MAN-MADE GLOBAL ECONOMIC MELTDOWN: The Rise of the Malignant Narcissists

While science hotly debates the issue of Man-Made Global Warming, a separate, and this time indisputably man-made process, highly destructive of the planet and toxic to its inhabitants is taking place before our eyes. And for this mess, there should be no controversy at all about who is to blame--if one looks at the data.

If you go back to the Meltdown's beginnings at the end of the last century as Classical Values does, you can only come to one conclusion: that the whole financial mess proves capitalism doesn't work. When it is controlled by government.

The left would like to blame this global economic meltdown on capitalism, but I'm afraid that won't serve. What caused it is a vast Congressional-Industrial Complex where the know-it-all, do-gooder elitist leaders in Congress (a toxic mixture of "selfless" and "selfish" narcissists) conspired and colluded with the money-grubbing elitist leaders (selfish narcissists) in the business world to deviate from and otherwise ignore the fundamental laws of supply and demand (in order to enrich themselves while sanctimoniously insisting it was for the benefit of the disadvantaged); and to pretend that they could manipulate the market indefinitely without any adverse consequences.

You cannot ignore reality for very long without having to deal with the consequences.

Right now in the news we have excellent examples of what I mean by "sociopathic selflessness" (Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama and many others) and "sociopathic selfishness" (Bernie Madoff and the CEO's and governing boards of looted companies that should be allowed to fail and their executives prosecuted). Often, malignant narcissists combine the qualities of both types, vascillating between the grandiosity characteristic of the malignantly selfish and the compassionate do-gooder of the malignantly selfless.

From that article:

In "The Narcissistic Synthesis", I proposed that the optimal synthesis of the two opposing ethical imperatives of the developing self--the Grandiose Self (GS) and the Idealized Object (IO) -- was Individualism, or as it is sometimes called, "Enlightened Self-Interest". The two ethical imperatives that derive from the GS and IO, and which form the dialectic are in the table below in red and blue:


The study of Ethics is concerned with the question of what constitutes ethical ( good) human behavior; as well as unethical (bad) human behavior.

Through Ethics, we are able to develop our values and take action in the real world to pursue those values. The study of Ethics answers such questions as: "Should I only pursue my own happiness?" or "Should I sacrifice myself for the greater good of others?"

These two questions are at the heart of the narcissistic dialectic in the area of Ethics, and they appear to be completely the opposite of each other. But somehow, a healthy individual must find a way to creatively synthesize an effective and life-affirming value system from both sides of that ethical dialectic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The malignant and sociopathic potential of both the GS and IO are inherent in the human species. They are flip sides of the same human coin, you see. One side cannot exist without the other. Either a way is found to synthesize the two, or an individual will forever flip-flop between them--coldly and viciously tyrannical toward all humans in pursuit of his own desires on the one hand; and on the other, coldly and viciously determined no matter what the cost in human lives and suffereing to implement his IDEAL in all human society.

We are always warned about the individual narcissitic sociopaths; but most people don't appreciate the sociopathic qualities of groups, religions, nations, and ideologies that demand all individuals sacrifice themselves for the good of the latest utopian ideal or some blood-thirsty god.

In our modern world, the Islamic Jihadists have perfected this ethical demand; and the suicide-bomber is the ultimate expression of their ethics. (see the post "Union With An Evil God" and "Narcissistic Rage and Awe" for more on this).

But they are not alone in their disregard and contempt for the individual, who they see as only existing to serve the IDEAL, or to bring about the utopia/paradise/caliphate/[insert fantasy delusion here].

Extremes of both the political left and the political right are also dominated by the malignant narcissism of the GS and the IO.

If we go back to our understanding of healthy narcissistic development, we appreciate that the GS and the IO in adults is a result of the failure of narcissistic synthesis. The developmental process that should lead to a healthy self is broken; or fractured; or poisoned....

So, how does the self, torn between these two potentially malignant outcomes resolve the conflicting ethical imperatives and come out whole and fully integrated?

The solution lies not in a compromise between the two extremes, but in a synthesis that creates a new and wholly unexpected perspective for the self. It is a synthesis that rejects the pathology of either extreme and recognizes that the individual self has worth; that the needs and desires of the Individual self are worth pursuing for their own sake; and that because of the affiliative nature of human beings that an individual can value another individual or individuals enough to sacrifice himself for that other person or persons when it is rational and necessary to do so.

One might say that true "selflessness" actually requires a healthy and whole self; and that contrary to common wisdom, when a psychologically mature individual chooses to sacrifice himself for someone or something, it simultaneously reflects a situation of true "selfishness" as well.

Further reading on this can be found in the following posts, if you're interested:

Narcissism & Society Parts I-III
The Narcissistic Dialectic
The Narcissistic Synthesis

Of course, malignant narcissists of both stripes will always exist in any society whether it is a democratic capitalist society or a collectivist centralized economy.

To the degree that the "selfless" do-gooder type has significant to unlimited political power to manipulate the market or economy for their "compassionate" and glorious utopian fantasies (and along the way, of course, to personally enrich themselves) then they become a real danger to the entire society. This type of malignant narcissist is the hallmark of the socialist/communist/collectivist society, and theoretically has less room to indulge their grandiose selves in a democracy. But not always, as the citizens of the U.S. have come to appreciate.

As for the money-grubbing CEO's like Madoff and others--laws always exist in free societies to prosecute them for the kind of fraud they perpetrate. Generally, those CEO's whose bad management and collusion with the above political narcissists are not rewarded with bailouts in free societies. No person or company is "too big" to fail. The ripple effects of the failure may be severe, but by allowing them to suffer the consequences of their idiocy, a free society will be taking out insurance against the bad behavior that led to it (i.e., they will encourage its extinction). "Madoffs" are not only found in capitalistic societies; they are part and parcel of the collectivist ones, too. But in the collectivist societies, they can make their best killings since they have the protection and encouragement of the political powers-that-be (who often are handsomely rewarded for that protection etc.). In the capitalistic societies, with a rule of law, the Madoffs eventually are exposed and go to jail. In the collectivist "utopias" they are the only ones who have any wealth, and they are the "ubermenschen" and rule along side with the political deities of the realm:

Leftist ideologues fear and despise capitalism and democracy because capitalism allows for the freedom and self expression of each individual, ideas that are anathema to leftist ideologues. Like the Nazis and Soviet communists before them, it is their vision and their vision only that is acceptable. Deviate even a bit and you become an ‘enemy of the state....’

The Nazis, Soviets and leftists share a common trait. In their goal to create an ubermensch and an ubermensch society, they had to become untermenschen, adopting racist, repressive tactics so as to promote and steamroll their agendas.

The free market is simply not capable of screwing up the entire economy without the devoted and unethical assistance from unrestrained and malignant politicians colluding with unethical and malignant businessmen, both of whom are insulated (for a while, at least) from the rule of law and from reality.

UPDATE: Here's a perfect example of the Congressional-Industrial Complex I'm talking about. Maxine Waters (D CA) is despicable for any number of reasons, but this just about takes the cake, don't you think?

ROUGH SEAS AHEAD

...for the Good Ship Lollipop Nincompoop:



[Cartoons by Eric Allie]


On the good ship Nincompoop.
They fly outside the OODA loop
So no one acts--
Except to meddle with your income tax.

$Dollar bill$ drop everywhere.
And bailouts fill the air.
And there you'll be
Drowning in a debt-filled sea.

See the Congress twist and bend
And Obama pull a classy con.
When they spend and spend
You'll awaken with your savings gone!

On the good ship Nincompoop
It's a long four years to be a dupe
In Obamaland--
On the good ship Nincompoop!.

[Imagine it being sung by Shirley Temple:]

IN DENIAL ABOUT DENIAL

A reader pointed me to this post which discusses how the eco-fascists of our planet would like to label "denial" about global warming a mental illness.

The idea that ‘climate change denial’ is a psychological disorder – the product of a spiteful, wilful or simply in-built neural inability to face up to the catastrophe of global warming – is becoming more and more popular amongst green-leaning activists and academics. And nothing better sums up the elitism and authoritarianism of the environmentalist lobby than its psychologisation of dissent. The labelling of any criticism of the politics of global warming, first as ‘denial’, and now as evidence of mass psychological instability, is an attempt to write off all critics and sceptics as deranged, and to lay the ground for inevitable authoritarian solutions to the problem of climate change. Historically, only the most illiberal and misanthropic regimes have treated disagreement and debate as signs of mental ill-health.

