Thursday, May 31, 2007


This is why I am not a Republican, who as a group are only mildly less anti-capitalistic than the blatantly socialist Democrats.

People on the left acuse me of being in thrall to President Bush, but that is far from the truth. I happen to like the man--still do--but I don't think he's much of a communicator; and I certainly don't think his administration has always made optimal decisions regarding the free market.

Operative word is, of course, free. As in the example above:
Oh, all right. One small comment. First, observe the contempt for liberty. When E. coli conservatives say self-regulation is preferable to government, they're even lying about that. Second, observe the contempt for small business. When a small company wants to - voluntarily! - hold its product to a higher standard, the government blocks it, in part because bigger companies have to be protected from the competition, in part because a theoretical threat to the bottom line (false positives) trumps protection against a deadly disease.

There's your conservatism, America: not extremism in defense of liberty. State socialism in defense of Mad Cow.

Protecting big companies from competition is not capitalism; nor does it help people get the best products and services. Yet, it is capitalism that will get the blame for the fact that the big guys are too lazy to compete or provide the best to their customers. The only reason they can get away with it in the market is because of government interference in the marketplace, specifically economic leveling.

As noted, if it were left to the free market, then the big guys would have to keep up with the innovative small guys and would lose out to them. But, when they can count on the government to protect their incompetence, laziness and bad business practices--everybody loses except them.

I stated in this post that there is a:
...pervasive intellectual trend in the West to continually bash capitalism, private property, business, and free trade; while simultaneously enjoying the benefits of all of them.

Our academics--even the kindergarden ones-- rail against business and private property. Our government constantly seeks to control them. Our youth are propagandized to death about its evils from pre-school through college....

One very harmful result of this sorry educational situation is that there are few people--even among those who stalwartly defend the free market, who understand and appreciate the essential morality of capitalism. Certainly our children, taught by ideological purists like the ones above who are leftover from the 20th century debacle of socialist/communist tyranny--never even have a chance to rationally consider any ideas not approved by their aggressively collectivist teachers, so intent at quashing those aspects of human nature they don't like....

the very foundation of capitalism is human freedom in its most classical, liberal tradition. And that frightens them to death.

Capitalism's incredible production of wealth is the economic side-effect that occurs when political freedom is present. It has been argued, and I agree, that both economic and political freedom are absolute prerequisites for moral behavior.

Perhaps that is why we see so much behavior that lacks any kind of integrity on both sides of the political spectrum. Neither side is as concerned with individual freedom, as much as they are with oppressive egalitarianism, entitlement and playing the appropriate victimhood card (in this case, it is "unfair" for one business to actually be better than another--or, just socialist egalitarianism disguised as some sort of policy to "level the playing field" for the less advantaged/highly privileged).

Conservatism has some essential principles that are summarized here; but the relevant one is this:
Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all. Upon the foundation of private property, great civilizations are built. The more widespread is the possession of private property, the more stable and productive is a commonwealth. Economic levelling, conservatives maintain, is not economic progress. Getting and spending are not the chief aims of human existence; but a sound economic basis for the person, the family, and the commonwealth is much to be desired.

Sir Henry Maine, in his Village Communities, puts strongly the case for private property, as distinguished from communal property: “Nobody is at liberty to attack several property and to say at the same time that he values civilization. The history of the two cannot be disentangled.” For the institution of several property—that is, private property—has been a powerful instrument for teaching men and women responsibility, for providing motives to integrity, for supporting general culture, for raising mankind above the level of mere drudgery, for affording leisure to think and freedom to act. To be able to retain the fruits of one’s labor; to be able to see one’s work made permanent; to be able to bequeath one’s property to one’s posterity; to be able to rise from the natural condition of grinding poverty to the security of enduring accomplishment; to have something that is really one’s own—these are advantages difficult to deny. The conservative acknowledges that the possession of property fixes certain duties upon the possessor; he accepts those moral and legal obligations cheerfully (emphasis mine).

The anti-capitalist mentality exhibited by both the Democrats and the Republicans these days is like Mad Cow disease itself-- a spongiform infection of the brain that inevitably leads to cognitive and functional deterioration and eventually to the stagnation and death of society itself.


If you have been looking for a way to cultivate a taste for the incredible insanity that surrounds us --and who hasn't, considering the cornucopia of insanity that is out there?--then you need look no further than The SC&A Institute's Weekly Whackjob Awards.

The Weekly Whackjobs go to the most unbelievable of idiots; the most out-of-touch- with-reality and the most foolish of mortals; and are awarded every week by a disreputable panel of experts to the most outstanding examples of dysfunction, stupidity, utter ridiculousness and bizarre political idiocy.

Dr. Sanity is always pleased when she can help the psychologically naive develop a connoisseur's palate for the insanity so rampant in our day and age.

There is always the chance that after tasting this remarkable collection of craziness that your re-entry into the real world will be fraught with challenges and stress. Once that bridge to the utopia of insanit is crossed it may be difficult to return unchanged-- but the price of pursuing perfection is always high.

So, consider very carefully if you are the sort of person who is capable of withstanding the subtle and sublime seduction of high-calorie craziness;and if so, then cleanse your palate and go enjoy the feast!

Wednesday, May 30, 2007


I find it remarkable how the left in this country is taking on such a nuanced and sympathetic perspective about Hugo Chavez' latest dictatorial power play in Venezuela--in fact, check out the always entertaining DU threads, and Daily Kos to find incredibly spirited and emotional defenses of the fascist thug that is now ruling Venezuela.

In their compassionate hearts, they just know that the only real fascist in this world is George W. Bush. And all the polls tell them that they are in the majority, therefore they must be right!

Let's hope their love for Chavez will withstand the latest Venezuelan polls:
Polls released today show that 80% of the population is against the government's shut-down of RCTV. The number of Venzuelans who think Chavez is trying to set up a dictatorship has gone from 40% to 60% in the last week.
Alas, this realization may have comes a little too late. The president is already ruling by decree, with rubber-stamp legislature and judiciary. The tragedy of Venezuela has an overwhelming momentum now.

History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes; and who can forget Jane Fonda sucking up to the North Vietnamese; Cindy Sheehan kissing Hugo with girlish glee and so on ad infinitum.

You can always count on them to support and rationalize the behavior of the genocidal maniacs and the trendy socialist dictator du jour. SC&A get it right:
It is notable that whenever the Vietnam debacle is alluded to, as of often the case in attempting to make comparisons to the current conflict, no one ever mentions that it was Presidents Kennedy and Johnson that foisted that war upon the country- Democrats. No one today ever refers to those Presidents as ‘Hitler.’ When you consider that over 57,000 Americans died in that war, we find the lack of outrage curious, though not at all surprising. It is also interesting to recognize that President Johnson, who signed the Civil Rights Act, is not credited for wanting to keep South Vietnam free and democratic. After all, a free and democratic society is what leftists abhor and fear most. Hugo Chavez tramples on his critics, on free speech and a free press and the leftists are for the most part silent. Chavez can do what they can only dream of doing. As we have noted, Utopia cannot be imposed without tyranny.

