THE CANCER THAT IS IRAN

According to Ian Bremmer, The mullahs are in no mood to compromise with the West:

As Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad waved goodbye earlier this month to the 15 British sailors and marines his government held prisoner for almost two weeks, many around the world breathed a sigh of relief. Any easing of international tensions over Iran is welcome....

Tehran released the British troops because it had achieved its political goals, not as a concession to international pressure. Iran's main foreign-policy motivation in seizing the sailors was to express defiance in the face of the latest Security Council resolution over its uranium enrichment program. When Tehran was offered a face-saving opportunity to suggest the British were arrested following an honest misunderstanding, it refused. The Iranians further upped the ante by broadcasting coerced "confessions" from their captives that Britain had been entirely at fault.

Clearly, Tehran is in no mood for compromise. Until the international community agrees on sanctions on the country's energy exports -- which isn't going to happen -- Iran will run more diplomatic stop signs and continue its nuclear development at top speed.

Indeed, why should they compromise? They can achieve their political ends with nary a consequence; build up their "honor" in the Middle Eastern world and expose the West to shame and humiliation--all without anyone standing up to them in any meaningful way.

We are not dealing here with a culture that appreciates honesty; or give and take; or even compromise. We are dealing with a malignant culture , steeped in sociopathy and shame-avoidant to the point of paranoia.

One of the ways that those who fear shame to this extent protect their fragile self concept is to subjugate those who are perceived as weaker. By doing so, they can rationalize that they are superior to those who they force to submit. In fact, this is the only way that "honor"can be maximized. Giving into them in any way; appeasing or compromising; even negotiating in good faith is perceived as weakness and leads to escalating bullying and aggression, because the are convinced they are our superiors--not our equals.

In a brilliant post today in which the creation of Israel and its impact on Muslim society is discussed, SC&A note:

The notion of equality between Muslims and non Muslims, to this day, remains incomprehensible in the Arab world.

This is no small matter. Irrespective of a non Muslim’s achievement, status, education, political or even social standing, every Muslim was superior to the non Muslim. Every Muslim could abuse any non Muslim as he saw fit, and for the most part escaped serious consequence. Leaders of failed Muslim nations and failed, backward societies needed to have their populations feel superior to something or some group, anywhere. It was always in their best interests to cultivate the weeds they would refer to as a garden.

We are trying to deal with leaders who have deliberately led their countries down a suicidal path; encouraging unparalled displays of paranoia, rage, envy and brutality. These are leaders who appeal to the worse aspects of human nature; who prefer their populations to be mindless and follow "the will of Allah"--and they will happily spell out for them exactly what that will is.

Gagdad Bob at One Cosmos once said, "Try telling your immune system to be reasonable, to sit down and talk it out with the viruses that want to invade you. Tell your white blood cells to hold conferences to try to understand the root causes of bacterial motivations."

Or how about negotiating and trying to compromise with cancer as it spreads through your body destroying every organ? Do you think you can reason with it? Do you imagine that, if you appease it by promising not to excise it or irradiate it, it will cease its quest to make you submit to its nature? Clearly, it's motivation is beside the point.

The Arab language, BTW, has no word for "compromise" as we understand it in the West (the closest concept is "bargaining". I don't know about Farsi). In Arab and most Middle Eastern cultural exchanges, there must always be a winner and a loser. Losing is considered shameful, and compromise, which the West is so fond of, is considered a form of capitulation; a surrender of objectives, principles, or matter, in the process of negotiating an agreement. When it comes to a matter of honor (or simply to avoid shame) the Iranians will lie, misrepresent, double-deal and do anything necessary.

And, for them, everything is a matter of honor. They must always perceive themselves as dominant and superior to the infidel, or it would be an unparalleled catastrophe-- both individually and societally. The humiliation involved would require some fundamental changes in the culture; and since that cannot be permitted to happen, no extremity of self-delusion is too much to prevent reality from ever penetrating their consciousness. And in that sense, the people that we are dealing with are not very different from the unicellular bacteria or mutant cells that spread malignancy.

That is why it is silly to say that Tehran is in no mood to compromise...

Cancer never is.



(Cartoon by Eric Allie)

THE END OF THAT GAME / IS OPPRESSION AND SHAME

Christopher Hitchens has an absolutely riviting account of America's first war on terror--the one against the Barbary pirates. In "Jefferson versus the Muslim Pirates" from the most recent issue of City Journal we learn the following:

But one cannot get around what Jefferson heard when he went with John Adams to wait upon Tripoli’s ambassador to London in March 1785. When they inquired by what right the Barbary states preyed upon American shipping, enslaving both crews and passengers, America’s two foremost envoys were informed that “it was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.” (It is worth noting that the United States played no part in the Crusades, or in the Catholic reconquista of Andalusia.)

Ambassador Abd Al-Rahman did not fail to mention the size of his own commission, if America chose to pay the protection money demanded as an alternative to piracy. So here was an early instance of the “heads I win, tails you lose” dilemma, in which the United States is faced with corrupt regimes, on the one hand, and Islamic militants, on the other—or indeed a collusion between them.

Hitchen's concludes that Jefferson probably made the decision to go to war at that moment, should he ever be President; and then shows how the debate about the piracy may have had considerable influence on the fledgling US democracy--particularly in the development of the US Constitution.

While some of the motivation behind the war with the Muslim pirates had to do with trade issues (they were attacking merchant ships); it is clear that something deep in the emerging American soul was repulsed by the Barbary pirates whose "cruelty, exorbitance, and intransigence" was something that no civilized nation could abide.

And, other issues besides trade were also paramount in those times:

Questions of nation-building, of regime change, of “mission creep,” of congressional versus presidential authority to make war, of negotiation versus confrontation, of “entangling alliances,” and of the “clash of civilizations”—all arose in the first overseas war that the United States ever fought. The “nation-building” that occurred, however, took place not overseas but in the 13 colonies, welded by warfare into something more like a republic

.

Sound familiar?

Hitchens notes, "It’s no exaggeration to describe the psychological fallout of this first war as formative of the still-inchoate American character."

When in 1815 the pirate base in Algiers was soundly defeated by the American Navy and sued for peace, then President James Madison said:

“It is a settled policy of America, that as peace is better than war, war is better than tribute. The United States, while they wish for war with no nation, will buy peace with none.”

Hitchens concludes appropriately with Kipling's poem Dane-Geld:
It is wrong to put temptation in the pathof any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say:—

“We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!”

Go read it all for a fascinating look at America's first encounter with Islam.

RE-DEFINING VICTORY

Or, should that be Reid-ifining victory? And, Reid's remarks are definitely far and away more disgraceful than anything Trent Lott ever said--no matter what the gleeful band of idiots at Think Progress Defeat have to say about it.

CARNIVAL OF THE INSANITIES

Time for the weekly insanity update, where the insane, the bizarre, the ridiculous, and the completely absurd are highlighted for all to see! This has been a week of rare idiocy (as always!). So, if you want to remain sane, the best thing is to poke some fun at the more egregious absurdities.

And, while you are in the Mood for Madness, go directly to the Weekly Whackjob Awards!

Send all entries for next week's carnival to Dr. Sanity by 8 pm ET on Saturday for Sunday's Carnival. Only one post entry weekly per blogger, please. And you might read this before submitting an entry.

SO MANY INSANITIES AND SO LITTLE TIME!!!

1. ....and all he got was a lousy t-shirt!

2. The Democrats are undoubtedly drooling over this piece of insanity. See! Told ya. It's payback time, folks!

3. Dear God! Does the man have no decency whatsoever??? But I guess that even God flip-flops....he was for children before he was against them. But he's not the only comeback kid...does the phrase bad penny come to mind?

4. But the phrase bad hair day never does-- because they can relate to the 'little guy'? The "Perfect Democrat "-- at least from an alien perspective. The fisticuffs will continue unabated for at least two more years.

5. He's no "give 'em hell" Harry, but he has some very very devoted fans.... and, he's just showing his party's true colors. The ceremony commemorating this historic event will be soon, I'm sure.

6. Agitpropumentary? And we should listen to Mr. "fake but accurate" because....? What? The media did something incredibly stupid? I can hardly believe it.

7. And, speaking of "fake but accurate" journalism... pimping global warming AND terrifying the children.

8. Don't forget....Don Imus is the real problem. "Yo Fritz, deine Mutti ist doch eine skankische Ho!" Believe it or not, there are some Ho's we'll miss.