Before I discuss such tactics (which many on the left accuse me of using), I think some background ideas need to be reviewed.

I frequently use psychiatric and psychological concepts to describe behavior in this blog, and because of that, many people accuse me of labeling anyone who disagrees with me politically as having a mental illness.

This is not true; and it suggests that most of these critics know little about psychiatry, psychiatric diagnoses, or psychological defenses.

While I do believe that some of the people I describe might indeed have a mental illness; and that some are, in fact, perfectly healthy but simply malevolent or evil; it is simply not the case that by exposing certain psychological defense mechanisms that explain their behavior, I am giving the political opposition a medical/psychiatric diagnosis. Nevertheless, if a particular diagnosis fits, I am perfectly content to let them wear it.

In discussing psychological defense mechanisms, what I am trying to do is understand how and why people behave in the way that they do. Describing psychological defenses is not the same thing as "making a diagnosis" for one very simple reason. All humans utilize psychological defenses, all the time. Both Democrat and Republican; Left and Right. Good and Bad.

Psychological defenses are involuntary, regulatory coping processes.

By themselves, defenses are not evidence of "illness". When used, they may appear to be "sick," evil, or even irrational, but basically, they reflect a creative adaptation to the world.

George Vaillant, a brilliant researcher in this area, and a Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard, uses the analogy that defenses mechanisms are deployed in a fashion similar to physical symptoms-- such as a fever, cough or elevated white blood cell count. All of the latter physical symptoms occur when an individual is coming down with an illness.

Vaillant points out that the body reacts to the environment with these physiological responses in order to prevent or ameliorate the attacking illness. Without these normal physiological responses, we would be at the mercy of many illness and die.

In similar fashion, the psychological defenses are employed by the ego to respond to a threatening reality. With varying levels of success, our defense mechanisms ameliorate, distort and/or transform reality in order to protect our psychological self. The healthier and more mature defenses are a remarkably creative synthesis of our conflicts, needs and external reality; a synthesis that enable us to both give and receive pleasure in life.

Some defenses may be considered "immature" or even completely out of touch with reality; while others are "mature". This is not necessarily a value judgement, since it only reflects the fact that throughout development from childhood to adulthood; certain psychological strategies are generally discarded in favor of healthier and more effective strategies. The difference between the two types--mature and immature--is that the psychotic and immature defenses may cause considerable human misery and are, in the long run, not particularly adaptive or healthy. In some cases, they can even distort or warp reality to such an extent, that the person using the defense puts his life (and possibly others lives) at stake.

This is a very high price to pay to avoid a reality that is unpleasant or unacceptable.

Thus, when I see the predominance of "immature" strategies (e.g. projection, fantasy, acting out)--and/or some of the more primitive and potentially psychotic strategies (denial, distortion, paranoia)--being used by supposedly grownup adults, I begin to look around for explanations of their conduct that are not being acknowledged.

In a sense, all psychological defenses are a variation on denial; and at the center of all psychological denial is a hidden agenda. That agenda is usually not completely conscious--meaning that the denier has not thought through the issues surrounding his denial; and may not even be aware of what his motivation is in asserting something is true when it isn't; or false when it isn't.

Many people are very pleased not to have to change themselves or conform to reality. They will maintain their dysfunctional defenses no matter what the cost. Self reflection and insight are too dangerous for such people, and death is preferable to altering their beliefs or fantasies about the real world. Clearly, their distress about the possibility of changing themselves or their beliefs is far greater than any potential consequences they might experience by using an immature, unhealthy and dysfunctional psychological defense to avoid reality.

Those people who come to see psychiatrists and mental health professionals are, for the most part in considerable distress from their symptoms and want to change (of course, that doesn't mean they will do so easily, unfortunately).

Probably the best description of defenses that I have ever read comes from George Vaillant, in his book The Wisdon of the Ego: (pg. 17 - 18)

1. Defenses reflect creative synthesis. The mind creates a perception that was not there before and that did not come just from external reality. In this regard, defensive behavior resembles art.
2. Defenses are relatively unconscious and their deployment is relatively involuntary.
3. Defenses distort inner and/or outer reality.
4. Defenses distort the relationship between affect and idea and between subject and object.
5. Defenses are more often healthy than pathological.
6. Defenses often appear odd or startling to everyone but the user.
7. Over time defenses often mature and allow the mentally "ill" to evolve into the mentally well.

Let me offer a concrete illustration of a defense--a photograph of a rainbow, if you will, obtained through my metaphorical telescope, the Study of Adult Development. I was interviewing an internist who had participated in the study for thirty years. He told me with vividness and enthusiasm, about his hobby: growing tissue cultures in his basement. He then told me with still more enthusiasm that the cells for one of these tissue cultures had been taken from a lesion on his mother's leg. He described his interest in tissue cultures as if it were the most ordinary pursuit in the world. But I have yet to describe his hobby to an audience without an uneasy ripple of laughter sweeping the room. Audiences have found the fact that this doctor was growing his mother's cells in his basement, as a child might raise flowers, extraordinary, even pathological. In short, the doctor saw his own behavior as normal; outsiders saw it as odd and, as we so often view other people's religion, politics, and dreams, possibly improper. Thus their laughter.

But anyone can have an unusual hobby. What mad this internist's avocation particularly noteworthy was that near the end of the interview he revealed to me--in the most matter of fact way--that his mother had died only three weeks earlier. Knowing that he had been very fond of her, I asked him how he had coped with her death. He said that, since he was a physician, he had spent his time comforting his father. On a conscious level, this man had rationalized --and he was good at rationalizing--that he had borne the grief o flosing his mother by caring for another person. Put differently, by his self-report he had used altruism as a coping strategy. Had I been interested only in conscious coping strategies, I too might have classified his means of mastering his mother's death as altruism. Instead, Ilocated his source of solace by makinig a connection of which he himself was probably unaware. I deduced that the knowledge that somehow his mother was still alive and living in his basement might be providing a secret source of comfort. Certainly he had described his scientific hobby to me with an enthusiasm and a warmth usually allotted to people and to art. Certainly, he had described the loss of his mother by death with the blandness usually allotted to leaves dropping off a tree in autumn--or to tissue cultures.

In short, defenses are creative, healthy, comforting, coping, and yet often strike observers as downright peculiar. But that is why defenses--like immune mechanisms--serve adaptation. That is why defenses integrate experience by providing a variety of filters for pain and mechanisms for self-deception. Defenses creatively rearrange the sources of conflict so that they become manageable.

Let us return now to the issue at hand. As the above discussion has shown, denial is not in and of itself a mental illness. It is a tactic that is used by everyone all the time to cope with some of the more unpleasant aspects of reality. For most people, the more immature aspects of psychological denial are usually abandoned when they directly face reality or truth or facts.

Having said that, it is not psychological denial to disagree with someone. It is not psychological denial to debate "facts" that are in dispute, or even "facts" that conflict with other "facts". When it comes to science there are always disagreements and debate over such things. In the free marketplace of ideas that is science, this is not only common, but healthy, and it is an essential process in the search for truth.

It is only when politics and ideology get mixed in with the scientific pursuit of that truth that the process can easily be perverted. Which is what todays environmentalists have done (and why I refer to them as "eco-fascists"). They do not seek scientific truth, they seek the imposition of a political agenda.

They are so intent on imposing this agenda that they have wittingly or unwittingly fallen into using yet another psychological defense mechanism: projection. They would like to impute to those who disagree with some of their hypotheses of global warming and climate change their own denial of reality. Then they take it one step further and call it a mental illness. This is only a further manifestation of their own mental insecurity and difficulty in dealing with the real world. Their own mental universe is like an elaborately constructed sand castle--one good wave of criticism; one splash of reality or truth is all it would take to bring down the entire structure.

No one has to tell me that psychiatry can be abused by politicians and idealogues. I happen to be quite familiar with the history of such tactics, usually embraced by totalitarian or authoritarian regimes to silence critics. In the old Soviet Union, one favorite technique was to have the State Psychiatrist "diagnose" dissidents with what the Soviet communists liked called "sluggish schizophrenia" (a sort of incipient schizophrenic/psychotic process that beclouded the "proper" thinking process of a true communist)--because, who in their right mind would believe that individual freedom was more important than the collective? Or that communism was the only scientifically proven system of society? Who, indeed? The amazingly clueless and aggressively unscientific Islamists resort to the most ridiculous "scientific" claims for their religion.