We should never forget that it is tyranny, disguised as utopia, that the left yearns for.

I wrote:
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 wnat 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.

At any rate,Chavez has never hidden his totalitarian agena or his true colors. Those who still support his tyranny are simply the color-blind drones of the left.

The tragedy of the political left also has reached an overwhelming momentum; and Venezuela's descent into hell is mirrored by their descent into psychological denial, delusion and displacement. I wonder if they will open their eyes when Chavez starts killing his own people like Saddam and all the other thugs in history have done.... Or, when he moves to take over other radio and TV stations that don't toe the socialist line.

Oh, wait! That didn't take long.

But they'll find a reason to excuse all that, too. He's one of them, and his intentions are pure as the driven snow. Just like this group will always get a free pass, as will all the other terrorists in the world today.


From Reuters today:
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Tuesday called opposition news channel Globovision an enemy of the state and said he would do what was needed to stop it from inciting violence, only days after he shut another opposition broadcaster.

Tens of thousands of Venezuelans marched in Caracas in a fourth consecutive day of protests over Chavez's closure of the RCTV network - a move which has sparked international criticism that the leftist leader's reforms are undermining democracy.

Well, so what? say the Kos Kiddies. "These private stations, owned by anti-Chavez billionaires and businessmen, have led an unceasing anti-Chavez campaign since the day he was elected."

And we all know that billionaires and businessmen are inherently evil, don't we?


Tuesday, May 29, 2007


Sorry for the light blogging. It has been a rather hectic day without much time to read what's going on, let alone comment on it!

I hope things will be back to normal tomorrow. Consider this an open thread to highlight any issues you consider important....


I don't know...a walnut is rather too large to describe some brains. Perhaps "the size of a peanut" would be more accurate?

Gagdad Bob at One Cosmos defines the problem exactly, and notes that the attempts at self-medication only excacerbate the problem :

And this is why it is so easy to be a conservative, because you no longer have to contort yourself with so many lies in order to be thoroughly consistent, both internally and externally. The left confuses their contortions with "nuance," but nuance is simply the left left brain's feeble attempt to keep reality at bay, which inevitably seeps in through the walls, ceilings, and floorboards. Or as Randy Newman sang,

Guilty, baby I’m guilty
And I’ll be guilty the rest of my life
How come I never do what I’m supposed to do
How come nothin’ that I try to do ever turns out right?

You know, you know how it is with me baby
You know, I just can’t stand myself
And it takes a whole lot of medicine
For me to pretend that I’m somebody else

This medicine is called leftism, but it has never actually cured anyone, much less a nation of people. Instead it rapidly worsens the disease it is intended to cure, so that greater and greater doses are required until the patient perishes -- if not literally, then in spirit, as we see in western Europe.

"It takes a whole lot of medicine for me to pretend I’m somebody else." Yes, it takes a whole lot of affirmative action for the leftist to pretend he's not a racist, and a whole lot of diversity to pretend he isn't intolerant of dissent. It takes a whole lot of coddling illegal immigrants to pretend they don't just want the votes, and whole lot of global warming to pretend they don't want to undermine the engine of global capitalism and progress. It takes a whole lot of outrage at President Bush to pretend they aren't allied with the Islamo-fascists, and a whole lot of talk about the "little guy" to pretend they aren't filled with class envy. And it takes a whole lot of multiculturalism to pretend they don't hate American culture and values, and a whole lot of fearful talk of separation between God and state to pretend they don't hate the former and love the latter.

Yeah boy, it takes a whole lot of moral relativism to pretend they're not immoral, and even more education to pretend they're not wrong.

There are far more complicated clinical terms for the kind of "nuanced" behavior Bob describes, but I don't have time today to go into any depth (see here and here if you are up for it) ; so I will just say-- with compassion and concern, of course-- that these people are nuts! and leave it at that.

Monday, May 28, 2007


Throughout our relatively short, but amazing history, Americans have been characterized by the possession of a rather formidable belief that freedom is so valuable, it is worth dying for.

The precioous liberty that was bequeathed to us just a few generations ago has become an inseparable aspect of our lives; like the air we breath or the warm sun on our faces. We may at times take it for granted and imagine that it will always be there.; but in every generation of Americans there have been those who are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to protect and preserve our own liberty; as well as to bring its blessings to others.

But even we tend to forget what a singularity America was when it was first founded two plus centuries ago; and what a singularity it remains to this very day. In the history of a world awash in human misery, bondage and oppression, America is the "shining city" of the human mind, made real; it is a lone beacon of freedom and hope and opportunity that slices through a darkness that has shrouded the world since the dawn of time.

That darkness had dominion over the human soul.

And then, a few simple words were written which altered time and space forever; and the continuity of the darkness was broken . The universe was forced to shift to accommodate this unprecedented, remarkable idea, that glowed so brightly, it upset the balance of all those invisible forces impacting human destiny. And even though the raw power and energy of this bright new paradigm is still rippling through the time-space continuum, a higher, more perfect equilibrium was suddenly achieved in human affairs: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

In a universe of moral chaos; in a world of pain and suffering and hopelessness, America was founded and the world has never been the same.

America was never perfect, but it was never conceived to be some abstract utopia showcasing human perfection. The 56 men who came together to usher it forth understood that in order to form a more perfect union they had to pledge their lifes, their fortunes and most of all, their sacred honor. They understood clearly that human freedom only guarantees that mistakes will be made; but that the human soul is only able to thrive when human nature is allowed to be free. Further, they understood that society too, will inevitably progress when the individual human soul is unchained.

A singularity, after all, is not perfect, it is simply a unique event in time.

Whatever our faults--and there are many-- our repeated willingness to stand and die for this incredible, shining idea of human freedom has never been one of them. This willingness exists at the heart of all our highest values; and it defines the essence of the primarily benevolent, generous--and often contemptously dismissed as naive and unsophisticated--character we present toward the rest of the world.

Unfortunately, those are the very traits that make us the object of all that envy, rage, contempt and reflex hatred that has been directed toward our country in recent decades ( though there are some signs that Europe is coming to their senses again).

For most of its history, America has been at the leading edge of Western civilization, promoting protecting, and nurturing the classical liberal values of that Civilization, which include freedom, democracy and individualism. Never in that history has our country been more consistent in that effort than it is right now.

President Bush in his 2005 SOTU address said the following:

We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time.

Of course, if you think Bush is evil, another Hitler, and the greatest terrorist in the world, these words will have little meaning for you. If you happen to believe like Glenn Greenwald that, "Neoconservatives hate liberty as much as they love war", then, not only do you not have the slightest clue about what neoconservatism is all about--let alone America; or, you are just another narcissistic and vicious anti-American leftist who simply cannot deal with the ethical and moral bankruptcy of your own little ideology and its failure to dominate the world in the last century.