9. Waiting for the mapquest directions to utopia? Or how about for a sign of the Apocalypse?

10. I'm waiting for a college team to take them on as a mascot: The "Fighting Monks" has a certain ring to it, don't you think?

11. iRage. uRage; But they rage most insanely: first it was "abandoned meat", now it's "buses"; next it will be "abandoned buses" or some other psychotic nonsense.

12. You can't hide anything from anyone these days. And "keeping things confidential" makes it more public than you might think.

13. Cho's personal madness, generalized to an entire society. The true meaning of resistance...

14. There are the ordinary self-hating people of a certain ethnic group; people who hate their own country; and then again there are some who are even ashamed of their own species.

15. Another "surge"--wonder if Congress will try to stop that one, too.

16. A highly qualified individual, compelled to leave her job ...you'd think real feminists would be outraged at what happened to her....but don't count on it.

17. What the dickens is this all about? A tip that should be in everyone's anger management toolkit! Prospective grooms should seriously consider this advice.

18. Yet another American Senator wins a prestigious award!

19. Have you heard the one about the exploding toilet?

***************************************
Carnival of the Insanities can also be found at The Truth Laid Bear's ÜberCarnival and at the BlogCarnival.

If you would like to Join the insanity, and add the Carnival of the Insanities button to your sidebar (clicking on it will always take you to the latest update of the Carnival), click on "Word of Blog" below the button to obtain the html code:

Heard the Word of Blog?

YOU'VE GOT TO BE CAREFULLY TAUGHT - The Depravity Continues

As I discussed in a previous post this week, there are a variety of [psycho] paths that can be taken which lead to the same paranoid delusional destination. Once you have arrived at the final destination, then all that stands between you and evil and depravity is your character.

Apparently, the character of today's Islam is such that it encourages the creation and nourishment of monsters:

Pakistan - The boy with the knife looks barely 12. In a high-pitched voice, he denounces the bound, blindfolded man before him as an American spy. Then he hacks off the captive's head to cries of "God is great!" and hoists it in triumph by the hair.

A video circulating in Pakistan records the grisly death of Ghulam Nabi, a Pakistani militant accused of betraying a top Taliban official who was killed in a December airstrike in Afghanistan.

An Associated Press reporter confirmed Nabi's identity by visiting his family in Kili Faqiran, their remote village in southwestern Pakistan.

The video, which was obtained by AP Television News in the border city of Peshawar on Tuesday, appears authentic and is unprecedented in jihadist propaganda because of the youth of the executioner.

Unprecedented, perhaps; but not unexpected.

If you have the stomach for it, go and read this "beautiful story" told on Egyptian TV about the wonder of child martyrdom. It begins:

"Let's listen to a very beautiful story to learn about the courage of a child, and how, when a child is brought up in a good home, and receives proper education in faith, he loves martyrdom, which becomes like an instinct for him. He can never give it up."

Another religious leader on the same program, tells a tale about Mohammed and a Jew, then asks what the children have learned from it.

A young child replies, "I learned that the Jews are the people of treachery and betrayal..."; and the Sheik, overjoyed that his message has come across so clearly, responds, "That is the most beautiful thing I have heard - that the Jews are the people of treachery, betrayal, and vileness."

These religious hatemongers brought to mind something that Gagdad Bob at One Cosmos wrote a while back. He was talking mostly about the left and child-rearing, but his words are certainly applicable to the discussion:

It has always surprised me that more historians and anthropologists don’t look at child-rearing practices to try to understand the basis of cultural health, pathology and change, and why some cultures are so much sicker than others. But hardly any do, mainly because of the dominance of the politically correct view that no culture is better or worse than any other--except for Western culture, which is the worst. And yet, how could it not be? If you have a culture that systematically abuses children in the most grotesque way--say, the Palestinians--why should anyone be surprised that they are arguably the most comprehensively depraved people on earth?
[...]
Harrison cites a couple of scholars who have attempted to quantify the link between child-rearing practices and cultural progress, in particular, progress toward democracy, economic prosperity, and social justice. As I noted in my own book, the further back in history you go, the more evidence there is of abominable child-rearing practices--what we would now call outright abuse. Perhaps this is why, as Harrison notes, “Early humans were neither democratic nor egalitarian during the first 80-90 millennia of human existence.” Instead, we see ceaseless war, violence, oppression of women and children, and frankly crazy cultural beliefs and practices. The romantic idea that humans were ever peaceful “noble savages” has been thoroughly debunked by anyone who cares to actually look at the evidence.

For anyone who cares to actually look at the evidence, the romantic idea that Islam has ever been a "religion of peace" has also been thoroughly debunked. The heirs of Mohammed have had ceaseless war, violence, oppression of women and children and frankly crazy cultural beliefs and practices since the religion's inception; and all of it has been culturally designed to keep practitioners from noticing their own religion and culture's inadequacies, irrationality, and barbarism.

But what do the medieval child-rearing practices of today's Islam--as evidenced by the stories above--show us about the culture?

What a good parent does is hard to remember; and what a bad parent does is hard to forget. When we are confronted with repeated behavior that shocks us, dsmays us and even repulses us, we can be sure that something has gone wrong somewhere.

Without ignoring the role of biology, it is clear that family obviously plays an extremely important role in the development of personality, especially in providing values and role-models. There is an entire dissertation or two in the dysfunctional family of Middle Eastern Muslims, where women are hidden and prevented from being able to be whole persons.
What impact does such a system--even in its mildest incarnation--have on the developement of BOTH girls and boys? Under the Taliban, which arguably was the most malignant iteration of Islam's dysfunction (unless we now count the evolving Somali incarnation), women were actively oppressed and beaten for any attempt to express themselves.

Even today in the halls of "modern" Islam, there are actual "debates" about whether women can drive cars or go out into public alone. The double standards of modesty and behavior encouraged by the current practice of Islam are destructive to the normal development of personality in both males and females.

Is there anyone who believes that such medieval attitudes towards women don't have a profoundly negative impact on the personalities of both the men and women who develop in such environments? Males are encouraged to be psychopaths; females to be their willing victims and enablers; as well as breeders for the jihad. When you see large groups of men willingly blowing themselves up to kill innocents, you know there is some sort of psychopathy at work. When the only way to express "gender liberation" is for a woman to imitate the homicidal / suicidal rages of the males--you know there is a problem.

Consider also, how a child could grow up in any sense normal-- knowing that their mother and father think of them only as fodder for jihad and that he has no worth to them otherwise.

Along with parenting issues, cultural factors in child-rearing play an extremely important role in personality formation and can, under certain circumstances, "stack the cards" against normal develoment even if all other factors, including biology, are benign. Michael Stone, the author of Abnormalities of Personality: Within and Beyond the Realm of Treatment comments:

Children born into authoritarian, tyrannical regimes are systematically programmed (by teachers or political authorities) to develop habits of thought and behavior at variance with parental and ommon human values. Such programming deforms the personility in any of a number of ways: one will become rigid, or mindlessly obedient, or cruel, or rebellious, or dour and bitter, etc.

We see in research studies of people from fringe or outcast social groups (such as gangs), that the members of such groups often behave respectfully and honestly toward others within their own group, but treat outsiders as if they were not human, without any sense of wrongdoing.

The ringleaders of such groups are often the the true psychopaths, and these leaders have a seemingly unlimited supply of morally weak or immature individuals (many of them very young)--who embrace antisocial behavior under group pressure.
We also know that in time of war, or social ferment, many formerly respectable, or at least "contained" non-aggressive persons (young men, especially) turn to thuggery--their morality extending only so far as expediency and conformity to the mob or gangster group of which they have become a part. Some will remain antisocial even after the crisis/riot/war passes; the majority revert to outward respectability.

Having already a predisposition because of parenting issues, the culture of Islam "stacks the deck" further by first encouraging the subjugation of women by men and giving it a religious blessing. This is nothing new in the history of the world, and it certainly occurred throughout the history of Christianity too. But the idea that women are inferior to men has been challenged for a thousand years, and as women have taken their equal place with men in the countries promoting women's rights, there has been an incredible improvement in those countries' economic and political standings.

The culturally sanctioned misogyny of Islam results in a dysfunctional family unit that has tremendous impact on both male and female personality development.