The eco-fascists, who have nothing on the Islamic fascists are just as willing as the jihadis to subjugate the human species to their environmental religion; a religion that where doubt and a desire for further inquiry (the foundations of real science) represent a heinous blasphemy; and any criticism implies mental illness and is treated with incarceration or worse punishment.

Let's consider how Environmental Psychiatry would work, shall we? A while back, I quoted Gagdad Bob in a post on the science of Islamic psychiatry::

Imagine a Palestinian going to a Palestinian psychiatrist and free associating. “You know, I’ve been having these weird thoughts.... I don’t think that Jews are responsible for all my problems.... In fact, I’m starting to think that they’re an admirable people, and that we should be imitating them instead of murdering them.... Let’s be honest, Doc, Arabs have contributed nothing to the world, but just by being in proximity to Israel we were the most prosperous Arab ecomomy, but we stupidly destroyed all of that with the meaningless intifada. We actually cheered when those planes went into the Twin Towers, but now I’m starting to have second thoughts, Doc. Am I crazy?”

“Yes. Not just crazy but evil. As a way of curing you, I am recommending that you be hung by your ankles from the nearest lamp post and be disemboweled by an angry mob.”

Well, here's the Environmental Psychiatry version:
"Imagine an environmental scientist going to a environmental psychiatrist and free associating. “You know, I’ve been having these weird thoughts.... I don’t think that man-made global warming is responsible for all the climate changes the planet is undergoing right now.... In fact, I’m starting to think that these climate changes we're seeing may be part of natural cycles of warming and cooling that occur not only on our planet, but on all planets in the solar system; and that maybe we are being too quick to lay the blame on human activity; especially since human activity and productivity is what drives economies and brings people out of poverty and misery and naturally raises the standard of living. Are we willing to lower that standard of living and control human activity and condemn people all over the globe to poverty and misery just on the possibility that we can have any significant impact on these warming and cooling trends? Let’s be honest, Doc, the debate is far from over on this subject, and there is a lot at stake--particularly human freedom and economic progress; let's not stupidly destroy the engines that have brought us to prosperity and freedom by an agenda that cheers on human suffering and death as positive for the planet. I’m starting to have second thoughts, Doc. Am I crazy?”

“Yes. Not just crazy but evil. As a way of curing you, I am recommending that you be hung by your ankles from the nearest lamp post and be disemboweled by an angry mob.”

Now we come to the real agenda of the eco-fascists:

Instead of creating the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' the neo-marxists among us have settled on the 'dictatorship of the scientific elite'.

In reality, they always intended for a few intellectual 'elites'(they mean themselves, actually) to have the power to run things. but at least they hid that agenda behind the 'power to the people' bullshit rhetoric.

Now, they don't even bother to disguise their agenda. Or, even bother to deny that it was the same kind of marxist/socialist/communist--i.e., LEFTIST, policies that have most polluted the environment and destroyed the planet.

The devastation they have wrought to both the human population and the precious planet are only unintended consequences of their scientifically 'proven' methods. These utopian (and I count the radical environmentalist among the worst of the lot) always know what's best for us hapless humans because they are so much smarter and wiser than we are. They mean well, after all. It isn't their fault that a little thing like reality gets in the way of their implementation of utopian policies!

It isn't their fault that the environment is a complex system! They only mean the best for us.

They always seem to assume that something is "scientifically proven" when the results happen to agree with their ideology.

But actually, you could say that all these environmental fanatics are simply in denial about denial.

[BTW, the Obama Administration's rhetoric about "science trumping ideology" will, in reality, amount to the opposite...watch and see.]

A LOOSE, MUCH MORE POSTMODERN TRANSLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION

....very loose. Almost postmodern you might say, since truths are relative and self-evident depends on what the meaning of 'what is' is....



[Cartoons by Gary Varvel]

SILENCE OF THE LEFTIST LAMBS

Cliff May quotes something that seems to be increasingly apparent in the New Age of Obama:

The practical effect is to prevent the courts from reviewing the legality of the warrantless wiretapping program that Mr. Obama repeatedly claimed to find so heinous — at least before taking office...

Then again, we are relearning that the "Imperial Presidency" is only imperial when the President is a Republican. Democrats who spent years denouncing George Bush for "spying on Americans" and "illegal wiretaps" are now conspicuously silent.

And somehow, I suspect that The Big O and his Democratic and leftist buddies who screamed the loudest during the Bush years don't actually intend to use this power of the Executive to to protect America's from its enemies.... But it sure comes in handy when they have to protect their own backsides--or when they need to dig up some dirt on anyone who dares to criticize the benificent wonderfulness of The One.

Watch and see. That's how totalitarian and autoritarian thugs--even the Havard eductated ones--operate.

NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT BRITAIN

...or, so says the Obama Administration:

Further confirmation that the Obama administration may be downgrading the Special Relationship with Great Britain is provided by a State Department official in an interview with the Sunday Telegraph.

Asked about the underwhelming reception given to Gordon Brown when he visited the White House last week, the “furious” unnamed official, who was involved in the planning of the meeting, declared:

There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment

.

It's good to know that The One's administration has been working so hard to make us loved in the world once again! Friends and foes alike are apparently gaining a new appreciation of the United States. Take North Korea, for example:

North Korea says it will retaliate if its "satellite" launch from its northeastern coast is intercepted, with the communist nation saying interference would "mean a war." The statement came as the North cut off communications with neighboring South Korea.

"Shooting our satellite for peaceful purposes will precisely mean a war," a spokesman for the North Korean army said in a statement carried by the state-run Korean Central News Agency (KCNA).

U.S. and South Korean officials have said that North Korea appears to be preparing to test-fire its long-range missile, the Taepodong-2, under the guise of launching a satellite into space. The missile is thought to have an intended range of about 4,200 miles (6,700 kilometers), which -- if true -- could give it the capability of striking Alaska or Hawaii.

Not to mention that Iran, who has crossed the nuclear threshold, thinks the US should apologize for how badly we've treated them.

Under Bush, North Korea and Iran made up two thirds of the infamous "Axis of Evil", with the former Iraqi state under its ex-leader Saddam filling in the last chunk of evilness. But now, since we are cozying up to those poor, misunderstood and oppressed regimes; not to mention reaching out to the Taliban, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah, Cuba, and (fill in your favorite terrorist, thuggish, or tyrannical entity here)-- perhaps we are seeing the unveiling of a New, Improved Obamasized Axis of Evil? And the members of that new troika of troublesomeness are none other than America, Israel, and Great Britain! All of these vicious regimes need to be taken down a peg or two now that the reign of the Obamessiah has come to pass.

After all, there's nothing special about Britain...or Israel...or the United States, for that matter--unless you consider their unique place in the PC/multicultural postmodern universe.

UPDATE: Jonah Goldberg is outraged at the State Dept "dufus" who said Britain was nothing special:

As an unapologetic, full-throated Anglophile I find those comments idiotic, offensive, ahistorical, and in a certain sense anti-American.* I'm of course appalled.

But it's worth focusing on one aspect of this sentiment: It's idiocy. According to the liberal-realist school, some countries matter more than other countries because they are powerful and have the ability to adversely affect our national interest. According to the liberal-internationalist school, allies matter more than non-allies because grand international coalitions are the best way to do the wonderful things want to do on the world stage. So, China matters because it's a rising hegemon. Burkino Faso matters . . . eh, not so much. "Europe" matters because they are allies on security, global warming, human rights, etc. Well, Britain just happens to be our most important, reliable, and powerful ally.

So even if you take the pragmatist's razor to our shared history, culture, and all other romantic attachments to Great Britain, the bulldog still matters — a lot. In other words, to say that Britain isn't any more special than the other 190 countries in the world, you actually have to dislike Britain to the point where you're willing to suspend what are supposed to be your guiding principles and objectives about foreign policy.

YOU SAY YOU WANT AN INQUISITION ?

Then let's start the "Truth Commissions" with the worst of the lot:

Oversight: Congressman Barney Frank says he wants some of those responsible for our current financial meltdown to be prosecuted. And we couldn't agree more. First up in the court dock: Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass.