The significance of the singularity that is America has always escaped you; as it has escaped all those whose most deeply held desire is to have power over others and be part of the ubiquitous darkness that oppresses the human mind.

America has never claimed to be perfect or infallible. It has stumbled along, through both Republican and Democratic administrations, doing the best it can at the moment to protect the precious legacy given to us at great cost by our forefathers; and defended down through the years with the blood of courageous patriots. America is unquestionably imperfect, but it stands for something real. It stands for something truly wonderful and rare in an insane world where delusional nations and psychotic murderers desire only tyranny and death as the legacy of mankind; and where the weak of mind and character willingly appease and submit to those dark desires.

I am more proud than I can say to be an American at this point in history, as the US stands so resolutely and fiercely against the vicious tyranny of this century's incarnation of yet another genocidal 'Thousand Year Reich.'

Some insist that the monstrous evil afflicting the world today is the United States and the western values it promotes. I have heard these arguments over and over again in the last few years from my peers; endlessly repeating the talking points that daily appear in the news. They wave banners and spew forth slogans about American "imperialism" and "oppression"; yet, never have so many done so much to give the blessings of liberty a chance to take root and grown in the barren soil of the darkest places on earth. And never has their sacrifice been less appreciated or understood. Never, in fact, has the darkness had such allies as those who mindlessly and loudly condemn America, but are strangely silent when the death-loving, freedom-hating darkness makes its barbaric and anti-human agenda perfectly clear.

It is so easy and satisfying to condemn individual acts of atrocity, knowing full well that such acts are not part of official policy; nor do they reflect in any way the values of the West, particularly America. In fact, all those who place the highest premium on the sanctity of human life must be saddened to learn that human life is so cheap for some in our midst.

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

This we will do. This we have always done, though not always as perfectly or with the necessary vigor in some cases. Since we are human, we make mistakes; but we are also capable of learning from them. We always aim for "a more perfect union" and not the unattainable perfection of an oppressive utopia.

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

And worse, it enables the real monsters who once again threaten to engulf the world in the flames of their madness. How those monsters must laugh at the idiots who obsess about American imperfections; and by doing so are completely blind to the real threat to human freedom and progress. The monsters we fight understand full well that the moral relativists and cheapshot artists of the left will never willingingly call real evil to account--because they lack the fundamental courage to confront it.

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

But honest self-reflection and confronting the dark side of their nature is something the political left will not do--they dare not do--and so they will continue to encourage and enable that dark side of themselves both internally and externally; even as they tell themselves how virtuous and superior they are. They know they are not capable of such evil. Their motives are always pure; their actions are always perfect and have no negative consequences. They are the only truly morally superior beings on earth. They have pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred denial on the truth of that belief.

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

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

The cruelty and inhumanity of this or that particular person is manageable--during time of war and during peace. Where a rule of law reigns, perpetrators will be--must be--held to account (see Bill Whittle's excellent essay that discusses in detail the ramifications to society if they are not).

But the dark is rising again, and its allies, who threaten humanity with their fantasies of a "pure race" or a "pure religion" or a "perfect" society, are loose and once more the singularity that is America must provide the light with which to confront the black, oppressive hopelessness it spreads within and without.

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

And, let us also be thankful for America the Singularity, which freely nurtures a love of life and freedom; and which make such courageous people possible.

“The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission.”
- John Fitzgerald Kennedy, 35th President of the United States

Sunday, May 27, 2007


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

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

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


1. Ignorance is Blix. Did you know that Vegetables have morality?

2. A surprisingly good plan to humiliate Bush. My Fair Imam; or, Why Can't a Zionist Be More Like Iran?

3. You just can't make stuff like this up about the 'religion of peace' a HR policy, it won't be implemented very soon, I'm sure.

4. With Fatwas like the one above, you can understand why their system of Shar'ia law has to deal with some really thorny problems . They have involuntary FGM; in the West, the foolish choose to mutilate themselves.

5. Free speech in the time of political correctness. Conspicuous consumption in victim status land.

6. War is just a bumper sticker.... and real torture is just another word for 'freedom-fighting'. You gotta love the left, taken as a whole, they are the largest victim group in the world--victimized that is, by oppressive reality. Take a walk through the concourse of hypocrisy.

7. I've finally been convinced that Bush should be impeached. The only problem is she's expecting them to be rational, logical and reality-based....If they were any of those, we wouldn't have to be so sarcastic in the first place.

8. But, they're only trying to look good on a budget.

9. 'President' Hugo Chavez, " expanding the rights of indigenous peoples from the Amazon rainforest to the Caribbean..."

10. NetRoot causes. Soon we will all be Hitlers. Case in point? Hmmmm. Acting like an anti-semite to make a point? That is just so clever.

11. A person's health is too important to be left to the individual. Immigration, the human cost.

12. Garbage disposal problems.......garbage creation problems.... how garbage disposal is done in Hollywood. An excerpt from the personal blog...

13. Once you have achieved entrance, it is not illegal anymore...interesting ramifications or a corollary of the Peter Principle? Mother told you it wasn't nice to do this.

14. It would be a whole lot simpler if Laura ran. If Hillary can do it, why not? But we already missed the 2008 election, apparently. It's all over but the voting.

15. No worries for the KKK!

16. No sweat divorce ! Just shop till you drop.

17. Russian climbing.

18. Relephant and irrelephant?

19. It's Memorial Day... remember those who fought and those who are fighting for our country.

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

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

Heard the Word of Blog?

Saturday, May 26, 2007


Andy McCarthy at The Corner says what needs to be said:
Folks, let's not let these guys get away with this. By "redeploy," they don't really mean move the troops to where they say al Qaeda is. They don't want to fight al Qaeda. If they wanted to fight al Qaeda, al Qaeda is in Iraq — that is indisputable. Bin Laden has said repeatedly that Iraq is the central battle. You can argue about whether al Qaeda has been in Iraq all along or whether they are there only because we've drawn them there. Reasonable minds differ on that. But however they got there, they're there.

If you really want to fight al Qaeda, you stay in Iraq.

If you really believe al Qaeda is not in Iraq — that the real al Qaeda is only in Afghanistan and its environs — then you're on drugs. But, sure, fine, "redeploy" our troops ... to Afghanistan. But can we please have five seconds of honesty? You guys don't have the slightest intention of doing that. You don't want to go to Afghanistan. You want to go home.

When you say redploy, you mean withdraw. You don't actually want to "focus on the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11." You are content to bring the troops home and leave "the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11" to build a safe-haven in Iraq even as they continue to make mayhem in Afghanistan.