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

Why are women's rights issues--or rather, the lack of them-- of importance in developing antisocial psychopathology? In the case of Islam, the religion itself has set the stage for an ongoing potentially abusive situation in the family; in heterosexual relationships; and in the culture.

The subservient role of women in the religion and their status as lesser beings breeds sadism in the male, simply because it is so easy (and sanctioned) to take out your frustrations or impotence on the "inferior" half of the population. This practice is not dissimilar to why people will take out their anger and negative emotions on pets or children. Being allowed to do so teaches an important psychological lesson that all budding psychopaths learn: "I am more important and powerful because I can hurt or kill this weak person". It is often a matter of honor to have absolute control over the identified weak person; and a matter of shame if they disobey you (see here). A male's status as a man can only be maintained by having power over the women.

Through a process that Anna Freud documents called "Identification with the Aggressor" these dynamics also breed the same sadistic tendency in women, though they have many fewer options in acting it out (female suicide bombers; and mothers who cheer the deaths of their sons and daughters in Allah's cause etc.)

The second factor in Islamic culture that "stacks the deck", encouraging abnormal personality development is the perpetual war against the infidel inherent in externalization of the concept of " jihad".

Those who see "jihad" as an inner struggle will not generally evolve into psychopaths, because internalizing the process has a greater chance of fostering insight and self-awareness, rather than brutality. But even these "moderate" practitioners of Islam do not stand up and loudly contradict the psychopathic elements in their religion; rather, they invite these elements to come "teach" at their mosques and abdicate leadership roles to them.

Those who do not have the innate biological or parental resources to prevent it become the disposable fodder that can then act out the psychopaths' scripts for them. Such individuals become the stooges--the suicide/homicide bombers--who mindlessly carry out their leaders' orders without every once considering that if holiness and sainthood are guaranteed by becoming a human bomb for Allah , then why is it that their leaders are not jumping with joy to grab the opportunity for themselves?

Islam has become toxic, infusing the entire Middle East with a culture inimical to not just the 50% who are female; but equally to the half who are male and consider themselves "superior".

Children are raised in a misogynist family unit and within a cultural environment that encourages the young boys to extremes of hatred and violence. This has been going on for decades among the Palestinians in particular; but it is everywhere the jihad mindset has spread it cancerous message.

The child-rearing practices of a toxic Islam have achieved a pinnacle in the suicide bomber/murderer; and the religious indoctrination of children into the cult of jihad and hate. The young beheader is only the first of many to come, because the culture will celebrate and lionize these "heroes".

I predict that there will soon follow a video of a young girl beheading someone, since this is what passes for gender equality in this culture of death and depravity.

Those who willingly follow this cult of death meet many of the psychiatric criteria for an antisocial personality including: (1) A glib, superficial charm (especially the leaders--Nasrallah, Al-Sadr; Haniyeh; Zawahiri ...the list goes on and on) (2) A grandiose sense of self-worth; (3) Pathological lying; (4) Manipulative behavior; (5) Lack of remorse or guilt for their behavior; (6) Lack of the usual behavioral controls; (7) Deviant sexual behavior and attitudes (this has repeatedly been reported on in the Arab and Islamic culture and would not be surprising considering the distortion and denigration of females in the society); (8) Jealousy and envy; (9) A sense of entitlement; and (10) A failure to accept responsibility for one's own actions.

A combination of cultural and social factors in Islam encourages the development of the many of traits inherent in the psychopathic or antisocial personality. The predominance of this personality pattern fosters and feeds on phenomenon of terrorism and provides the cultural underpinnings that support its continuation.

Psychopathic behavior exists within all cultures. What is different about Islam is that the content of its creed has given personal and societal sanction to such behavior when it is directed toward "inferiors" within the culture and anyone outside the culture. Within this religious framework, murder, torture, intimidation and brutality can be used --not only with impunity--but with guarantees of holiness and rewards in the afterlife. Not only are the adherents safe from censure, they are actually lauded and celebrated as heroes of Islam. Just two days ago there was this news story out of Iran:

The Iranian Supreme Court has overturned the murder convictions of six members of a prestigious state militia who killed five people they considered "morally corrupt."
"The psychological consequences of this case in the city have been great and a lot of people have lost their confidence in the judicial system," Nemat Ahmadi, a lawyer associated with the case, said in a telephone interview.

Three lower court rulings found all the men guilty of murder. Their cases had been appealed to the Supreme Court, which overturned the guilty verdicts. The latest decision, made public this week, reaffirms that earlier reversal.

"The objection by the relatives of the victims is dismissed and the ruling of this court is confirmed," the court said in a one-page verdict.

The ruling may still not be final, however, because a lower court in Kerman can appeal the decision to the full membership of the Supreme Court. More than 50 Supreme Court judges would then take part in the final decision.

According to the Supreme Court's earlier decision, the killers, who are members of the Basiji Force, volunteer vigilantes favored by the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, considered their victims morally corrupt and, according to Islamic teachings and Iran's Islamic penal code, their blood could therefore be shed.

The last victims, for example, were a young couple engaged to be married who the killers said were walking together in public.

Walking together in public!!! But it can even get more absurd under Islam. Wretchard today writes in "Deliver Us From Evil" that:

According to the AP. Iraqi insurgents are now fighting each other, as "moderate" Sunni terrorists tangle with "extremist" al-Qaeda whose brand of Islam is so radical that it prohibits placing cucumbers beside tomatoes because these vegetables have different genders. (read it all)

He goes on to talk about the gift of freedom, which is a wonderful thing-- unleashing all that is good within human beings;, but it can also unleash all that is evil and depraved, too. He adds:

A healthy culture instills in its members guideposts, as orderly societies put up highway signs, not in order to block the roads, but to guide us in our freedom.

Psychopaths cannot function openly or for long where there is freedom, equality, and the rule of law. The more we understand about Islamic law--Shar'ia--the more we come to understand that it is simply another aspect of a dysfunctional and depraved Islamic culture.

The guideposts that today's Islam sets up merely funnel human nature down that psycho path I talked about at the beginning of this post.

Terrorists, the most visible of the Islamic psychopaths, are quite desperate to prevent the establisment of democracies and quite naturally prefer Islamic law which encourages and supports their psychopathy. Individual thought and creativity; reason and justice; and the pursuit of happiness--all are completely incompatible with the psychopath's agenda.

As we see in the news stories coming out of the Middle East--from Iran to Pakistan; Gaza,Egypt and Saudi Arabia-- there is an ongoing abuse of children, both psychological and physical, of monstrous proportions. To become a ruthless, cold, semi-human serial murderer, you have to be carefully taught and nurtured.

Tiptoeing around this issue so as not to offend or make judgements about the sickness of Islamic culture is nothing more than enabling hate and true evil.

You've got to be taught to hate and fear
You've got to be taught from year to year
It's got to be drummed in your dear little ear.
You've got to be carefully taught.
You've got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made
and people whose skin is a different shade
You've got to be carefully taught.
You've got to be taught
before it's too late
before you are six or seven or eight
To hate all the people your relatives hate
You've got to be carefully taught.
--From the musical, South Pacific

RELATED POSTS:
Shame, The Arab Psyche and Islam

Where Have All The Mothers Gone?

UPDATE: A related cartoon from Cox and Forkum:

IT'S OK THEN !

The Iranians figure out how to get that much sought after Hollywood support for their activities...

THE PARALLEL PSYCHO PATH TO VIOLENCE AND TERROR

In a recent post on paranoia, I discussed the different paths a person could take, each of which would bring that person or group to a place where paranoia offered them the "best", i.e. most acceptable, explanation for their failures in life.

Let me just cut to the chase and admit that paranoia and delusional thinking are equal-opportunity, multiracial, multicultural and gender-indifferent psychological processes. And, they are so easy and convenient to use, that they are accessible even to the youngest of children or the most physiologically disabled adult mind...

I deal regularly with people who have various levels of physiological abnormality in their brain. Through an unfortunate series of events--their genetics; random biological mutations; or the deliberate use of mind-altering substances that activate the latent psychosis; etc. etc., these unfortunate souls start out with or unknowingly stimulate a defective physiology which causes a dysfunction in their cognitive faculties. Their defective brain works hard to integrate events and make sense of the world, but it is at a serious and overwhelming disadvantage because its neural pathways don't work properly. Hence, auditory or visual hallucination; bizarre delusions; complicated conspiracy theories; disorganized thinking; and an impaired critical thinking capacity in general--all of which lead to pervasive misperceptions of the world and the people around them.