Even by the extraordinarily loose standards of Congress, it takes some chutzpah for someone such as Frank to suggest that he'll seek prosecutions for those behind the housing and financial crunch and for what he called "a strongly empowered systemic risk regulator."

Frank: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's point man in Washington.
For Frank, perhaps more than any single individual in private or public life, is responsible for both the housing market mess and subsequent bank disaster. And no, this isn't partisan hyperbole or historical exaggeration.

Read it all. Frank and the others in Congress who created the beginnings of this mess in the late 90's under Clinton don't have chtuzpah as much as they lack shame and try to do everything possible in order to avoid it--like setting up inquisitions where they can pretend to be righteous and pure while persecuting someone else. It's a clever psychological ploy to avoid taking responsibility for your own behavior.

Watch the following if you have been listening to Obama and Frank's revisionist history (via The Moderate Voice)



You say you want a revolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be alright

You say you got a real solution
Well you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be alright

You say you'll change the constitution
Well you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know know it's gonna be alright
-The Beatles

SO LONG AND THANKS FOR ALL THE BAILOUTS

Mona Charen says its time to stand up for capitalism. I agree:

If ever there were a time when our market economy deserves a little coddling and a soft pillow under its head, it is now. Battered by a financial meltdown, a plunging stock market, declining trade, and frightened consumers, now would be the time to cut corporate tax rates (which are among the highest in the world), reverse the “mark to market” rule for valuing assets, temporarily increase unemployment compensation and Medicaid (with sunset provisions), and keep taxes low. When Barack Obama agreed last autumn that it was not a good idea to raise taxes during a recession, it seemed that he was at least enough of a moderate to understand the importance of markets. One can no longer indulge that hope. Like blasts from a machine gun, Obama has announced higher taxes on the owners of small businesses (the most productive individuals), higher taxes on the energy industry (through the cap-and-trade system), green mandates on the auto industry that will increase the cost of each vehicle, a bailout of mortgagers that will increase the cost of mortgages down the road, increased unionization (which reduces jobs), a repeal of the successful welfare reform of the 1990s, and a rhetorical assault on Wall Street that leaves investors edgy.

The Democrats scoff when you use the “s” word (socialism). It’s a bogeyman, they argue. Not so. If by socialism, you refer to the sort of government-heavy economies that characterize most of Europe, then we are clearly headed there about as fast as Flight 1549 was headed for the Hudson River.

Unfortunately for us, Obama is no "Sully" Sullenberger. Instead, with his anti-capitalist policies and under the direction of Pelosi and Reid, we can be sure that we are in for a catastrophic landing scenario, along with multiple casualties.

Charen goes on:

Yes, there’s a recession on and it’s deep. Capitalism is not perfect (though one harbors the suspicion that if government had not, in effect, subsidized risky mortgage lending we would not be in this position). But with all its defects, capitalism remains the greatest engine of prosperity the world has ever witnessed. Just in the last 25 years, hundreds of millions of people, principally residing in China and India, who had been close to destitution and starvation are driving cars, sipping lattes, and chatting on cell phones thanks to free-market reforms. Countries with few natural resources other than the brains of their people — like Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Japan — have become economic powerhouses by permitting the free market to work its magic.

It shouldn't come as any surprise that the thing most feared by today's neo-Marxists --like Barack Obama--is capitalism. Thus it must be demonized and all the blame for today's economic mess is placed at its door.

These neo-Marxists are right to fear it, because capitalism actually works in the real world; while communism, socialism and all the utopian variants thereof do not. When idiots like Pelosi and Reid, Dodd and Frank self-righteously try to manipulate the market to "help the poor and disadvantaged", they cause the exact opposite to happen. Who is impacted most by their policies: those who might otherwise eventually benefit from the actions of a free market--as documented over the last 100 years.

Capitalism creates wealth and slowly but surely cures poverty; while their own ideology, instead of 'redistributing' wealth, redistributes poverty. Capitalism embraces freedom and cannot function optimally without it; while their ideology must have increasing control over even the smallest things in people's lives.

Capitalism is good for the soul, while their ideology destroys the soul.

In every empirical test in the real world, capitalism has worked better than socialism or communism or any Marxist ideology. The last century once and for all completely debunked all the original Marxist claims about socialism's supposed superiority.

--Instead of exploiting people, capitalism has empowered them, while Marx's theories made them poor, miserable, and oppressed.
--Instead of increasing poverty, capitalism has mostly eliminated it. The rich get richer indeed; but the poor get richer, too. Under socialism’s yoke, everyone becomes poorer--except, of course, the corrupt (see Cuba, Venezuela, etc. etc.).
--Instead of being more humane and peaceful, socialists and communists who gain control of a country have led that country to dictatorship and oppression; and then became aggressive and violent toward other countries as they attempt to externalize blame for their own economic and political failures.

The confrontation between capitalism and socialism in the last century was only the most recent in a long series of historical battles between the forces of freedom and individualism on the one hand; and the forces of tyranny and collectivism on the other.

We used to have two political parties in this country that both supported freedom and individualism, but one of them now openly mocks anyone who suggests that socialism is a bad thing.

The only problem with that is socialism is a bad thing. Even in the supposedly "benign" social democracies (e.g. in Europe), socialist and Marxist ideas are hardly benign at all; they erode the soul and spirit; stoke class envy and encourage entitlement and decrease the production of wealth for all. In fact, anytime socialist principles are adopted and implemented in a otherwise thriving economy, it inevitably leads to decay and poverty for all. Oh, the process of losing your freedom and getting poorer is a little more pleasant and comforting simply because instead of the horribly oppressive "daddy" state, controlled by the Lenins, Stalins and their modern-day equivalents in Cuba, Venezuela and elsewhere; you get the "nanny" states that want to coddle, mother and otherwise suffocate you until all individual liberty and initiative are gone.

The social engineers of the left, motivated as they are by their creative utopian aspirations--expressed by the desire to impose (forcibly, if necessary) universal peace, social justice and brotherhood upon humanity--are completely oblivious to the malignant side of their own natures. Both they and the capitalist entrepreneurs of the right who they despise so vehemently are both driven by the darker human emotions: envy, greed and a need to dominate others.

However, there remains an extremely crucial difference between them:

The do-gooder leftist in all the various ideological incarnations--the antiwar crowd, the environmental crowd, the communists, socialists, and assorted collectivists--offers the rationale that he does what he does for the "common good" and for "social justice", "peace" and "brotherhood". His high-minded, self-righteous rhetoric justifies (to him anyway) imposing his will and beliefs on others for their own good; and he will not hesitate to use whatever coercive capablity he has at hand to get others to do what he wants and what he says.

The capitalist, on the other hand, is overtly out to pursue his own selfish profit, and understands he must use persuasion. That is, he must convince people that his ideas and the products of his mind are better than all the rest so that they will be willing to part with their hard-earned money to possess them. His desire for power over others is manifested in an indirect manner because people must want what he has to offer and believe that they will benefit from an interaction with him.

There is no parallel social limitations on the behavior of the leftist. This tyrant wannabe does not feel the need to convince others of the veracity or even the effectiveness of his ideas; nor does he accept defeat when others are not interested or resist their implementation. He knows in his heart what is best for everyone, and he will use coercion if necessary. He will not allow options; nor will he permit others do do what they think is right for themselves. Their feelings or concerns are a matter of complete indifference to him. Only his own matter.

The leftist's desire for power is direct and absolute; and this is a direct consequence of his utopian ideology.

And there is no area of your life which will escape his intrusive psychopathology, because he justifies it by saying he is really doing it for your sake.

In standing up for capitalism, you are standing up for your own individual freedom; and that means the freedom to fail, as well as the freedom to succeed. Without both, there is no real freedom.

So, just say no to being bailed out; thank the nannies for their concern, but say, give me liberty, not a bailout!

HOPING FOR CHANGE? CHANGE THE SUBJECT !

[Cartoons by Glenn Foden]

Let me say this again, because it's important (from the previous post):

For the White House to employ an operative whose responsibility is, fundamentally, to direct a political strategy aimed, not at shaping is response to criticism but to take down a single media figure goes well beyond of the pale of an acceptable response.

Limbaugh is a private citizen--a celebrity, to be sure, but a private citizen and if the government can go after him, or Rick Santelli, or Joe the Plumber; they can just as easily try to destroy you or me for their political purposes.