You think Bush is incompetent and "his" war in Iraq is a terrible mistake? Fine. You think the price of that is that we should pull everyone out of Iraq even though we all know that will be a monumental victory for al Qaeda — geometrically abetting its future fundraising and recruiting for future terrorist attacks on America? Fine.

But have the good grace to say so. Don't give us this BS that you want to redeploy to fight al Qaeda, when the truth is that you want to "redeploy" to NOT fight al Qaeda.

And, that is the heart of the matter. The political left and most Democrats are in psychological denial so deep that light can no longer penetrate its darkness even momentarily. They don't want to fight al Qaeda, because then they would have to admit that America is at war and that these last six years have not just been some bumper sticker created in the mind of George W. Bush.

Reality has been just too overwhelming for them. Just think of all the fundaental assumptions about the world and themselves they might begin to question.... I see this anxiety and dread all the time in my psychiatric practice--patients who are willing to do almost anything to end the chaos and dysfunction in their lives...except change their beliefs about themselves and the world. That is far too painful, Doc--how could I be so cruel to even suggest such a thing!

Now, usually when I use the "D" word on this blog, the insects come out of the woodwork to sneer that I am the one in denial. Don't I read the polls and understand that I am in the minority on this? Don't I see that the war is going badly and that American soldiers are being killed? Don't I understand that George Bush lied to get us into this war for various bizarre reasons? Don't I understand that there is no way we can possibly win against such odds? Don't I......etc. etc. etc.

Take a very close look at these rationales. These are not "strawmen" reasons. These are the things people say to me in comments here and in emails (although I have summarized them much more politely).

First, what relationship do polls have to reality? The only reality they reflect is what people happen to believe at a given moment in time. The reality of the consequences of leaving Iraq are not influenced by such nonsense. The reality that we are fighting al Qaeda and that Iraq is the central battlefield of the war we are in is not subject to majority opinion. It simply is fact. The reality will not go away because people refuse to believe it. Or, prefer to believe that this is a fantasy in George Bush's mind.

Yes, I concur that the war is going badly. It is extremely difficult to wage a war when there are hundreds of ill-informed and imcompetent generals managing things thousands of miles from the battlefield; and all of whom have agendas somewhat incompatible with success on that battlefield. I also don't deny that that there have been mistakes made on that battlefield or by the CIC. But then, I don't demand perfection in a war. I don't demand pure political correctness on the part of our soldiers. I don't demand that there be no casualties or deaths. I don't idealize the barbarians we are fighting; I don't put them on the same moral ground as us and I don't give their murderous behavior a free pass while weeping and wailing and wringing my hands at America's.

The only thing I do demand is that we do everything possible and necessary to ensure victory over the creatures we are fighting and that we establish the hope of a democratic country in that cesspool we call the Middle East. I understand that more Americans will die. I have made the [rational] assumption that this is exactly what nations have military organizations for; and that military personnel courageously choose to fight in order to protect those they love at home--otherwise they would not join the military and assume those risks.

Silly me, I guess.

I even understand that the war is .....gasp!....unpopular. But fortunately, I stopped worrying about being popular back in the 7th grade or thereabouts. That was when I realized that being popular had very little to do with being right. That being popular had almost nothing to do with reality. And that leadership, integrity, and courage are far more important in life.

You don't learn these truths from the Edwards & Obama Academy of Political Pandering; or at Hilary & Nancy's Day Care Centers.

The left, by refusing to face reality about Iraq and the war on terror, must find it awkward and just a bit embarassing to find themselves--yet again!-- in complete agreement with the absolute dregs of humanity. Indeed, rather than face reality, they willingly ally themselves with dictators, murderers, rapists, thugs and assorted psychotic insects. Their ever-deepening quagmire of denial is nothing, if not thoroughly encouraging and supportive of all types of loathsome cockroaches scurrying around in that part of the world who have nothing but the most peaceful of intentions.

How fortunate for them that in the wonderful world of denial, all sorts of fantasies are possible!

Friday, May 25, 2007


For anyone who has lingering doubts about the extent to which postmodernism and the trashing of history has thoroughly saturated Western culture, I refer you to this article from Reuters. Two points stand out. The first is this statement that is made without documentation as a simple matter of fact:
Millions of tribal Indians are believed to have died as a result of European colonization backed by the Church, through slaughter, disease or enslavement.
The only purpose of such a statement is to emphasize how bad European white culture is compared to the poor oppressed indiginous culture. This as we all know is the primary tenet of multiculuralism: all cultures are equally good, except fro Western culture which is evil evil evil. Al-Reuters could have escalated the provocation if only America had colonized Venezuela. Maybe though, they can alter history enough to ensure that happens.

The second is that this is a "news" article that contains the following laughable statement about the socialist thug currently consolidating absolute power in Venezuela:
Chavez, who has expanded the rights of indigenous peoples from the Amazon rainforest to the Caribbean, said he felt he was Indian because Venezuelans are a mix of the European race and indigenous peoples.

This is presented as undisputed fact. I mean, isn't Chavez wonderful? What a guy!! He has "expanded the rights" of the poor and oppressed indigenous peoples.

What is Reuters, Chavez' publicist?

Many dictators claim to be standing up for the "rights" of the oppressed; that's how those dictators get power. Hitler's preferred "oppressed: population were Aryans, as I recall; and, he also nationalized banks and industry to consolidate his power. Interestingly, while they are standing up for the rights of the oppressed, these very same champions almost always manage to find a group to demonized so that failure can be externalized and not blamed on the regime. Funny how it works like that, and Chavez is hardly an exception to this motif.

One of the commenters in my post on The Transformation of Education into Indoctrination makes the following excellent point:
There has recently been a survey of Australian High School history students which concluded that they were feeling guilty and uncomfortable at the way the colonial history curriculum was being taught. Similarly to the US, leftist educators have promulgated a "black armband" version of our colonial past and particularly as it appliied to the indigenous aborigines.
Any historian who dares to challenge this orthodoxy of genocide and subjugation is howled down as a racist and apologist for the imperialists.
This review of one particular book concludes with a calm but telling indictment of the postmodernist educational agenda.
"I want to conclude by looking at the motives of historians like Lyndall Ryan and why they write things which are apparently not true.

One critic of Windschuttle, Alan Atkinson, accused him of wanting to “take the discipline back to some golden age, when it was all about facts.” (Australian Book Review, February 2003, p 4 ). This sounds bizarre. We assume history books describe facts and are based on facts. If history is not supposed to be about facts and not based on facts, then what are you supposed to base it on?