We rightly call such people mentally ill. For the most part (except for the substance-induced psychotics) the only choice they have in the matter (and this, too is often dependent on whether or not the insight they have into their illness has been spared the physiological degneration that effects other parts of their brain) is whether to regularly take the medications that give them some hope of being able to accurately perceive reality.

The people I am concerned about in this post are as close to being mentally ill as it is possible to get. Oh, they have the same catastrophic physiological disruption in their brain that the paranoid schizophrenic has; it's just that they came to it via a different route. They probably weren't born with much of a physiological vulnerability for becoming detached from reality....no, they had to have repeatedly travelled down the psycho path to reach their final delusional destination. It is likely that at first they mentally got lost and accidentally took a wrong turn, leaving the main highway. It was always within their cognitive power to return to the main road (unlike those with mental illness who are biologically trapped on the false path) ; but at some point they chose to stay on their present course.

In the recent horrific events at Virginia Tech, we are able to see what can happen when a single physiologically diseased mind arrives at that paranoid destination. The amount of carnage that can be wrought--by just one such diseased brain-- is more than a sane mind can wrap itself around.

It is becoming clearer by the day that the perpetrator of these cold-blooded murders was likely a paranoid schizophrenic whose psychopathology was evident to others around him, but who likely resisted treatment and whose abherrent and abhorrent mental state only worsened over time. Dr. Helen notes:

It would be so easy if the complexities that went into the making of a killer could be boiled down to "where did this guy get a gun?" It takes responsibility away from trying to understand what went into the making of the killer, and why we, as a society did nothing to stop him.

Charles Krauthammer offers an explanation of why:

If we are going to look for a political issue here, the more relevant is not gun control but psychosis control. We decided a half a century ago that our more eccentric and, indeed, crazy fellow citizens would not be easily locked up in asylums. It was a very humane decision, but with the inevitable consequence that some who really need protection and quarantine are allowed to roam the streets freely....

In a previous age, such a troubled soul might have found himself at the state mental hospital rather than a state university. But in a trade-off that a decent and tolerant society makes with open eyes, we allow freedom from straitjackets to those on the psychic edge, knowing that such tolerance runs very rare but very terrible risk.

In other words, the society--our society--made a choice to optimize freedom; and one of the consequences of that choice is that there are Cho Seung Huis out there whose untreated disorders might result in future tragedies.

Fortunately, not very many schizophrenics--paranoid or other types--actually commit violence of this type. In fact, schizophrenic and the mentally ill in general do not commit violence more frequently than the general population. In point of fact, they are the victims of violence far more often than the general population.

Further

The MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study compared more than 1,000 people with mental disorders to 500 well people who lived in the same neighborhoods. Participants were enrolled in Kansas City, Mo.; Worcester, Mass.; and Pittsburgh.

In a May 1998 report published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, researchers examined data gathered in Pittsburgh and found that violence rates were indistinguishable between mental patients and their well neighbors.

Other studies have estimated that about 3 percent of all the violence that occurs around the country can be attributed to mental illness, said Dr. Paul Appelbaum, a forensic psychiatrist at the University of Massachusetts at Worcester who is also an investigator in the MacArthur project.

"Even then, it's not clear that it's the mental disorder that makes them violent, as opposed to environmental circumstances or personality traits of the individual," he added.(emphasis mine)

The abnormal physiology of the schizophrenic leads to cognitive dysfunction, which leads to a gross misperception and distortion of reality. When there is a pre-existing character structure that nourishes and feeds the misperception, using it to explain the individual's failures in life---then you have a potent combination of factors that can lead to the kind of violent events seen at Virginia Tech.

Cho lived in a society and culture that allowed him to be free and choose his fate. You can argue that when there is a disease process that interferes with truly being able to make a rational choice--a process that actively interferes with reality perception thus making the person a danger to himself and others--that society should unambiguously intervene and interrupt the process in an attempt to prevent tragedy.

But the truth is that there are many people out there who do not have a pre-existing physiological disruption of their neural pathways; and who make choices every day that lead them down the psycho path. These people act normally for the most part and do not evince most of the other symptoms of schizophrenia, but they have one thing in common with Cho and other paranoid schizophrenics--they are seeking to explain why they personally are failures in their life; or they are seeking to explain why their beliefs; or their group or their tribe are not universaly recognized as perfect. To explain those unpalatable realities about themselves or their beliefs, they are willing to embrace the most bizarre conspiracy theories about the world. They are willing to wallow in paranoia, delighting in the feeling of unmatchable power and specialness that the paranoia permits them to feel. Within their delusions they become the person they always wanted to be, and the explanation for their failure is identified as another person; another group; another race; another religion; another nation. It is all so comforting to finally understand.

At first, they can turn around and retreat down the path that brought them to this paranoid comfort zone at any time. But they don't want to. It just feels so good, even if they are persecuted for their beliefs (it actually gives further validation to them).... So they don't notice that their brains become configured like the Cho's of the world. And if their personality organization leans toward the cluster B personalities (i.e., histrionic, narcissistic, borderline, or antisocial) ; then they too can do considerable damage.

Now, imagine the latter type of individual--i.e., those who basically have a functional and normal brain physiology--living in a society or culture that (1) encourages and facilitates the development of dysfuntional personality structures; and (2) celebrates psychotic acting out; violence and terror; murder and death--all to give justification and rationalization for its failures as a culture.

Healthy societies and cultures develop structures and institutions that encourage individuals to transform the primitive instinctual energy of even the most destructive emotions into works of art or entertainment that give pleasure to others (sublimation and humor) ; or behavior that is socially beneficial (altruism, anticipation, suppression). In those cultures, people who achieve optimal psychological health are those who have come to satisfactory terms with their neurobiology. They are people who have learned to accept their anger, rage and other potentially deadly emotions and, instead of destructively acting out, repressing, denying or projecting; have creatively expressed those feelings in a way that improves life both for themselves and for others.

In most cultures, the Cho's and others who act on their violent impulses will always be considered an aberration, and not the norm. There will be debate on the most humane way to deal with those whose brain abnormality makes them psychotic and delusional--and dangerous to themselves and others.

But there are some cultures, as SC&A point out, that encourage--indeed, they require-- their members to take that parallel psycho path into the realms of paranoia and projection. These dysfunctional cultures can only maintain themselves through the paranoia and externalization of blame for the misery and oppression of their population. In those cultures, people who act like Cho are celebrated for their heroism and given the title of "martyr" (Cho used that very term in the material he sent to NBC to describe himself). SC&A further note:

In this topsy turvey world, the persecutor must be the persecuted. Somehow, the behavior and destructive narcissistic expressions must be explained and thereby justified. The opposing views are washed away. The persecutor can be the persecuted, exercising sacred retribution, divine or political.

Thus is created the suicide bomber, who is committed to his or her own individual death because it brings him the fame and status that so eluded him in life. Like Cho, they videotape their grievances, their fierce determination; their heroic struggle and their rationalizations for their sick, homicidal behavior. They glory in the realization that they will find in death the recognition and power they never were accorded in their pathetic lives. The dysfunctional culture will agree with him and extoll his act of violence as one of virtue.

At least in a healthy society, actions like Cho's are seen as the sick expressions of a diseased mind and happen relatively infrequently. In the unhealthy societies and culture of the Middle East, such behavior is the expression of a sick society and is celebrated with psychotic and delusional joy.

Whatever you might say about the some of the more perverted and degenerate aspects of American or Western culture--aspects that celebrate death, dysfunction and victimhood--we are not a culture of death yet, and we can still understand and condemn the evil that humans are capable of doing to each other.

But, make no mistake, these sicker parts of our culture will slowly but surely transform the whole into a culture that celebrates violence and terror. This can happen if we abandon our humaness; and if we fail to recognize the parallel psycho path that is taken consciously in order to avoid reality, reason and personal responsibility; and which takes a person or an entire society to the same delusional and paranoid final destination of the mentally ill.

UPDATE: Dry Bones has it exactly right (hat tip: Cynic):

A WORD WHOSE TIME HAS COME

Feminishness.

As much as a society needs a code of decorum, it also needs to get its yin and its yang into balance. Under PC, the balance is lost—too much yin.