In, "Narcissism and the Politics of Personal Destruction" I address the politics of personal destruction, once personified by Bill and Hillary Clinton, but equally applicable to the saintly, adored Obama:
To the extent that a person's behavior is mostly motivated by perceived insults to their self--i.e., their narcissistic core; then the "insult" will usually prompt a typical display of narcissistic rage directed toward the unfortunate individual who threatens them.

Such rage responses are invariably destructive, mean, and petty. Additionally, these rages are generally not beneficial to society-at-large (in fact, such actions often have strong sociopathic or antisocial elements to them) , although the person in the throes of narcissistic rage will often convince themselves that they are behaving perfectly appropriately and even for "the good" of others.

This is the origins of "sociopathic selfishness and "sociopathic selflessness" I have discussed elsewhere.

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 Steyn calls 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.

Hence the current state of political discourse and the ubiquitous personal attacks that have become the trademark of all political campaigns.

If you want to understand why politics has 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 integrity and values who are obsessively attracted to the field and are triumphant--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 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.

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!

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.

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 like both Hillary and Bill can only flutter in the political winds, and zelig-like easily take on whatever characteristics their 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 like the Clintons, for example, 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-wing conspiracies" and such.

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 polls indicate they should?.

Hillary Clinton did not get where she is today by being a person of integrity, honesty and courage--she got there by riding on the coattails of her charismatic husband; and by shrewdly altering her opinions to accommodate the prevailing political winds. And, oh yes, by ruthlessly destroying whoever got in her way. And even her base is able to recognize this about her, although she is extremely careful never to dirty her own hands. Like the Hamas and Hezbollah gunmen who shield themselves with innocent women and children, Hillary and her spouse have always had a ready supply of useful fall-guys (recall Vince Foster's suicide or Sandy Berger's recent archival exploits, for example) to take responsibility for their misdeeds.

That is why candidates like Obama are so attractive: because this same voting base that once adored Hillary now find her too too obvious and coarse, and have swung over to the unknown, tabula rasa candidate on whom they are able to project their own fantasies without any intrusion by harsh reality....

The best leaders are not obsessed with themselves; 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. Look at Saddam's behavioral legacy. Observe the recent behaviors of Ahmadinejad or Chavez or Kim Jong Il -- or any of the other despots and thugs that somehow claw their way up to the top of the food chain in their respective countries.

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

In Obama's case, the attempt to change the subject to Rush, or Santelli or Cramer--or anyone who dares to question him--serves to keep the public eyes off his toxic, transformational agenda for American society. It is just another calculated "sleight of hand" that deliberately misdirects the gullible mark; a trick that every good con artist learns early in his career. And Obama is a master at it.

THE POLITICAL PSYCHOPATHOLOGY ACCELERATES

In "Win or Lose, The Left Will Remain Dysfunctional", I wrote:
There has been a series of bizarre conspiracy theories emanating from anxious leftists in the last 8 years as they attempt to keep the holes in their ideology plugged; thus preventing any reality from washing over them or flooding their cognitive processes.

Every time a leak in that ideological dike appears, the paranoid brand chewing gum is brought out to stop it up. The TNG memos were a clever plot by Karl Rove. The Bush Administration was behind 9/11; Katrina was allowed to destroy New Orleans because Bush hates blacks. George Bush is about to impose a theocracy on the unsuspecting U.S. Pat Tillman was murdered because he wanted to meet with anti-war activist Norm Chomsky. The list of the paranoid delusions goes on and on and on.

Taken as a whole, they are evidence of an ongoing and determined refusal to face reality--because it is a reality that threatens the belief systm of a whole section of the American population. Without the delusions and conspiracies concocted by the always creative political left, their whole house of Marxist cards will come crumblin down.

Some have said that Unwillingness To Face Reality And Its Consequences is the most serious mental illness of our time; and that is most certainly true.

Erica Jong and her equally paranoid friends are perfect examples of how the bacteria of paranoid stupidity is spread. The infecting agent is usually a true believer who cannot face some unpleasant aspect of reality (i.e. that always "unpleasant truth") that is starting to trickle out into the open. It must dammed up immediately. The paranoid gum is handy and easy to use--just chew it up and plaster it over the hole.

For the political left, the gum has created a full blown conspiracy theory that links the Bush Administration to anything bad in the world--in this case to discredit a celebrity military hero who died under tragic circumstances, but who died fighting for his country. Such a bizarre distortion of the cirucumstances of his death serves to undermine his bona fides as a real patriot while demonizing the entire Bush Administration and the war on terror. It is simply another manifestation of BDS.

Just as the Jews serve as the handy scapegoat on which the dysfunctional Arab/Islamic culture in the Middle East can blame all their own societal failures; Conservatives and the political right serve the function of being the source of all evil in American society to the dysfunctional political left. If they did not have a George Bush on which to blame all societies ills, they would have to invent him--or, in recent weeks, we have seen how they have forced Sarah Palin into the same scapegoat mold, prepared to transfer all their rage and hostility toward her. Not to have such a scapegoat on which to project their own inadequacies would mean they would have to question some very basic assumptions about their fantasized superiority.

Since Obama's ascension into heaven, the left, with his help, have also placed Rush Limbaugh in a primary place in their lexicon of conservative evil. Suffice it to say:

For the White House to employ an operative whose responsibility is, fundamentally, to direct a political strategy aimed, not at shaping is response to criticism but to take down a single media figure goes well beyond of the pale of an acceptable response.

Limbaugh is a private citizen--a celebrity, to be sure, but a private citizen and if the government can go after him, or Rick Santelli, or Joe the Plumber; they can just as easily try to destroy you or me for political purposes.

And meanwhile, even as they invent a new "bad guy", the more delusional and "progressive" members of Congress who seem not to be entirely able to "moveon" are still trying to demonize Bush and anyone else who worked in that Administration. This, they feel, is an absolute necessity because to let Bush and his achievements in Iraq and in the protection of the US stand destroys the entire ideological foundation of the left (such as it is--since they believe in nothing but their own power and trust nothing but their own feelings).

Meanwhile, the "One" who was going to restore our image in the world is busy sending his foreign policy team to suck up to all the dictators, tyrants and terrorists of the world and simply can't be bothered to spend any quality time with a real ally . As Mark Steyn notes, there are two possible explanations for the humiliations inflicted by the Obama Administration on Mr. Brown:

One is that (as several alleged experts have told me) in this area the president genuinely differs from his predecessors. Take that Martin Gilbert biography of Churchill the Prime Minister gave him: I'll wager Obama will never read a word of it. To him, Sir Winston is not the great wartime leader, the indispensable man in civilization's darkest hour (1940-41), but the post-war leader responsible for the ruthless suppression of the Mau-Mau rebellion in his father's Kenya. Churchill is not the way to Obama's heart.

And, in a broader sense, he has no particular attachment to "the west" — to the transatlantic partnership, the Anglo-American relationship, any of it. As I touched on in NR the other week, to his admirers he represents a cooler post-western "hybridity." And, given where he chose to spend his entire adult life, that seems entirely likely.

The simpler explanation, which I find more persuasive, is that he's just too narcissistic: He's the star and these foreign prime ministers are rather dreary extras. And unfortunately he's not a good enough actor to conceal his lack of interest in them. And his courtiers take pretty much the same line, which is why it never occurred to them that some no-name Brit would be insulted at not getting the multi-flagged joint presser.

Personally, I think both are true. Obama is proving to be the worst type of narcissist--a malignant one. His "bold" actions in the first 6 weeks of power illustrate a person who is acting out (acting out behavior is the direct expression of an unconscious wish or impulse to avoid being conscious of the emotion that accompanies it) - another favorite immature defense mechanism that the minions of leftist ideology use all the time.

And, needless to say, when your "messiah" is acting out unconscious conflicts it implicitly encourages the same kind of acting out behavior in the worshipful, adoring followers. Malignant narcissism and sociopathic selflessness are the order of the day for the next four years.

The political psychopathology of the left is accelerating, and we will all now pay the price.

WITH MALICE TOWARD MANY, WITH CHARITY FOR NONE

Do you think that this is related to the Obama Administration's intent to cut the charitable giving deduction?

There's a sort of "let them eat cake" attitude here:

But as Marc Ambinder of the Atlantic put it, "If wealthy people want to give money, then they should give, regardless of tax benefits." Suggesting that the wealthy should not use charities as a tax dodge, he added, "If tax reform down the line were to gut all deductions, would charitable contributions totally dry up?"