This is an issue, which Windschuttle addressed in an earlier book The Killing of History and in several articles on his webpage, The Sydney Line, about history and postmodernism. As the word suggests, postmodernism means what comes after modernism. Modernism, in this context, means the belief that it is possible to find out the facts, to know what is true. Postmodernists believe that it is impossible to know the facts and find out what really happened in the past. They believe everyone is so politically and culturally biased that it is impossible not to be biased and to see things objectively as they really are, so the truth and facts are unknowable. They believe the traditional writing of history, based on facts and evidence, has been used to oppress women and ethnic minorities. So they believe the new purpose of history writing should be to be deliberately politically biased and write history that supports a political agenda, that is, propaganda, in favour of the oppressed minority, such as Aboriginal land rights in this context. Rather than basing what they write on the evidence, they twist or invent the evidence to support their political agenda, much in the same way that Communists used to rewrite history and make events disappear to make history fit their Communist ideology.
Postmodernists try to justify their bias and creative writing to make up for the way Aborigines or other minorities have been mistreated in the past. However, if they do not believe there are facts and it is impossible to know what really happened, then how can they know the minority group was mistreated or oppressed in the first place? Whatever our political agendas, what we believe about history has to be based on the evidence, not on what we would like to believe happened. "(
Emphasis mine)

In an earlier post about the intellectual origins of neoconservatism, which has been a counter-movement to postmodernism and seeks to reclaim historical perspective and preserve the intellectual heritage of Western civilization-- I discussed at length the postmodernist's tendency to rewrite history to make it to fit a particular ideological template. The points of that articale bear repeating, since, as the Chavez example glaringly demonstrates, postmodern mantras and manipulations are inserted everywhere--in news articles like the Reuters one linked above; in educational curricula and in art and even smoothly inserted into entertainment. Indeed, the ubiquitous propaganda generated by the postmodern worldview is designed specifically to ensure that no mind be allowed to come to any "unapproved" conclusions or have any "politically incorrect" thoughts flitting around in the synapses.

Big Brother is always watching and no area is too trivial or inconsequential that it can't be used as an object lesson on the correct way to think; witness the link above where even in a film that promotes bestiality in a positive and sympathetic manner, it's important to have the proper political perspective.

The postmodern slogans and talking points of the left are everywhere portrayed as if they were universal, incontravertible, and absolute truth. Which is very curious since postmodernists will tell you that all truth is relative-- except, of course, for postmodernism which is absolutely true.

As I noted:

The rise of neoconservatism represents the only modern intellectual counter and the only known antidote to the infection of postmodernism and its resultant toxic effects on philosophy, rehtoric, and politics.

In order to succeed in undoing and undermining the clear and unambiguous evidence of socialism's and communism's utter human toxicity, the totalitarians of the political left had to undermine nothing less than reality, reason, and truth. Furthermore, they had to deconstruct and invalidate human consciousness, making sure that the everyone understood that the only apparatus available to humans for perceiving reality--the mind--was completely unreliable, and that the evidence of the senses must therefore be discounted. This intellectual strategy resulted in a pervasive cultural relativism and intellectual nihilism that permeated all aspects of society and intellectual thought. Words and language were redefined to mean whatever one wanted; history was deconstructed--ostensibly to expose it's lies, but really to render it meaningless; and the ideas and values that were the foundation of Western civilization were mocked and shown by postmodern "logic" to be no better than any other random ideas.

Thus, freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose; and not significantly different from slavery; democracy is just as much a fraud as tyranny; that which was always considered the good, is really just as evil as evil; and so on. Twentieth century postmodernists thus set themselves up as culturally and morally superior to all other humans in history, and with the postmodern relativistic advantage, they could pass judgement on everyone and everything. Thus from the superior postmodern perspective, there was nothing of value to learn from a slave-holding Thomas Jefferson; there is no moral superiority in a system that strives toward increasing individual human freedom and dignity compared to a system that doesn't even recognize the rights of the individual. There is no difference between right and wrong; good and evil--all are suspect, all are hypcritical, all are imperfect; and thus all such concepts are rendered irrelevant.

The key to this undoing of that which is good and conflating it with that which is evil; of deconstructing the reality and reason upon which more than 5000 years of civilization is founded; is through the nihilistic process of deconstructing and reinterpreting the historical past and redefining and undermining its meaning.

You are probably familiar with the leftist drill, since it is now frequently applied to anything valued in the West (in the last week it has even been used to "demythologize" Thanksgiving so as to invalidate what that quintessential American holiday even means). By using the now-common relativistic formula, all individuals and thinkers in the past are ridiculed, demeaned, and scorned because they fail to live up to postmodern and politically correct standards of conduct. Thus, their ideas are considered meaningless and described as "hypocritical"--the absolutely worse possible sin from the leftist perspective.

On the deconstruction of the American past:
Thomas Jefferson, George Washington--all the Founding Fathers for the most part--did not have the consciousness of the postmodern intellectual: they were slaveholders! Yet they dared to consider the problem of human freedom, bound as they were to the cultural norms of their time. That they could not entirely break out of the culture of their time, but still could push the envelope of civilization forward is irrelevant to the postmodern left. From the left's perch of moral superiority they blithely dismiss these "white males" as hypocrites with no moral standing. Thus are the foundations and the generationally built constructs of civilization invalidated and destroyed. Is it any wonder that all that is left is the nihilistic garbage that postmodernism deems as "reality".
Likewise, the postmodern left means us to understand that the exploration of the world by the intrepid Europeans; the discovery of other continents and all colonization--in other words, the rise of Western civilization and its expansion westward only resulted in "slaughter, disease or enslavement"; and that this process is merely one of "white imperialism".

But consider, if we do not understand the past; if we abandon the ideas that underlie our values and our morality-- how can we appreciate who we are today? If we are only allowed to think of Thomas Jefferson as a hypocritical colonial slaveholder; if we only see history as evil white males enslaving or slaughtering the oppressed indiginous cultures-- then we are forced to pronounce Jeffersons ideas on the struggle for human freedom as no better and no worse than Hitler's Kampf; and human progress itself as "oppressive".

And so, Jefferson's mind-blowing, paradigm-shattering declaration, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" has no more meaning or worth than Yasser Arafat's statement that, "Since we cannot defeat Israel in war; we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel." Both are either completely meaningless; or both are examples of freedom-fighters--who cares which? Bush = Hitler; Good = Evil; Freedom = Slavery; there is no way to judge because the nihilistic relativism we subscribe to has taken away our ability to morally distinguish and discriminate between right and wrong.

By discarding reason and reality; by abandoning the past and embracing moral and cultural relativism, the left has brought us to this place where we are morally and physically paralyzed and cannot distinguish between the deliberate targeting and killing of innocents and the accidental killing of innocents despite herculean efforts to avoid it; between waging war to give people a chance at freedom and democracy; and waging war for domination and imperialism; between standing up for what is right and accepting the consequences, and abandoning one's values and surrendering with "honor" to the scum of the earth.

This is the postmodern quest. To establish themselves as the arbiters of moral behavior by behaving immorally; of calling themselves "reality-based" without the necessity of having to acknowledge reality; by speaking "truth" to power, without even being capable of recognizing truth (isn't all truth relative, after all?); and by teaching history that fits the marxist/socialist template.