PC is fem, and its consequences are femmer. Think of women in the military (ref. the recent Tehran-Brit-sailors farce). Did it lift up military women, or drag down military men? Much more the latter than the former, I think.

And of course, all the whining about non-PC speech being "hurtful" is pure femmishness.

Derbyshire is responding to a column by Mark Steyn, discussing today's "culture of passivity":

...Geraldo was all over Fox News saying we have to accept that, in this horrible world we live in, our “children” need to be “protected.”

Point one: They’re not “children.” The students at Virginia Tech were grown women and — if you’ll forgive the expression — men. They would be regarded as adults by any other society in the history of our planet. Granted, we live in a selectively infantilized culture where twentysomethings are “children” if they’re serving in the Third Infantry Division in Ramadi but grown-ups making rational choices if they drop to the broadloom in President Clinton’s Oval Office. Nonetheless, it’s deeply damaging to portray fit fully formed adults as children who need to be protected. We should be raising them to understand that there will be moments in life when you need to protect yourself — and, in a “horrible” world, there may come moments when you have to choose between protecting yourself or others. It is a poor reflection on us that, in those first critical seconds where one has to make a decision, only an elderly Holocaust survivor, Professor Librescu, understood instinctively the obligation to act.

Read it all, of course.

I tend to agree with John Derbyshire about the origins of this passivity, which is a direct result of the overhyped, feminist agenda pervasive in today's culture. This agenda is the foundation of the insidious and disastrous "political correctness" that now threatens all of society and our most valued freedoms. Feminism has become a tool of those who wish to further the Marxist/Socialist agenda. Where once it promoted equal rights for women, it now exists solely to maintain and nourish women's victimhood status.

Let me be perfectly clear. I am not saying that there were not injustices that needed to be addressed with regard to equal opportunity for women in this country. There were, and to a minor extent there still are some issues that need to be addressed and corrected. But the war was won some years ago; and what remains today is a constant whine emanating from the intellectual quagmire of ongoing feminist victim-mongering. This new culture of female victimhood has been created for the sole purpose promoting and maintaining the illusion that women are simultaneously victims diabolical white male oppression, and yet somehow vastly superior to it.

Needless to say, this hateful insanity has taken its toll on the male of the species as well as the female.

In fact, the feminishness of it all is slowly but surely bringing America-- and all Western democracies-- to their knees under the burden of its utopian tyranny; and it is preparing them further for submission to the fanatical bullies of the world.

Additionally, it has deeply poisoned male/female relationships at almost every level; since the PC mentality thrives on identifying eveyone as either "the oppressors" or "the oppressed", based entirely on identity (i.e., gender or race); and not on actual behavior. Hurting someone's feelings has become the greatest sin anyone in society can commit; and the pursuit of moral superiority through victimhood the greatest virtue.

Meanwhile, our new feminist bullies/overlords make common cause with all the other "oppressed" bullies of the world to insure peace, sisterhood and submission.

Indeed, today's feminists have much to answer for in terms of the evil they have been enabling and appeasing; but they are generally too busy swooning and whining to be able to engage in any serious discussion of the irrationality of promoting eternal victimhood.

As Derbyshire suggests, we are a culture out of balance. Far too much yin and definitely not enough yang.

NAME THAT WARMONGER !

Guess which neocon said the following:

"The true goal we seek is far above and beyond the ugly field of battle. When we resort to force, as now we must, we are determined that this force shall be directed toward ultimate good as well as against immediate evil. We Americans are not destroyers; we are builders. We are now in the midst of a war, not for conquest, not for vengeance, but for a world in which this Nation, and all that this Nation represents, will be safe for our children. We expect to eliminate the danger from Al Qaeda and all terrorist groups in Iraq, but it would serve us ill if we accomplished that and found that the rest of the world was dominated Iran and Islamic fanatics.

We are going to win the war, and we are going to win the peace that follows. And in the dark hours of this day-and through dark days that may be yet to come-we will know that the vast majority of the members of the human race are on our side. Many of them are fighting with us. All of them are praying for us. For, in representing our cause, we represent theirs as well-our hope and their hope for liberty under God."

If you are done trying to guess, replace the words "Al Qaeda and the terrorists in Iraq" with "Japan"; and "Iran and the Islamic fanatics" with "Hitler and Mussolini" and go to Town Commons for the answer.

A NATION OF BORDERLINES ?

"It's an awful risky thing to live." --Carl Rogers

One of my areas of expertise is in treating the "Borderline" personality disorder, one of several "Cluster B"- type personalities that also include Histrionic, Narcissistic, Borderline and Antisocial Personality organization.

One of the hallmarks of these personalities, particularly the Borderline, is that borderlines seem to have an innate biological tendency to react more intensely to lower levels of stress than others and to take longer to recover.

In other words, they have higher emotional reactions from less of a stimulus; and take a correspondingly longer time to come down. Often, they were raised in environments in which their beliefs about themselves and their environment were continually devalued and invalidated, leading in turn to severe deficits in their ability to appropriately internalize others, an essential psychological task.

One of the many consequences of this failure to internalize others is an inability to grieve appropriately, or deal with a loss.

Today Dennis Praeger has a very good analysis of something that has bothered me for quite a while about the ways we are supposed to respond to significant tragedies in our 24/7 news cycle; and the expectations that are made of us by the popular culture. Praeger wonders why,

Within hours of the massacre of more than 30 people at Virginia Tech University, the president of the university issued his first statement on the evil that had just engulfed the college campus and concluded with this:

"We're making plans for a convocation tomorrow at noon in Cassell Coliseum for the university to come together to begin the healing process from this terrible tragedy."

Other university officials also spoke about beginning the healing process and about bringing in counselors to help students heal;

and then goes on to say:

I believe that this early healing talk is both foolish and immoral.

It is foolish because one does not speak about healing the same day (or week or perhaps even month) that one is traumatized -- especially by evil. One must be allowed time for anger and grief. To speak of healing and "closure" before one goes through those other emotions is to speak not of healing but of suppression.

Not to allow people time to experience their natural, and noble, instincts to feel rage and grief actually deprives them of the ability to heal in the long run. After all, if there is no rage and grief, what is there to heal from?

Indeed. There is this strange belief among the intellectual elites; even among many psychiatrists and mental health professionals that feeling anguish and grief are wrong and must be avoided at all cost. Or if you must feel them, then they must be instantly transformed into a focus on this thing called "healing". Bring out the healing! Open those clinics! Stop those oh-so-negative emotions--before they have an impact on your life! Move forward!

In some ways this attitude could be considered somewhat admirable by many, but sadly, the timing of such sentiments is way off base and very premature. These well-meant but ultimately invalidating pressures to "begin the healing process" actually hinder the natural expression of normal grief, which can only come about after painful reflection and the resolution of a variety of conflicting emotions, including anger, sadness, hopelessness, outrage and regret (to name just a few).

Appropriate mourning also requires coming to terms with the nature and manner of the loss; a quest for justice on behalf of the victim when appropriate; and even the painful re-living and re-experiencing of what happened; until it can be completely processed and internally metabolized.

It hurts and hurts and hurts. But that is how we grow.

George Vaillant once wrote in The Wisdom of the Ego: Sources of Resilience in Adult Life:

We, too, sometimes forget that, contrary to folklore and psychiatric myth, loss in itself does not cause psychopathology. We forget that healthy grief hurts but does not make us ill. Grief produces tears, not patienthood. It is never having anyone at all to love that cripples us. It is the inconstant people who stay in our lives who drive us mad, not the constant ones who die. It is failure to internalize those whom we have loved, not their loss, that impedes adult development.(emphasis mine)

The major ingredient of a normal grieving process is time. It cannot, nor should it be expected to, be resolved or "healed" in a day, or a few days, or even a month or two. For the families of those who died, it may take years and years.

The media spotlight will move on fairly soon--long before the mourning process is anywhere near completed. In that sense, the frantic call to heal!heal!heal! emote! emote! emote! and the overly solicitous understanding and short-term sympathy is often counterproductive and meets all the criteria for encouraging the very traits that are the essence of a borderline personality structure.

To be real; to grieve such a loss, internalizing the lost loved ones and processesing the trauma of their leaving, cannot be done in front of the cameras, or at pep rallies, or even at candlelight vigils the day after the tragedy. It will be done in the privacy of each individual soul that was affected by the loss; each at their own rate and according to their own personal timetable.