Jacob Sullum at Reason has this to say:

Under the Bush administration, Obama said, "a surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy." Whatever you think about the wisdom of Bush's tax cuts, they amounted to taking less from people, not giving more to them. Obama makes it sound as if there is no meaningful difference between robbing Peter to pay Paul (which is what he has in mind when he talks about "rebalancing the tax code") and leaving Peter alone (or, more accurately, robbing him less thoroughly)—except that the latter option is, in Obama's view, morally inferior.

The same attitude is apparent in the Obama administration's defense of its plan to limit tax deductions for households earning more than $250,000 a year. Peter Orszag, Obama's budget director, says it's "a question of fairness." How so? "If you're a teacher making $50,000 a year and decide to donate $1,000 to the Red Cross or United Way, you enjoy a tax break of $150," Oszag explains. "If you are Warren Buffet or Bill Gates and you make that same donation, you get a $350 deduction—more than twice the break as the teacher."

But that's because the tax rate for the rich guys is more than twice as high as the tax rate for the teacher. They get a bigger "break" because they pay more in taxes to begin with. The unfairness that the Obama administration perceives is built into a system of progressive taxation that includes deductions.

In response to nonprofit organizations worried that limiting the deduction for charitable contributions will reduce donations, The Washington Times reports, Orszag "said Mr. Obama took care of that by giving charities government money to make up part of the difference." Orszag noted that "in the recovery act, there's $100 million to support nonprofits and charities." In essence, then, Obama plans to take money people otherwise would have given to the charities of their choice and give it to the charities of his choice.

Just another day of redistributing your wealth in the Obamessiah's utopia.



[Cartoons by Chip Bok]

THE NATURAL HEIRS OF JOSEPH MCCARTHY

"McCarthyism" is a term popularized in the 1950's describing Joseph McCarthy's witchhunts and excesses against communism. According to Wikipedia, today the term is "used more generally to describe demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated accusations, as well as public attacks on the character or patriotism of political opponents."

Isn't it nice that the left and their slavish dolts in the Democratic Congress have taken up the mantle of McCarthyism?

Senator Leahy is holding his hearing today on his proposal to hold a series of show trials (oops sorry, a “Truth Commission”) on the Bush administration’s policies on terrorist detainees and other such matters. I wrote about it over at Politico yesterday. In essence, this is a push to criminalize his political opponents’ views on public policy and how to fight the war on terror. It is more reminiscent of a third-world banana republic than the United States of America. It reminds me of something Joseph Stalin was quoted as having said about education — that it is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed. To paraphrase Stalin, which seems most appropriate on this subject, this commission would be held in the hands of the radical Left and we know at whom it would be aimed. The intended effect is to provide a showcase for their inflammatory claims, polemical rhetoric, and predetermined judgments — and to intimidate anyone who could possibly disagree with the hard Left in the future on any of these issues.

Collectivists of both the communist and socialist persuasion must be salivating at finally having a chance at revenge and trying to wipe true liberals (i.e., conservatives) off the map.

This time, the clueless Hollywood types will cheer the "truth" commissions on. And, how appropriate that the show trials already seem like something that could easily fit into the mindset of old Union of Soviet Socialist Republics!

IF YOU CAN'T SAY ANYTHING NICE ABOUT ISLAM...

Christopher Hitchens warns us not to say anything negative about Islam, particularly since the UN is considering a resolution that will criminalize your opinions:

Though it is written tongue-in-cheek in the language of human rights and of opposition to discrimination, thenonbinding U.N. Resolution 62/154, on "Combating defamation of religions," actually seeks to extend protection not to humans but to opinions and to ideas, granting only the latter immunity from being "offended." The preamble is jam-packed with hypocrisies that are hardly even laughable, as in this delicious paragraph, stating that the U.N. General Assembly:

Underlining the importance of increasing contacts at all levels in order to deepen dialogue and reinforce understanding among different cultures, religions, beliefs and civilizations, and welcoming in this regard the Declaration and Programme of Action adopted by the Ministerial Meeting on Human Rights and Cultural Diversity of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, held in Tehran on 3 and 4 September 2007.

Yes, I think we can see where we are going with that. (And I truly wish I had been able to attend that gathering and report more directly on its rich and varied and culturally diverse flavors, but I couldn't get a visa.) The stipulations that follow this turgid preamble are even more tendentious and become more so as the resolution unfolds. For example, Paragraph 5 "expresses its deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism," while Paragraph 6 "[n]otes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001."

You see how the trick is pulled? In the same weeks that this resolution comes up for its annual renewal at the United Nations, its chief sponsor-government (Pakistan) makes an agreement with the local Taliban to close girls' schools in the Swat Valley region (a mere 100 miles or so from the capital in Islamabad) and subject the inhabitants to Sharia law. This capitulation comes in direct response to a campaign of horrific violence and intimidation, including public beheadings. Yet the religion of those who carry out this campaign is not to be mentioned, lest it "associate" the faith with human rights violations or terrorism.

As Hitchens notes, "The useless and meaningless term Islamophobia, now widely used as a bludgeon of moral blackmail, is testimony to its success."

But the truth is that "Islamophobia" is not a phobia at all-- it is a completely rational fear of an insane and irrational force that seems to be sweeping the world. Being afraid of the so-called "religion of peace" after the innumerable acts of violence, terror and depravity committed in the name of Allah worldwide is not exaggerated; not inexplicable; and most certainly not illogical.

Being afraid of Islam as it undermines freedom of speech and thought, as well as and other critical values of Western civilization, is far from a phobia--it is a natural response to the sad reality.

What the UN (and the Islamic world) would like to mandate is a sort of meta-Islamophobia--an Islamophobicphobia, to be precise; or, as I would define it, " an exaggerated, usually inexplicable and illogical fear of mere criticism of Islam, as well as a pathological reluctance to hold it to account for the actions and behavior of its followers."

There is much written both in the Middle East and in the West about the proposition that Islam is "under siege" and that hatred of Islam is a rising concern. This has been repeated frequently particularly since the global war on terror (which actually is a global war on Islamic fanatiacism). Those who decry this reality are not only reluctant to admit that the wave of terror and irrational hatred sweeping the world is specifically associated with the religion of Islam; they simultaneously blame the victims of the terror and the objects of the irrational hatred as the one's responsible for its existence. Islam is given a free pass and the shouts of "God is Great" that precede the latest atrocity apparently have nothing to do with what is written in the Koran.

It is getting harder and harder to keep a straight face as the knee-jerk denial and sanctimonious utterings of organizations like CAIR and UN "human rights" committees fill the news media on a daily basis with their attacks on anyone who criticizes Islam and their rising institutional anti-semitism and encouragement of Islamic extremism.

Islamophobia? Anyone who by now has not realized that Islam has given carte blanche to the fanatics in its midst is either completely out of touch with reality, or living on another planet (e.g., planet Hollywood, or planet Marx/Obama).

Muslims in Europe claim they are justified in rejecting Western society for a variety of reasons:
(1) oppression;
(2) poverty;
(3) the Iraq War; and/or
(4) the institutionally "racist" culture of the West, which "forces" Muslims to accept the values of the countries they choose to imigrate to. Interestingly, Muslims seem to expect that those countries should be forced to abandon their own traditions and adopt Muslim values.

So, let me say for the record that I reject being labeled as "Islamophobic" utterly. Rather, I have a healthy, rational fear of a religion that aggressively seeks my submission or death. As I have stated previously, for most of my adult life, it seemed perfectly reasonable to ignore Islam. What little I knew of it did not appeal to me in any way whatsoever to delve deeper.

I liked it that way.

If I had thought about Muslim values at all (and I didn't) it is likely that I would have been completely turned off to the religion, as opposed to being indifferent to it. I was mildly disgusted and appalled when examples of its rampant brutality were brought to my attention, but frankly, I never understood enough about the religion to place the responisibility for its adherents' behavior onto its teachings.

After 9/11 and becoming aware of organizations like Al Qaeda; ideologies like Wahhabism and its spread; and suddenly recognizing the Palestinian issue for the red herring it was, I could no longer permit myself to be ignorant of the core "Muslim values" they exemplified.