In the specific example from Reuters at the beginning of this post, where the "journalist" has set himself up as the arbiter of moral behavior, the correct way to think is clearly spelled out for us. No other interpretation of history is permitted; and the underlying assumption is that all cultures are equally good and special, the white male-dominated Western culture is uniquely evil and its values must be denounced by all right-thinking people.

Thus, European colonization of the New World was particularly evil and wrong because it disrupted ("enslaved and slaughtered")all those peaceful and morally superior cultures that were already here. SC&A have noted:
...much has been made of ‘Colonialism’ as the scapegoat for hindering change, but clearly, that excuse is wearing thin. Colonialism has now become the watchword- and an excuse for those who refuse to join the rest of a modern and productive society.

The legacy of colonialism is what those former colonies made of it. More often than not, colonialists came into a society that was far behind their own, in terms of achievement, advancement and human progress. Notwithstanding the mythical and fabricated notions that ‘the white man’ came into primitive, peaceful and loving cultures, only to destroy them, the fact remains that these cultures and societies could have been greatly benefited by the advent of the ‘white man.’ Those societies resisted the advances they could have assimilated into their own culture.

It is true there were abuses, of course, as there are in any human endeavor. It is also true that taking advantage of modern day tools and ideas are not an all or nothing proposition. Even today, there are groups of people that refuse the tools that might make their lives easier.

Strange, isn't it, that the same people who are adamant that Darwin's theory of evolution must not be "contaminated" with any non-scientific dogmas like creationism; and can be heard screaming with outrage if any hint of religion is allowed to seep into the curriculum believe that indigenous cultures must never be contaminated by new ideas or behaviors. You wonder how the hell they imagine that "evolution" actually takes place in the real world--either on the cellular or societal level?

Evolution is adaptation to change and change is constant. And it is a process that goes on at every level of human existence--from genes to culture. Those "indiginous cultures" which they see as somehow superior to Western culture and are eager to add to their preferred victim group list, are subject to it and must be capable of adapting to change--or they will die out just as surely as the platypus and other extinct species. Adaptation will either makes them stronger or will undo their "superiority". "Survival of the fittest" does not give a free pass to the unfit and unadaptable morally virtuous; and as Siggy notes above, the interaction of cultures, while not always peaceful, almost always results in a dynamic exchange of strengths and an infusion of creativity and innovation. Under ideal circumstances, both cultures will absorb aspects of the other and be stronger because of it.

But idealize the primitive; keep it forever in amber; demand that it forever be immutable and "uncorrupted" by change or progress; or by freedom and innovation--and you have the recipe for cultural stagnation and the crushing of the individual mind.

The postmodern left elevates clowns like Hugo Chavez and call him a "liberator"; they swoon over despots like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Fidel Castro; and have champagne toasts with fruitcakes like Kim Jung Il.

Karl Marx once said, "History repeats itself, first as tragedy and second as farce." And he was absolutely correct.

Marxism in its initial incarnation was the tragedy; and its current revival via postmodernism, is the farce.

UPDATE: I was thinking of the dodo, when I wrote the platypus. My bad. This error on my part clearly is convenient proof that nothing I say means anything. I am just crushed.

Thursday, May 24, 2007


See here and here for further comforting discussions about the latest polls.


Way back when I was just beginning to practice psychiatry, I had a young woman patient (17 years old) whose name was Chris. She was one of those extremely difficult patients who we suspected of having a Borderline personality disorder (BPD) (you really can't diagnose personality disorders before the age of 18 or so)--and if she didn't have BPD, she was well on her way to developing it. She used illegal drugs and claimed they "helped" her; she was impulsive and histrionic; she cut herself frequently; made suicide attempts regularly; and was so desperate for attention and love that she would lie, cheat, and do anything for to get it. She and I had a particularly difficult session one day; and that night I happened to be on call in the emergency room. I was awakened at 2:00 am by a call from a "friend" of Chris, who informed me that Chris's body had just been recovered from the ocean, where she had gone and killed herself because she was so angry at me.

I was devastated. I remember sobbing for some time after I hung up; overwhelmed with remorse and convinced that I had chosen the wrong career. Her death was all my fault and in my sorrow I considered leaving psychiatry, since I obviously was no good at it. I thought about what a sad, wasted life Chris had lived. If only I had paid more attention to her; listened more to her pain and not expected her to control her behavior. For three hours I was in a state of abject misery and hopelessness. I would have done ANYTHING to change the fact that she was dead.

At 6:00 am the page operator put through another call to me--from Chris.

"Oh, " she told me nonchalantly, "the body they found on the beach wasn't mine"; her "friend made a mistake"; "sorry about that" and "could I see you a day early next week?"

It was then I remembered that she had been angry at me because I was planning on going on vacation next week and had told only been able to schedule her for the week after.

It was amazing how quickly my remorse turned to anger. Not for a minute did I believe that this had all been a tragic misunderstanding. No, I had been incredibly, unmistakably HAD. My emotions had been played as if they were a song composed by my patient on an instrument of her choosing. My clinical supervisor laughed (laughed!) when I told him the story, and pointed out to me that this is what it felt like to be well and truly manipulated by a pro.

And it almost worked. Hadn't I thought to myself that I would do anything to have prevented what I had thought happened?

Such behavior, he went on, was pretty typical of the Borderline patient--so, why was I shocked at what had been done to me?

Indeed. Certain behaviors are predictable, though normal people can have a hard time wrapping their minds around the whys and wherefores. The "root cause" was not my going on vacation (if you go down that route, you might as well say that the root cause was my very existence as a separate person from Chris).

Wretchard noted earlier in the week:
Ralph Bennett argues at Tech Central Station that our tacit assumptions about the fate of 3 American soldiers captured in Iraq reflect an intuitive understanding of the nature of our enemy. One which we must at all events never acknowledge explicitly.
Think about it. If three Islamic fighters had been captured by the Americans, would there be any apprehension about their fate? Of course not. Despite all the fervid Abu Ghraib and Gitmo propagandizing of assorted leftists, pseudo-peaceniks and Democrat apologists, the general presumption is they would be treated decently.

But as soon as the news of the disappearance of these three American soldiers was released, the presumption was for the worst. For in the twisted world of Al-Qaida and its spawn of Islamofascists cruelty is first and second nature.

Not everybody reasons in this way. Some commentators are able to argue, with a straight face, that this is payback for Abh Ghraib. In fact, al-Qaeda itself maintains they are only exacting revenge for a crime committed by US soldiers

Now we have word that the body of one of the soldiers has been found, and there are reasons to believe that he suffered horribly at the hands of his captors before his death. Cruel torture and mutilation, as we know from experience with the ihadist, is part and parcel of their sociopathic and sadistic makeup--even for all their talk about Allah's "compassion and mercy." They will act out their fantasies of moral and intellectual superiority completely unaware that they are only offering proof of it utter absence.