Don't misunderstand me. There is a role for the kinds of things we are seeing on TV right now. And I understand that our society in its present state does not exactly encourage more appropriate outlets; nor does it tend to give people the time they really need for this psychological process. But like Praeger, I feel it is simply wrong --though not necessarily immoral, just extremely narcissistic and rather borderline--to focus so steadfastly on personal "healing", which is actually the final stage of grief, and not the first.

If nothing else, we owe it to the memory of those we have lost not to "heal" too quickly, but to take the time to experience the pain and suffering of their loss; transforming it slowly into personal growth and wisdom.

IRAN IS ONLY SEEKING PEACE

This is a few days old, but it is just so reassuring to know. From The Islamic Republic News Agency:

IRI President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here Wednesday, "Iran is seeking peace, and lasting security in light of monotheism and justice for entire human beings."
He made the remarks in response to a foreign reporter at his first press conference in Iranian New Year, 1386 in which the highlight was his announcement of the release of the 15 detained British marines on auspicious occasion of Prophet Muhammad's blessed birth anniversary.

[from Cox and Forkum]

THE BIG YAWN

As always Victor Davis Hanson gets right to the essence of the matter I alluded to in th previous post. He laboriously summarizes all the "big" scandals--Scooter Libby's NOT revealing the name of Plame; the Duke non-case; Alberto Gonzales firing 8 lawyers (when Clinton's AG fired dozens); and the recent lynch mob after Paul Wolfowitz' head:

Paul Wolfowitz, who sought to curb corruption that undermines support for World Bank aid to Africa, likewise is facing a lynch mob over perhaps a similar one-time lapse of judgment in regard to compensation of a companion — nothing, however, ranking with the various scandals surrounding Kofi Annan, whose son profited by United Nations exemptions given through his family ties. In today’s moral calculus, presiding over a $50-billion-dollar Oil-for-Food scandal that led to frequent death in Iraq and profit among global elites is a misdemeanor, recommending a pay package for an employee one dates is an unforgivable felony.

One could go on with the furor over the misdirected pellets from Dick Cheney’s shotgun, or the clamor for the Rumsfeld resignation. Yet contrast all this hysteria with the slight whimpers surrounding recent controversies over conflicts of interest or lapses in judgment surrounding Richard Armitage, Harry Reid, or Dianne Feinstein. The destruction of federal documents that might well alter history’s consensus by former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was a snore for most journalists.

What, then, is the one common tie that explains all these furious efforts of the media and partisans to go after these present and former Bush-administration officials?

Payback for Iraq.

What we have here is the ad hominem attack writ large and infused with psychological displacement . Ad hominem is responding to an argument by attacking your opponent rather than addressing the argument itself; and I would describe ad hominem with displacement is attacking everybody who has a connection to the person you want to attack so as to discredit that person and whatever he has done that you don't want to attack directly. Because that's what it is; ongoing personal attacks on people connected to Bush for the express purpose of subverting and discrediting "his" Iraq war.

This behavior that Hanson discusses is not just payback for Iraq--it is payback for 2000. It is payback for 9/11; it is payback for all the shame and humiliation of the Clinton impeachment.

But make no mistake about it, it is payback. And to get even; to "undo" everything and everyone connected to this Administration is absolutely necessary to maintain a disintegrating political self-esteem and the loser ideology they subscribe to.

Do you wonder why there has been no serious discussion in this country about the Iraq war? The reason is that the side making up the bogus scandals to undermine the Bush Presidency doesn't really want to debate how to win the Iraq war--they want to lose it, so as to further discredit a Republican president that they despise. They don't want to argue on the merits; or discuss strategy-- because their fundamental position has no merit; and the only strategy they are capable of creating relates to regaining power. The trivialities and personal attack-scandals the Democrats and the left hype and choose to focus on simply pale in comparison to the unbelievable actions of their own---people like Sandy Berger and Kofi Annan to name just two. Both of these individuals have basically gotten off scott free for their amazing behavior--behavior the import of which cannot be underestimated.

But I want to focus once again on Berger in light of recent revelations.

Why should we care about Sandy Berger? No one--left or right-- in their right mind would blame either Bill Clinton or George Bush for 9/11. The sole responsibility and blame for the vicious attacks of that day rests squarely on the religious fanatics who planned and carried it out. Period.

But, don't you see? Berger's behavior suggests that there is something that Clinton's Administration wants desperately to hide. Enough of a something to make a public servant like Berger risk his entire career and a stint in prison (which he should have received) to try to keep it hidden. And, if that is the case, then there is likely something important we need to know that perhaps could have made us more vigilant sooner; but almost certainly is necessary to understand to help us prevent future attacks. And, wasn't that the entire purpose of the 9/11 Commission??? To discover why we were so vulnerable to these jihadists and come up with recommendations so that we could be better prepared in the future?

How can you plug a hole in the dyke if you don't know where it is?

I don't want to excoriate Sandy Berger because he was in the Clinton Administration. I want to bring him to task for his self-serving, criminal behavior; and for allowing himself to be more concerned with protecting his and Clinton's "legacy" than with helping this country prepare itself better for future terrorist attacks. He is putting his country at risk to satisfy his own narcissism.

What does it say about his character that he is willing to risk all to preserve his and Clinton's legacy? Nothing less could have motivated him to do what he did. I have considerable contempt for this sort of blatant narcissism that seems pervasive these days in our elected officials in general--let alone a former National Security Advisor for this country.

What bugs me is the beautiful indifference; the big yawn from the media and the left about Berger's criminal behavior, which impacts all of us who live in this country. Their lack of curiosity is stunning. They want to be free to blame Bush--and Bush alone-- for 9/11, even as they whine when the trail leads back to their own.

If nothing else, the Bush Administration has to account for looking the other way at Berger's activities; and one wonders what information they do not want the public to know about this matter. Even the judge in the case was outraged at the lenient sentence recommended by the prosecution.

How much denial is it possible for a group of people to engage in? How much narcissism does it take to ignore the important questions, and studiously and repeatedly focus on the trivial and the bogus? How much self-delusion and hysteria will we be subjected to before the Democrats, the left and their shills finally open their eyes and understand that we are at war with an implacable enemy who wants to destroy us? When will they realize that it is not about them?

I fear the only response we will ever get from these yahoos is a big yawn.

SO IS THIS WHAT BERGER WAS HIDING ?

This news report makes everything clear, doesn't it? AJ Strata has more.

France's foreign intelligence service learned as early as January 2001 that al-Qaida was preparing a hijacking plot likely to involve a U.S. airplane, former intelligence officials said Monday, confirming a report that also said the CIA received the warning.

Le Monde newspaper said it had obtained 328 pages of classified documents on Osama bin Laden's terror network that were drawn up by the French spy service, the DGSE, between July 2000 and October 2001. The documents included a Jan. 5, 2001, intelligence report warning that al-Qaida was at work on a hijacking plot.

The importance of this information--just now released for public consumption-- will be overshadowed by the tragic events on the Virginia Tech campus today; but it is important nonetheless. I hope someone, somewhere is prepared to ask Clinton's National Security Chief about this in some detail and that copies of the memo detailing this still exist somewhere.

I will not hold my breath waiting for more information about this. Nor do I expect Berger to ever come clean about what he destroyed. Better to keep your mouth shut and avoid being called incompetent,imperious and self-serving than to open it and remove all doubt.

PARANOIA STRIKES DEEP

Are Americans taking over the number one spot as the most paranoid and delusional people in the world? Are our conspiracy theories more insane than the psychotic conspiracy theories that are at the heart of Arab identity in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere? And just today there is this piece from Pravda, via Tim Blair highlighting certain Russian fantasies detached from reality.

Let me just cut to the chase and admit that paranoia and delusional thinking are equal-opportunity, multiracial, multicultural and gender-indifferent psychological processes. And, they are so easy and convenient to use, that they are accessible even to the youngest of children or the most physiologically disabled adult mind.

I linked to Bill Whittle's excellent piece about American paranoia and conspiracy at Eject!Eject!Eject! in yesterday's Carnival, but it is far too serious a piece not to discuss at some length.