In an ideal world, I shouldn't even have to say it, but Islam has forced me to explicitly and loudly state that I absolutely, thoroughly and unequivocally reject Muslim values and culture, which facilitates and breeds hatred and dysfunction in every nation in which they are practiced. What follows is not an exhaustive list, but let me touch on some of the highlights that form the basis of my rejection:

1. If we are going to talk about oppression, shall I begin with the ubiquitous institutionalized oppression and humiliation of women in Muslim society? Detractors claim that the Quran does not foster this attitude, but witness the devaluation of women; the sexual fear of women; the incarceration of women; the infantilization of women; the social marginalization of women, etc. etc.

2. The overt and institutionalized anti-semitism in Islam, that is frankly paranoid and of psychotic proportions.

3. The assumption of the victim role while actively victimizing other religious groups. This is the entire psychological manipulation involved in the cries of "Islamophobia !"

4. The hypocritical call for tolerance, while promoting intolerance and bigotry among its own adherents.

5. The glorification of death rather than life.

6. The fostering of mindless obedience and punishment of independent thinking.

7. The poverty of ideas and rational thought among its leaders.

8. The inability to condemn unequivocally the barbaric acts done in the name of Islam.

9. The fact that you would force your religion on me, if you could.

As I said, the list is not exhaustive. There are many more reasons why I have come to my intense rejection of this particular religion. As stated in a previous post::

I DON'T CARE ABOUT ISLAM except insofar that people of that faith want to destroy me, my family, my country and my way of life. For more than 50 years of my life, Islam and I got along famously. I completely ignored it; and praise be to Allah, it completely ignored me.

After September 11th, I could continue to live in a state of denial and ignorance about the fact that Islam had come to represent all the values that are incompatible with human life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Or, I could face reality and recognize Islam as a serious threat to all I hold dear and value in the world.

No; a rational, healthy fear of Islam's barbaric medievalism and its desire to subjugate the entire human race under the yoke of its god is perfectly appropriate and continually justified by the fanatical behavior of millions of Muslims everywhere on the planet.

This is not Islamophobia; this is common sense; and as Hitchens's column makes clear, the intent of this crazy UN resolution serves only to advance Islam's clearly stated goal of subjugating the world's population to its rule.

Are you afraid yet? You will be.

[For more on the rational role of Fear in human activites, see here.]

OMG, CUL8ER OBL ?

In light of this development, I wonder how long it will take until we can follow the minute-to-minute goings on of Al Qaeda on Twitter?

UTOPIAN BLISS IS AT HAND !

[Cartoons by Wayne Stayskal]

Obviously the calculation is that when we reach total collapse, the Obamatopia becomes fully realized. I can't wait.

EVERYTHING OLD (AND DISCREDITED) IS NEW AGAIN

...and that seems to go especially for neo-Keynesian spending frenzy going on in Washington right now. Vin Suprynowicz asks the pertinent question: Why is failed Keynesianism back in vogue? First, he discusses Hazlitt's demolition of Keynesian theory after more than a decade of its failure--increasing unemployment instead of decreasing and leading to economic worsening instead of recovery. In short, the twin Keynesian answers to unemployment and economic downturns of massive government deficit spending and "cheap money" -- the artificial driving down of interest rates to "free up more credit"-- DOES NOT WORK.

But why are Keynes' thoroughly debunked notions still in vogue? Why was the usually brilliant Murray Rothbard so wrong when he predicted this 1959 book would mark the death knell of the economic nonsense preached by John Maynard Keynes?

This question appears at first a lot harder to answer. Henry Hazlitt, after all, was not some obscure gadfly. He was arguably the nation's best-known and best respected financial writer and commentator.

I believe there are two answers. First, a dumbed-down American populace, trained to believe that economic theory is deadly dull and of no practical use, tends to cover their ears when such stuff is discussed.

But the second reason is far more obvious. Imagine any of our egotistical and money- and power-hungry members of Congress or chief executives (of either party) today announcing, "Gee, this economic downturn sure is a misery. Too bad there's nothing the central government can do but to slash spending till our budget is in surplus so Washington is no longer crowding out private borrowers, meantime putting us back on the silver standard and shutting down the Federal Reserve. So all you lobbyists here to plead for special favors just might as well go home. Store's closed."

What? Give up the greatest excuse since Hitler and Tojo for enacting every pork barrel spending spree they can imagine? Are you crazy?!

Crazy doesn't begin to describe it. Not only is Keynesianism back in vogue, but so is socialism! And, as the article makes clear, those who are using the "scareword" socialism are fighting against a "rhetorical ogre" and must be mocked:

Of course, there is nothing remotely new about “socialism,” or the willingness of conservatives to hit the opposition over the head with the term, just as the name callers among the liberals have bludgeoned conservatives as “fascists,” “fundamentalists” and “plutocrats” and whatnot for decades.

But the socialist bogey-mantra has made a full-scale return after a long stretch of relative dormancy.

The contemporary era of socialist demonizing dates to the general election campaign between Mr. Obama and John McCain. Mr. McCain and his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, repeatedly accused Mr. Obama of wanting to “spread the wealth,” an offshoot of Mr. Obama’s caught-on-tape exchange with an Ohio plumber (i.e. “Joe the,” last seen signing copies of his new book at CPAC).

Nothing is remotely new about tyranny either.

The quote on my sidebar, attributed to Burke, seems relevant: The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

THIS IS HOW LIBERTY DIES

No, he didn't invent dishonesty in political discourse, but he certainly has a real talent for it:

Barack Obama just added double-dealing to his foreign policy repertoire. On Friday, administration officials led many Jewish leaders to believe that the president had decided to boycott the United Nation's "anti-racism" conference known as Durban II. At the same time, however, human rights organizations were being led to believe that the administration was not pulling out and was looking for a way to "re-engage."

Obama seems to want to have it both ways on everything and is talking out of both sides of his mouth both on national and foregn policy. It increasingly obvious that he is more interested in appearing to do the right thing, than actually doing the right thing.

I'm really beginning to dislike this guy.

He's disingenuous, manipulative, and rhetorically duplicitous. The amount of damage to this country that this destructive con man could do in 4 years is incalculable. Look at what he's done in a mere six weeks....If the sickening adoration continues at the same accelerated pace it has reached since the inauguration, soon Darth Obama will declare himself Emperor of the known universe.

"So this is how liberty dies...to thunderous applause." - Star Wars, Episode III

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AS A 'SHAME' CULTURE ?

One of my regular readers, OBloodyHell emailed me this yesterday:

Carl, over at No Oil For Pacifists has a piece up about pork: Pork Update which deals with Obama's name appearing on an earmark, despite his promises that wouldn't happen. In the final bill, his name will be removed. That makes it "all better".

I quipped something to him about one of his points, and he responded with
> That's because us inside-the-beltway types think anonymity preserves ethics.

Which produced an interesting connection in my head to your piece on Shame Cultures.

The Left's response to ethical challenges maps into that layout box on shame/honor remarkably well -- and maybe, if you think about it, to the underlying mental gymnastics going on when the MSM doesn't "report" ethically inappropriate actions by Dems, as we all know is far more common than it ought to be. It does seem to me that the Left seems to think that by not reporting on inappropriate actions, that Their Guys are exonerated somehow. Think about Dan Rather's continued denial of his incompetent fact checking in this context, too.

What OBloodyHell is referring to is this table, which lays out the fundamental psychological differences between a typical "shame" culture and a "guilt" culture:



Let me review the key differences between the two types of cultures:

In both cultures there is no problem if both parties believe that the individual is NOT GUILTY. If both parties believe that the individual is GUILTY, again there is agreement and in that case the guilt is punished.

The difference in the two societies lies in the other two boxes in the matrix (in red).

In a guilt culture, when an individual believes he is NOT GUILTY, he will defend his innocence aggressively despite the fact that others believe he is guilty. In this case, the individual self is strong and able to maintain an independent judgement even if every other person is convinced of his guilt. The self is able to stand alone and fight for truth, secure in the knowledge that the individual is innocent.

The guilt culture is typically and primarily concerned with truth, justice, and the preservation of individual rights. As we noted earlier, the emotion of guilt is what keeps a person from behavior that goes against his/her own code of conduct as well as the culture’s. Excessive guilt can, of course, also be pathological. I am solely referring to a psychologically healthy appreciation of guilt.