The search continues for the other two soldiers, even as the truth we all understand is not explicitly stated.

We can expect no mercy from the barbarians we deal with. That is their nature. Not only that, we will hear repeatedly from people presumably on our own side (though whether they are on our side is becoming more and more doubtful) that our soldiers "deserved" such treatment at the hands of the enemy. Who could blame those poor jihadis for being upset at our invasion blah blah blah, and other sanctimonious intonations.

The murderous, sub-human thugs who could do this are not to be held accountable by the civilized world anymore. There will be no international court convened to try them for their atrocities; indeed, the court is too busy trying Americans for the presumed atrocities of flushing Korans down toilets and other assorted tortures against the poor, oppressed fanatics we are fighting. You will soon be made to understand that the soldier's death--all the soldier's deaths--is the fault of George Bush and Dick Cheney--the Hitlerian warmongering monsters of America.

Who knows what twisted logic makes a patient like Chris believe she is justified in behaving the way she did because, by her standards, I didn't appreciate or empathize with her plight correctly. The world is all about her needs and if the world doesn't respond adequately, then it will suffer--just as she suffers--for daring to ignore her.

At least for the Chrises of the world, there is some hope. The very fact that she came to see me week after week was an acknowledgement by her that her behavior in the world is dysfunctional and inappropriate. Underneath the pathology of her actions, she wanted to make a life worth living for herself--and she recognized she needed me to help her do it.

Chris is a beacon of mental health compared to the jihadists, who, rather than working to create a life worth living for themselves, would rather destroy yours and force you into the paranoid and malignant nightmare they choose to live in.

After I got over my angry feelings, that early episode with Chris's fake suicide actually taught me a very valuable lesson as a psychiatrist and as a person. I could not take responsibility for other people's behavior. That Way Lies Madness.

Taking responsibility for their behavior is exactly what all the terrorists of the world expect you to do. Their implicit message is that somehow YOU are the one responsible for THEIR murders. If YOU had behaved differently, then YOU would not have CAUSED THEM to behave the horrible way they did. THEY are the victims, and you are the perpetrators. That is of course the ultimate weapon of the terrorist, isn't it? To make you feel that you cause their murderous behavior? That the beheadings would not have occurred IF NOT FOR YOU?

This is the reason why you cannot negotiate with them no matter how hard you try and how much good faith you put into it.

You must put the responsibility for their actions back onto them and not permit yourself to be manipulated by their threats. If innocents suffer, it will not be because you don't pay the ransom or do what they want. Innocents suffer because the terrorists choose to make them suffer.

And those who appease and justify such behavior; or rationalize and empathize with it must ultimately share responsibility. It is they who have created the environments in which the deluded fantasies of the terrorists are able to flourish; it is they who have willing put a weapon into their hands of those who would murder and destroy; as they babble on about "root causes" and "compassion".

We know this, and yet the issue comes up over and over again, as we suffer the remorse and pain that these fanatics inflict. It is helpful to remember that terrorists inflict this pain deliberately and consciously; and that they exult at the idea of having so much power over us. As the now defunct animal Zarqawi once said very compassionately, “What is laughable is the insistence of the ministers of all infidel nationalities on the phrase ‘no negotiations’. As if there was any question of negotiation. Far from it - they must obey the demands of the Mujahadeen. If you refuse, we slaughter.”

The emotional connection between patients like Chris who, believe it or not function at a far far healthier level than a typical jihadist, is a simple one. The essence of both the borderline's and the sociopath's psychopathology is that they will try to make you feel as empty, worthless and dead inside as they themselves are.

Their sickness is that this behavior is the only pleasure they are able to experience in life. By accepting responsibility for their behavior and failing to hold them accountable, we have also placed ourselves on the path toward madness.

Wednesday, May 23, 2007


Once again, for the benefit of all intelligent and discerning listeners; as well as for the annoyance of the the reality-challenged community, this week's Sanity Squad Podcast has been posted at Pajamas Media Politics Central ! With the latest blatherings of former President Carter, we focus on leadership (or, in the case of Jimmy Carter, the lack of it) and how the celebrity culture we live in encourages excessive narcissism, grandiosity, and entitlement--but very little real leadership.

Most elected officials spend their time chasing polls and popularity, which leaves little room to do anything that is hard, unpopular or right. The Squad talks about the nature of good leadership and the importance of taking responsibility for one’s actions in the era of the rote public apology.

In fact, the mea culpa public apology and then checking into rehab is just another clever strategem elected officials have perfected in order to shirk any responsibility for his or her actions.

Join Siggy, Neo-neocon, Shrinkwrapped and I as we take no prisoners and make no apologies whatsoever on the latest podcast of The Sanity Squad.

All podcasts of The Sanity Squad can be found here; and you can also download them from iTunes. (search for Pajamas Media)

The Sanity Squad cartoon is drawn by Eric Allie, whose collection of political cartoons can be found here and here).


Last night I was reading the newly-released book, The Reagan Diaries, edited by Douglas Brinkley; and it caused me to reflect once again about the man and the circumstances under which I metand interacted with him. Here is an excerpt from the diary entry from that day:
Friday, January 31 (1986)
At 8:45 on way to Andrews A.F.1 taking us to Houston for memorial service to Astronauts. Met with families at NASA Center--an emotional time. Then out to join some 14,000 people which included all the employees, family etc. of the entire space center....It was a hard time for all the families & all we could do was hug them & try to hold back our tears.

I've decided to re-post my recollection of that day, which was originally posted in January, 2006. Though it was a heart-wrenching time, I will forever feel extremely fortunate to have been a first-hand witness of the deep character and strength of this remarkable man. How lucky we all were as a nation to have had such a person be our President during those difficult and challenging years towrd the end of the last century!

Feel free to purchase the book by clicking on the image. I think it will be well worth your while.

RONALD REAGAN, A Personal Recollection

I vividly recall the day I met President Reagan almost exactly 20 years ago. It was one of the saddest days of my life. I was at the Johnson Space Center memorial service for the Challenger astronauts on the Friday after the Challenger accident. The President had come to JSC to honor the fallen crew and to heal the nation.

As the crew surgeon for that mission, I accompanied the families of the crew to a private meeting with President and Mrs. Reagan before he spoke to the large crowd of employees and officials. I felt a little out of place at this private meeting, so I tried to stay off to the side as, one by one, Reagan greeted all the immediate family members and talked with them.

Much to my surprise, after he visited with them for a while, he walked over to where I was standing. Apparently he had asked who I was, because he addressed me as "Doctor" and held out his hand, saying, "It must be especially hard for you today to have lost those who looked up to you as their doctor and who put their trust in you." He said it very quietly and his sincerity and genuine concern for what I was experiencing resulted in bringing tears to my eyes. Until that moment, I had managed to keep it all together and not show my feelings in public.