In it, Whittle shreds the delusions of many Americans into confetti, and he makes some very keen psychological observations about those who willfully cling to the conspiracy theories derived from those delusions. One theory examined under the light of reason is the belief by many that the 1969 Apollo Moon Landing was a government hoax (I have had my share of people ask me about that one); another is the JFK assassination conspiracies; and more recently there is the troubling slippage from the surly bonds of reality into the nether regions of 9/11 "truthiness":

I see. So we have the technical expertise to build a 40-story rocket that can produce millions of pounds of thrust. We can build capsules and lunar landers that function in zero-G. We have the means and the will to put these massive objects into Earth orbit, keep them up there for two weeks, but the additional 3-4% of the total launch energy needed to send this package to the moon is so obviously beyond our technical skill that the whole thing must be a hoax?

I’m sorry, that’s the thinking of someone who is mentally ill. There is something deeper at work there.

That “something” is different than someone who “believes” in UFO’s or the Loch Ness Monster. Such people may be short on critical reasoning, but the emotional force that drives them is a desire for wonder and the magical. Many have remarked that this is, indeed, almost a religious impulse. I’ve wanted to see a real-live flying saucer my entire life. Likewise, if Nessie really existed, what an incredible sight that would be… to look upon the last surviving dinosaur in the flesh! But a videotape of a standing wave shot from five miles away does not outweigh the whole air-breather / no fish evidence. It does not come close to outweighing it. And so I reluctantly throw Nessie back into the superstition bin from whence she came.

But these denialists – the Moon Hoaxers and the 9/11 “Truthers” – these are a different breed. And they are cut from precisely the same cloth. That is to say, they suffer from the same disease: an unwillingness to face reality and its consequences.

And here he has hit on the most prevalent mental illness of our time: The Unwillingness To Face Reality And Its Consequences.

I deal regularly with people who have various levels of physiological abnormality in their brain. Through an unfortunate series of events--their genetics; random biological mutations; or the deliberate use of mind-altering substances that activate the latent psychosis; etc. etc., these unfortunate souls start out with or unknowingly stimulate a defective physiology which causes a dysfunction in their cognitive faculties. Their defective brain works hard to integrate events and make sense of the world, but it is at a serious and overwhelming disadvantage because its neural pathways don't work properly. Hence, auditory or visual hallucination; bizarre delusions; complicated conspiracy theories; disorganized thinking; and an impaired critical thinking capacity in general--all of which lead to pervasive misperceptions of the world and the people around them.

We rightly call such people mentally ill. For the most part (except for the substance-induced psychotics) the only choice they have in the matter (and this, too is often dependent on whether or not the insight they have into their illness has been spared the physiological degneration that effects other parts of their brain) is whether to regularly take the medications that give them some hope of being able to accurately perceive reality.

The people I am concerned about in this post are as close to being mentally ill as it is possible to get. Oh, they have the same catastrophic physiological disruption in their brain that the paranoid schizophrenic has; it's just that they came to it via a different route. They probably weren't born with much of a physiological vulnerability for becoming detached from reality....no, they had to have repeatedly travelled down the psycho path to reach their final delusional destination. It is likely that at first they mentally got lost and accidentally took a wrong turn, leaving the main highway. It was always within their cognitive power to return to the main road (unlike those with mental illness who are biologically trapped on the false path); but at some point they chose to stay on their present course.

The world of politics attracts paranoia, conspiracy theories and paranoids like flypaper attracts flies. And it is deeply disturbing to observe. Whittle notes:

I am more interested in the psychology of someone who believes in these conspiracy theories. I exempt people who have only heard one side of the story, as I did. Sadly, skepticism doesn’t sell as well as hysteria....

Intellectually honest people, people without a deep, vested emotional need to believe the worst, are usually relieved to hear the facts that demolish superstitions like the Bermuda Triangle and the Loch Ness Monster. While there may be disappointment at the loss of an unseen world, people who have chosen to live in reality find comfort in the fact that reality is, in fact, made up of the real and not the wished for.

No, what fascinates me is the emotional motive of people who, presented with overwhelming evidence that the events that transpired on November 22nd, 1963 or September 11th, 2001 really happened exactly the way it appeared, continue to spin ever more elaborate webs in order to get to a place they need to be emotionally. Who are you going to believe: them or your own lying eyes?

All of this conspiracy nonsense comes after the fact. What we saw on those days was clear and vital and unmistakably obvious. In the case of the Kennedy assassination we are asked to believe – against all physical evidence to the contrary – what a few professional witnesses recall for pay ten or twenty or thirty years after the fact. Some guy who claims to see a puff of smoke on the grassy knoll is now a world-wide celebrity and not just some dude with time on his hands on a November afternoon. (And don't be deterred by the fact that a musket firing black powder was the last firearm that emitted "a puff of smoke;" perhaps Kennedy was murdered by a re-animated Stonewall Jackson. Prove it didn't happen!)

I’ve met a number of these people. I know this is harsh, but I’m sick of watching the damage they are doing to this civilization: these people are, to a man, complete losers. Losers. They are desperate and sad people who need to believe in some dark secret to give meaning to their lives....

Recently, Rosie O’Donnell said on national television that she believes 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government.

Well, that’s why we went through the steps above. If you believe that the government lied about the moon landing, you can believe they lied about killing JFK. If they lied about JFK, then they can lie about chemtrails. And if they are willing to poison the entire population with aerial spraying, what are a few thousand people in four airliners and a couple of buildings?

Rosie O’ Donnell making such a claim on a major network is a national disgrace. The fact that much of the audience cheered and applauded is nothing less than a national catastrophe.

To her, and to her audience, it is taken as granted that the government is capable of such things. As if “the government” was operated by cyborgs grown in Haliburton vats, rather than by well-meaning and patriotic people that love this country.

...what kind of moral universe do you have to inhabit to be able to believe that your own people – airline personnel, demolition experts, police and security forces, faked witnesses and all the rest – are capable of such a thing? How much hate for your own society do you have to carry in order to live in such a desolate and ridiculous mental hell? What psychoses must a mind be riddled with in order to negate what was perfectly obvious and instead believe a theory of such monumental fantasy? How much pure constant hatred does that take?

What, in short, is the miserable black hole of self-loathing that drives a person like Rosie O’Donnell and millions like her?

The examples of paranoia exhibited by the political left and mouthpieces like Rosie in the last six years would be amusing, if they weren't so alarming and so mainstream. People who used to think like that were marginalized out of respect (or perhaps embarassment) over the physiological dysfunction that made them crazy. Nowadays, the theories of Rosie O'Donnells, Michael Moores, Cindy Sheehans and the like are best-selling books, movies and CDs. Their every word is plastered all over the news until the ordinary citizen begins to hear voices in his head, too.

When you consider the absurd complexity; the unparalleled detail and complete bizarreness of the various "Bushitlerhallisharpton" kinds of conspiracy theories that routinely come from the left these days, you've got to wonder why they find it so difficult and impossible to believe in a DOCUMENTED connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. That there was ABSOLUTELY NO SUCH THING is their strident, urgent response; even as they develop layer upon layer of loose connections and illogical associations to bolster the conspiracy du jour that they are promoting against the Bush Adminsitration.

Ask yourself why the possibility--let alone the reality-- of such a connection is actually so fundamentally threatening to them and their worldview.

You can always find out what the latest delusion making the rounds is by following the deeply disturbed fantasies at the Democratic Underground (I won't link to them) and the Huffington Post--which is only a more upscale DU--the Nieman Marcus of conspiracy department stores.

There is a reason that human beings experience suspicion, distrust and hypervigilance. That reason is because there is REAL danger in the world. Our ancestors in the caves knew this to be true. They lived with continual danger just to survive every minute of every day. Those who did not have the psychological capacity to perceive the danger in the environment surely died out long ago.

But this important psychological trait which senses danger and strives to protect the ego; and which is accentuated in children and early in life, is appropriately balanced out by the development of the rational faculty--the intellect.

The tools of the paranoid are denial, distortion, and projection. These psychological tools are almost always pathological when used to cope with the real world. For the user these three primitive psychological defenses permit a [hopefully temporary] rearrangement of external reality so that an actual, often unpleasant or painful reality may be avoided; for the beholder, the users of these mechanisms frequently appear crazy or insane. These are known as the "psychotic" defenses, common in overt psychosis, in dreams, and throughout childhood.

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

Distortion is a gross reshaping of external reality to meet internal needs. Hinchey's bizarre accusations against the evil genius Rove are a perfect example. It is more acceptable to believe that some evil person has tricked you, than it is to believe that you behaved stupidly.