In contrast, a typical shame culture what other people believe has a far more powerful impact on behavior than even what the individual believes. The desire to preserve honor and avoid shame to the exclusion of all else is one of the primary foundations of the culture. This desire has the side-effect of giving the individual carte blanche to engage in wrong-doing as long as no-one knows about it, or knows he is involved.

Additionally, it may be impossible for an individual to even admit to himself that he is guilty (even when he is) particularly when everyone else considers him to be guilty because of the shame involved. As long as others remain convinced he is innocent, the individuals does not experience either guilt or shame. A great deal of effort therefore goes into making sure that others are convinced of your innocence (even if you are guilty).

In general, it has been noted that the shame culture works best within a collectivist society, although it can exist in pockets even within a predominant guilt culture.

I think OBloodyHell is definitely onto something here.

Ask yourself how a typical Republican responds to scandal, for example. He is capable of feeling both shame and guilt about his behavior, whether it is in the public or personal domain and frequently this acknowledgment of his behavior leads him to resign. He has high moral standards that he expects not only of himself, but of others and is ashamed when he violates them; even more so when the knowledge of his violation is made public (which Democrats can always count on the press to do).

Remember, shame--especially in limited quantities--has facilitated civilized conduct and made both individuals and cultures behave more appropriately. Healthy shame keeps us in touch with reality, and reminds us of our limitations, faults, and humanity. When experiencing healthy shame an individual may not be very happy to have embarrassing weaknesses and defects made obvious, but this awareness is insightful and humbling. As long as an individual is capable of self-doubt and self-reflection about his behavior; he is able to remain open-minded and willing to search for a better understanding of himself and others.

Guilt is an emotion that rises after a transgression of one's own or cultural values. Guilt is about actions or behavior; while shame is about the self. There is an important psychological difference in saying to someone that their behavior is bad; as contrasted with saying that they are bad. The former leads to guilt; the latter to shame.

The purpose of guilt is to stop behavior that violates a self, family or societal standard. Guilt keeps score on excesses or deficits of behavior deemed undesirable and is expressed in regret and remorse.

But many Democrats and certainly most leftists are completely shameless in the sense that they will never ever, for as long as they can possibly get away with it, going to admit to bad behavior. And in those rare cases where they simply cannot wiggle and maneuver and lie and deceive; or self-righteously tell you how wonderful they really are and all the wonderful things they have done; they will simply pretend they are still virtuous and have been victimized in some way.

This is, of course, typical of most narcissists; and without a doubt, narcissists and liars and cheats exist on both sides of the political aisle. But a narcissist in a guilt culture behaves somewhat differently than a narcissist in a shame culture.

If you recall, the other day I quoted a very perceptive thought of Siggy's while talking about the neo-Marxist economic modus operandi: "Conservatives believe they have better ideas. Leftists believe they are better people."

This is extremely relevant to a discussion about the differences between the Democratic Party culture (which has become primarily, though not exclusively, influenced by the political left) and the Republican Party culture (which is predominantly influenced by conservative ideas and values).

Eventually for the shame-avoidant person, reality itself must be distorted in order to further protect the self from poor self-esteem. Blaming other individuals or groups for one's own behavior becomes second nature, and this transfer of blame to someone else is an indicator of internal shame.

Most psychological theorists (Erikson, Freud, Kohut) see shame as a more “primitive” emotion (since it impacts one’s basic sense of self) compared to guilt, which is developed later in the maturation of the self. Without the development of guilt there is no development of a real social conscience.

Hence, we see Republicans as a group are far more likely to resign positions when their unethical or immoral behavior is exposed.

Democrats don't tend to do this. In the first place, they will not even acknowledge a "scandal" unless it remains in the national media for an extended period of time (they hope it will go away, and if it does, then they can continue to go about their business as if it never happened). They can always count on the MSM to minimize the damage--even not to report it at all if they can.

Thus the first and foremost rule: if no one knows about their shame, then it doesn't count and they can continue to pretend they are innocent. Just think of the likes of Charles Rangell; Chris Dodd or Barney Frank. Could a Republican politician ever recover from being responsible for the death of a young woman while he saved himself and didn't even report the accident to the police? Yet, someone like Ted Kennedy is now a revered senior statesman on the Democratic side of the aisle. No one talks of his crime. Do you imagine Larry Craig--whose indiscretion hurt no one-- could ever make a comeback like that? Not on your life.

No, because Democrats, on the whole, firmly believe that they are "better people"--i.e., more loving, more compassionate, more intelligent etc. etc. ad nauseum; they go to great lengths to avoid shame; and hence, to avoid responsibility for their behavior. For every corrupt Ted Stevens, there are at least three John Murthas, Charlie Rangells, and William Jeffersons.

They lie, they deceive, they distort. They take kickbacks and are self-righteous about how innocent they are. They vow to eliminate pork, but think all they have to do is take their name off the bill they support and they are in the clear. They wonder what the meaning of "is" is. They insist they" did not have intercourse with that woman" because rhetorical maneuvers are a key postmodern method to avoid having to deal with shame and oral sex isn't really sex anyway. They deny deny deny, and they pretend that they are innocent victims of vast rightwing conspiracies or, as in the case with ex-Governor Blagojevich, they emphasize what "champions" of the little guy they are. They ignore facts and when that doesn't work, they are prepared to ignore the whole of reality itself. Because the cost to their fragile self-esteem if they are discovered is far too catastrophic.

Republicans tend to be amused when they watch Democratic scandals unfold--they, at least have few illusions about human frailty. Democrats, OTOH, immerse themselves in an orgy of self-gratifying excitement and jubilation when they hear of a Republican who fails to live up to the morality he espouses. "HYPOCRISY!" they scream in delight, cheered by the fact that they can once again feel superior.

Their own hypocrisy is another matter altogether and the mental gymnastics in which they engage in order to avoid coming to terms with their own imperfections is...well, it would be amusing if they didn't get away with it so often. But since most journalists are now immersed in leftist culture, they also think of themselves as "better people" and thus, can't allow one of their cultural brothers or sisters to make asses of themselves.

Why, that would be like criticizing Mohammed for sleeping with a 9-year old! It just isn't done in a shame culture, especially one based on the writings and behaviors of the aforementioned Mohammed. Instead, you make sleeping with a 9-year old one of the highest moral virtues of the culture.

In the Arab/Islamic culture one of the ways that those who fear shame protect their fragile self is to subjugate those who he perceives as weaker. By doing so, he can rationalize that he is superior to the subjugated individual. In fact, this is the only way he can maximize his honor.

The Democrat/leftist ummah has developed a rather clever way to do this in the western world: they constantly create victim groups that they can feel superior to and "champion". All that is required is for those groups to remain perpetual victims and constantly complain about their downtrodden state so that the elites of the left can show off what better people they are. They have even created a complicated victimhood heirarchy to deal with competing victimhood claims; and when push comes to shove--i.e., when Democrats or leftists do something wrong, immoral, unethical, or even evil--they can always claim to be victimized themselves. It's a nice little scam they've got going on the side to maintain their shame culture.

Another way understanding this "shame and guilt" culture distinction is that, those who will do anything to avoid shame, have bought into psychological denial big time; their emotions and the need to feel good about themselves have become more important than reason, truth or reality.

This is the same psychological maneuver that allows people to claim they are champions of free speech, as they diligently work to silence anyone with views that differ from their own. Inevitably, it leads to complete intellectual and moral bankruptcy. Where once they stood for freedom; they now enable dictatorships and apologize for tyrants. Where once they sought to bring justice to the world; they now defend horrific acts of mass murder and enslavement. Where once they rightly demanded equal opportunity, they have embraced all kinds of racial quotas and discriminatory practices and demand equality of outcome. Where once they sought to empower the weak; they are now instrumental in maintaining and expanding their victimhood.

After all, how can you be a “champion of the oppressed” unless you maintain and nurture an oppressed class that will always require your services to help them?

This psychological maneuvering is no different from that of certain male religious fanatics to believe that by subjuging women and making them invisible, they are virtuously protecting society from the evils of women's sexuality; when what the society really suffers from is the evils of their own perverted sexuality. They delude themselves--and sometimes the women--into believing such nonsense so that they can maintain the illusion of being honorable men.

Because they persist in believing that they are "better people", the Democratic Party has had little choice but to descend into the immature, anti-reason and anti-reality behavior of a typical shame culture.

You can think of it as the "Arabization of American politics".

LENT... IT RHYMES WITH 'SPENT'