other candidate right now is Obama. I do not hesitate to say that most of his adult life has been an exercise in political narcissism and the accumulation of personal power. If Democrats and Independents who voted for him (and not a few Republicans, I would venture) are now disappointed, then they should read this post again to understand the psychological dynamics (their own as well as Obama's). Obama's ideas are old and stale. They have been tried all over the world with dismal and horrific results. All we have to do is to look at what is happening in Europe to see where it will all lead. But Obama has used these ideas to advance himself over the years

As far as Obama's character: He also has lots of skeletons in the closet for which he has received a pass from his Party; the media; and most of the voters. I suspect that if as much information about his past was known as is known about all the other candidates, there would be hell to pay.

But he came out of nowhere, a tabula rasa who was felt to be The One, The Messiah. He received a Nobel Prize for Peace for doing nothing to speak of; and several years later has brought America to the brink of economic and political disaster. His associations with people like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers are despicable, as is his ability to rapidly terminate any relationship which might do him political harm. I see him as a rather weak character overall; which strong narcissistic traits, whose ideas I totally deplore.

When it comes down to a choice, I prefer almost anyone on the Republican side and at least several on the Democratic side of the aisle.

It's going to be a long and painful year in many ways.

THE WINGS OF ENVY AND RESENTMENT

This piece by Thomas Sowell is very thought provoking. In it, he describes "the way history went down" so that the Western Europeans happened to develop a literate language (i.e., a written language) a few hundred years before the Eastern Europeans. This he explains is mostly due to the fact that the West of Europe happened to be conquered by the Romans. The later disparieties in development between the Eastern and Western European peoples can be traced back to this quirk of history:

Literate people obviously have many advantages over people who are illiterate. Even after Eastern European languages became literate, it was a long time before they had such accumulations of valuable written knowledge as Western European languages had, due to Western European languages’ centuries earlier head start.

Even the educated elites of Eastern Europe were often educated in Western European languages. None of this was due to the faults of one or the merits of the other. It is just the way that history went down.

But such mundane explanations of gross disparities are seldom emotionally satisfying — least of all to those on the short end of these disparities. With the rise over time of an indigenous intelligentsia in Eastern Europe and the growing influence of mass politics, more emotionally satisfying explanations emerged, such as oppression, exploitation, and the like.

He goes on to draw a parallel between the economic disparities between Eastern and Western Europe and the situation in America today:

Today, in America, many denounce the black-white gap in economic and other achievements, which they attribute to the same kinds of causes as those to which the lags of Eastern Europeans have been attributed. Moreover, the persistence of these gaps, years after the civil-rights laws were expected to close them, is regarded as something strange and even sinister.

Yet the economic disparities between Eastern Europeans and Western Europeans remain to this day greater than the economic disparities between blacks and whites in America — and the gap in Europe has lasted for centuries.

Focusing attention and attacks on people who have greater wealth-generating capacity — whether races, classes, or whatever — has had counterproductive consequences, including tragedies written in the blood of millions. Whole totalitarian governments have risen to dictatorial power on the wings of envy and resentment ideologies.

Intellectuals have all too often promoted these envy and resentment ideologies. There are both psychic and material rewards for the intelligentsia in doing so, even when the supposed beneficiaries of these ideologies end up worse off. When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear.

I have quoted extensively from Sowell's argument because it is a very crucial point he is making.

One of the "Seven Deadly Sins of Narcissism" is ENVY; and one of the key points about envy is that it is never directed at that which is bad; rather, it is a hateful attack on that which is good.

People who specialize in ENVY don't really want the good things the other person has; they want to insure that the other person doesn't have them or get to keep them.

Or, if they do want those things, it is a desire that comes in a distant second to their desire to destroy the good that others

ENVY is, without doubt, the underlying emotion behind the Marxist trope, "from each according to his ability; to each according to his need". The "enlightened" and morally bankrupt left has always believed that economic self-interest means simply voting yourself a share of the money earned by others. They wouldn't know how to create wealth if their lives depended on it; that's why they seek power over others--they see it as the only way they can survive in the real world; but since they cannot admit that to themselves, they will seize other people's wealth with one hand, while signing the political bills that make it impossible to create the wealth on which they themselves depend.

The truth is that they deeply hate those who create the wealth they want to steal, and seek to destroy them--even though at some level, they understand they cannot survive without them.

They count on the fact that this reality never spoken of in polite society.

The envy of the postmodern progressive left is palpable. It is malignant and it consumes them. But they don't care. They have convinced themselves that they stand for things like "peace" and "freedom" and "truth"--but they have really chosen to ally themselves to the side of darkness and despair, slavery and oppression, lies and distortions; and they can no longer even appreciate when a truly magnificent achievement takes place before their very eyes unless they can claim credit for it.

RESENTMENT is closely allied with ENVY. Professor Sowell has written about the politics of resentment, too, and the creation, back in the 1960s, of a whole government-supported industry of race hustling:

Pres. Lyndon Johnson’s “war on poverty” — a war that we have lost, by the way — bankrolled all kinds of local “leaders” and organizations with the taxpayers’ money, in the name of community “participation” in shaping the policies of government.

These “leaders” and community activists have had every reason to hype racial resentments and to make issues “us” against “them.”

One of the largely untold stories of our time has been the story of how ACORN, Jesse Jackson, and other community activists have been able to transfer billions of dollars from banks to their own organizations’ causes, with the aid of the federal government, exemplified by the Community Reinvestment Act and its sequels.

Racial anger and racial resentments are the fuel that keeps this lucrative racket going.

The modern Democratic party is almost entirely based on hyping both envy and resentment, and appealing to the worse of human nature. By doing so, they have created destructive and wealth-destroying armys of entitlement whose goal, whether they admit it or not, is to destroy wealth and the source of wealth.

Without envy, there would be no Democratic Party today.

And when Sowell says that, "Whole totalitarian governments have risen to dictatorial power on the wings of envy and resentment ideologies", it is clear to even the least observant that this is the destructive path which is being foisted on this country by the mostly clueless minions of the political left.

I have to ask again with some exasperation, why aren't Republicans making a case for the essential morality of capitalism? An entire cultural war is being fought against capitalism, and instead of making the case for why economic freedom and the free market is the best possible means to economic betterment for ALL PEOPLE, regardless of whether they are rich or poor; black or white; gay or straight; male or female or along any other divide the progressives can think of.

Instead, Republicans are busy legitimizing the narrative of the Democrats and their progressive left leaders. This is sheer stupidity and represents (sadly) how ubiquitous such narratives (such as "the 1% vs the 99%") have become.

Only in a free economic system within a free political system is it even possible to be moral, since benevolence toward others, compassion, charity, and generosity cannot exist without freedom. Benevolence, generosity, charity, and compassion that are mandated by the state, or by a religion (on pain of death or other consequence); or by any regulations on behavior; or by force--are meaningless insofar as individual morality is concerned.

So yes, we must make the moral case for capitalism. We must continually put forth these ideas in debate and argument because they are good ideas and shining through them is the essential morality of America and Americans.

ENVY and RESENTMENT are the bane (or should I say "Bain"?) of civilized society. In fact, these negative human emotions are essentially de-civilizing for those individuals who freociously cling to them and to their own sense of entitled victimhood.

Societies that are based on the emotions of envy and resentment are doomed to descend into "tragedies written in the blood of millions", as each individual and special interest group fights all the others for their "share" of an ever shrinking amount of wealth. Eventually, they run out of other people's wealth to steal .

For proof of this, all you have to do is look at human history.