Delusional Projection occurs when an individual or group have delusions about external reality, usually of a persecutory nature.

It is easy to see how all these psychological manipulations work together to keep a person or a group insulated from reality. In truth, we witness such behavior all around us (and it is certainly not exclusive to one side of the political spectrum--though the political left has almost exclusive rights to it at this point in history).

Physiologically, anyone using these psychological strategies have some of short-circuit in their brain. That includes both those who are truly mentally ill with major psychiatric disorders; as well as those who, for psychological and psychosocial reasons, desire their brains to simulate mental illness in order to avoid reality. The only difference between the two is that the latter group have a potential to rediscover reality without any particular medication or treatment. A rediscovery may be painful; it may require a lot of soul-searching and an ability to face the unpleasant truth about themselves or their belief system, but insight and growth often are difficult processes.

How does reason balance suspicion? You say to yourself: is this feeling paranoid? Do I have facts to back up my suspicions, or do I only feel that it is so? Are these facts? Or, are they distortions, because I really really want to believe this is true?

How do you tell a fact from a distortion? 9/11 was a FACT. Millions of people experienced it directly; millions more watched it unravel indirectly. There are mounds of evidence and data that it was planned and funded by Al-Qaeda and carried out by Islamic terrorists. These are FACTS. The widespread belief among Muslims that the Jews are behind 9/11 and that they did it so that the blame would fall on Muslims is a DISTORTION, which comes from DENIAL of the facts; and represents a PSYCHOLOGICAL PROJECTION. It is a PSYCHOLOGICAL PROJECTION because many Muslims want desperately to believe that Islam is a peaceful religion and prohibits such acts, despite what is said in the Qu'ran, and what is practiced in the real world.

Likewise, the widespread belief on the political left that the Bush Administration and the US government is behind 9/11 and that they did it so that they did it because--- oh who the hell can possibly understand all the frivolous reasons they cite-- is also a DISTORTION, which comes from DENIAL of the facts; and represents a PSYCHOLOGICAL PROJECTION. It is a PSYCHOLOGICAL PROJECTION because many on the left want desperately to believe that their socialist ideology/religion stands for peace and that Republicans/Conservatives/Neocons are behind all the evil in the world, instead of their utopian fantasies, despite all the horrors their fantasies have produced in the real world.

Many people desperately need to cling to something--anthing, no matter how bizarre or psychotic-- that proves (at least in their own dysfunctional minds) that their beliefs about President Bush being a fascist dictator, another Hitler; about to implement a Christian theocracy are true. They believe this so deeply that it is impossible for facts to debunk such a religious fantasy. In their minds, if it is true, then they are not such losers for believing in an ideology that is responsible for the deaths and misery of millions around the world.

These people are so far gone, they have willingly abandoned the classical liberal values that once were part of the Democratic Party, and instead embraced a nihilistic culture of victimhood. In doing so, they now support all the losers, thugs and murderers of the world.

It is only a very short step from marching to support and cleverly rationalizing the homicidal and violent terrorist groups that make up the Palestinian cause to then swallowing whole the vile antisemitism that motivates the delusions they need to maintain their victimhood status.

As long as the Palestinians are the left's preferred and idealized victim group, neither have to face their own pathological inadequacies as people. As SC&A observe in a post on Arab conspiracies:

Israel and the success and contributions of Jews to western civilization as opposed to their own failures are in the mirror the Arab world has to look at daily. Those truths are almost intolerable to most Arabs. To be sure there are many progressive, intellectual Arabs that understand that Israel is a reality and that the successes of Jews in the west are a model that should be emulated, but for most, Israel and the success of the Jewish community integration into the American and western mosaic, remains a cruel violation of Allah's promise to them. The fact that Allah seems to have abandoned them to live in such squalor and hopelessness is of no concern- it is the non Muslims that remain the obsession. It is the non-Muslims that have upset the 'natural' Islamic order.
The Arab world is not humiliated by the lack of decent schools. The Arab world is not humiliated by their scientific backwardness and book burnings. In a smaller, interconnected world, they cannot be unaware of their own medievalism. The Arab world is not humiliated by collapsed economies. There are car manufacturers in China and Africa, yet there are only 'plans' for an auto industry in the Arab world.

To put it all in context- how is it possible that the humiliations of centuries of Arab failures are trumped by the political 'humiliations of today? What powerful agenda can pull a whole society away from reality?

This is the same powerful agenda that has pulled the left away from reason, truth and reality. Bill Whittle made a profound observation about those people who prefer to ignore Lee Harvey Oswald and subscribe to more complicated JFK assassination conspiracy theories: They are Oswald.

Likewise the left has become the Palestinians. They identify with the Arabs. That is the psychological basis of their unholy alliance with the Islamists and jihadists.

The paranoia, projection and denial all serve to make them feel better about themselves; make them feel less like the losers they are. By inventing themselves as the victims of the BushHitler--or the Jews, or the neocons or whatever-- they can, like a typical, arrogant paranoid psychotic, pat themselves on the back at their heroic, courageous, and "principled" stand against the forces of oppression. Their failures are NOT THEIR FAULT. Everything in their life would be better if THE EVIL OPPRESSORS would go away. Their need to externalize blame for their own failure will trump any facts and obscure any contradicting reality. Without the paranoia, they are nothing.

Emotions are an important part of life, but if you base all your behavior on what you FEEL, then you are vulnerable to all sorts of psychopathology. Paranoia is an extreme of what otherwise would be helpful and normal reactions to the perception of danger. Paranoia distorts reality in the service of protecting the self from having to deal with unacceptable thoughts or feelings. It is useful to protect the integrity of the sense of self--sometimes even at the expense of one's life.

Paranoia helps individuals and groups defend against their own hostility and their perceived insignificance. Often the emotions displayed by the paranoid are covering up the exact opposite emotion within. Paranoia is reason in the service of the irrational. The paranoid cannot afford to examine his or her premises and face reality because to do so would do two things:

(1) it would display to the world the deep, irrational hatred which he is defending himself against by making himself the "victim" of someone else's deep, irrational hatred; and

(2) it would cause him to admit his own insignificance, because if he is NOT the center of a plot and the focus of his "enemies" then he must be shamefully unimportant - a nobody.

You would think that a paranoid person would be reassured to discover that people or groups are NOT out to get him. That there is no conspiracy against the group. You would be wrong. This is the last thing that the Paranoid individual or group really want, because--if they are not being persecuted, or betrayed, or lied to, or oppressed--then the Paranoid must face the devastating reality of his own insignificance. This he cannot do and it is why the alternate reality was constructed in the first place.

The paranoid solution to unacceptable thoughts or feelings is to say, "If I am having these bad thoughts or feeling or behaviors, then someone else must be to blame and is making me do it." The Paranoid person does not take responsibility for his own thoughts or feelings or behaviors.

Conspiracy theories serve one of two purposes. They either serve as a rationale for the unacceptable successes of others; or as reasons for the failures of a particular group or individual. The Arab world fixation with Jews and the reasons for Jewish successes serve as the classic fodder for conspiracy theorists in the Middle East. In the US, the Rosie O'Donnell's and Michael Moore's are still trying desperately to account for the success of the Republicans in being elected to the White House and their own failure. Reality itself had to be distorted in order to protect them from feeling low self-esteem or shame. Bush Derangement and the various derivatives of the underlying hatred that infuses it has become second nature, and this transfer of blame to someone else is an indicator to the observer that such individuals are experiencing internal shame. It is but a short walk up that psycho path to paranoia and delusion.

A healthy individual's solution is to take responsibility for his or her thoughts, feelings, behaviors, successes and failures. Even if it is sometimes painful to acknowledge. But by owning his or her feelings, the healthy individual is able to exert control over inappropriate behavior that might spring from those feelings.

Another way of saying this is that you cannot choose the feelings that you experience- emotions are not generally under conscious control; but you can choose how to act on those feelings, because behavior is under conscious control.

Paranoia strikes deep. It will creep into your heart when you are afraid of your own feelings and try to disown them by blaming the "Jews", the "Blacks", or "Gays" or even President Bush. History has been littered with millions of dead bodies resulting from the denial, distortion and projection of paranoid leaders like Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, and Bin Laden. But those people had followers who believed just as they did, and did most of their dirty work.

You have to stop, look and see what's going down in your own heart and face some unpleasant and devastating facts about yourself--if you want to understand how such evil can exist.