The next thing I knew, the President of the United States had put his hand on my shoulder and was comforting me; telling me that he understood my loss and that he knew I had been trying to be strong and take care of all the family members of the crew; but that he could see I was suffering too.

I had voted for Reagan in both the '79 and '84 elections (it was the first time I had voted Republican instead of Libertarian), but it wasn't until that moment that I truly understood the personal power of the man; his genuine warmth and the depth of his concern for someone he didn't even know. He instinctively seemed to understand that I had deliberately put aside my personal feelings about the tragedy because I had the awesome responsibility of taking care of all the crew family members (who were also my patients).

It crossed my mind even then, that he was telling me how much he identified with my situation and the responsibilities of my job. He had an entire nation to take care of, but it didn't mean he didn't personlly mourn for those who had died. It could be that I read too much into what he said, but I don't think so. He could have ignored me since I was standing off to the side from all the family members. But he went out of his way to find out who I was and then chose to come over to me.

I remember telling him in a choked voice how much his understanding meant to me and he looked at me with those clear, direct eyes of his and said, "You will be able to handle it. I know you will."

It seemed that I stared into those eyes for a long time (but it was probably only seconds) and then he turned away and signaled to the others that it was time to start the memorial service.

I actually got to stand on the platform while he spoke. This had been the spot prearranged for me to be so I would be able to observe the families in the front row and be ready to respond if they needed me. I couldn't have been more than ten feet or so away from the President during his eulogy and remarks.

I never spoke to President Reagan again, but at the end of the ceremony; after the missing man formation of T-38's had flown overhead, I accidently caught his eye, and he winked at me.

I will always remember his kindness and strength.

Tuesday, May 22, 2007



...with all due praise and glory to Steely Dan (pbuh) and Deacon Blues

This is the age of expanding jihad.
Our rage is no shame, when we're behaving bad.
It seems like only yesterday, the Caliphate went away
Crusaders, Jew Invaders, all make the past replay.
You call me fanatic, and mine's truly a crazy dream.
But virgins in heaven are all part of Allah's scheme.
It's useless to ask me why,
I pull the cord and wave goodbye;
I'll blow you to Kingdom Come.
Praise Allah, for making death fun....

Learn to work the IEDs,
To justly murder the infidel,
Read the Quran all night long,
And make my way to hell.
They've got a name for the winners in the world,
I only know how to lose.
They call other losers the mujahadeen...
Just call me Jihad Blues (Jihad Blues).

I'm just a poor helpless victim of Western greed,
My virtue's in what I say and not in my deed.
I want your willing submission to Allah the great--
And if you don't agree, then you'll get a taste of my hate.
I swarm like wild ants when Israel bombs the street.
Hide behind innocent children so I can avoid the heat.
I love making videos
As I behead those GI Joes--
My psychotic world,
Where insanity's all unfurled....

Learn to work the IEDs,
To justly murder the infidel,
Read the Quran all night long,
And make my way to hell.
They've got a name for the winners in the world,
I only know how to lose.
They call other losers the mujahadeen...
Call me Jihad Blues.

So this is the time of expanding jihad.
I take one last look as I depart Baghdad
And leave quickly for Lebanon,
Praise Allah the jihad is never done.
One day I'll finally be free,
To enjoy sex for eternity!

Learn to work the IEDs,
To justly murder the infidel,
Read the Quran all night long,
And make my way to hell.
They've got a name for the winners in the world,
I only know how to lose.
They call other losers the mujahadeen...
Call me Jihad Blues.


"Scandalous" is far too polite a term: (hat tip: Instapundit)

Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring--the book that got mosquito-killer DDT banned and launched the modern environmental movement--while struggling with cancer. The disease killed Carson in 1964, two years after Silent Spring came out.

Today's Washington Post has a story on Carson--whose 100th birth anniversary occurs later this month--and her noble fight against cancer. A touching piece.

But maddening, too! Because in the story's 34 paragraphs, there are only a buried pair, the 26th and 27th, that note the ongoing controversy about DDT's ban.

A Maryland Congressman (evil Republican, of course ... wink, wink) is quoted as saying that malaria deaths might have been prevented had DDT not been banned.

That happens to be true. DDT kills mosquitoes, which carry malaria, which was all but eradicated before DDT was banned.

Buried in paragraph 27, and paraphrasing the Congressman, The Washington Post concedes that "numerous" deaths might have been prevented by DDT.

Let's stop here. Any curious reader would ask, Just how "numerous" is numerous? Wouldn't you ask that question? The Post never asks that question. Why?

Because the answer devastates Rachel Carson and her followers. According to these CDC figures, malaria kills more than 800,000 children under age five every year.

Every year, 800,000 small children die from malaria, a disease once nearly eradicated. Ponder that.

And all The Washington Post can say is "numerous?"

That's scandalous.

I would term it "outrageous"; as well as thoroughly disgusting, but typical of a certain mindset.

The unintended consequences ushered in by the do-gooders--who always know what's best for us hapless humans--are almost always devastating and destructive when policy is dictated by hysteria and a reliance on fear (or other feelings), rather than on reality. They mean well, after all. It isn't their fault that 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.

For decades these pathetic do-gooders have sought to escape responsibility for the condequences of their fantasies. The world is littered with the corpses and awash in the tears of the people who they have "helped". Fantasy environmentalism is only one of a series of strategies they have fallen back on as they reassert their socialist ideology and attempt to chain all of humanity to its domination.

Ask yourself how Al Gore's obsession has become required classroom reading. And how our children are being indoctrinated right this moment in the K-12 classrooms into the holy rituals of the environmental histrionics.

In this post I argued that multiculturalism, postmodern politically correct thought, and radical environmentalism were three of the four major strategies used by socialism's deadenders to keep their failed 20th century ideology alive.

In case you doubt the anti-human, anti-capitalist agenda of todays radical left environmentalists, here's a recent cartoon that sums it up for you:

As you can see, the gist of the cartoon is that global warming is being deliberately caused by all about those money-grubbing capitalists. A few short years ago (1979), the cartoon would have shown the earth suspended above ice cubes placed by the mad businesses of the world intent on causing global cooling.

We can all thank Rachel Carson for starting the trend, or "How a courageous woman took on the chemical industry and raised important questions about humankind's impact on nature. "

None of her followers today will courageously look at--let alone raise--the important questions about the human results of their political impact, will they?

Those who promulgate these environmental fantasies conveniently forget the environmental disasters that socialist and communist paradises in the world have presided over in the last 50 years or so. They ignore real data about the fact that the rise in CO2 emissions is almost exclusively the result of the backward and primitive cultures they idealize in their nature worship; and instead prefer to blame America and capitalism.

The fundamental goal of these radical environmentalists is not to end global warming; instead, it is to discredit capitalism and to use global warming and other environmental concerns as a justification to impose their ideological and political agenda. They haven't a clue how to really counter the natural cooling and warming trends of the planet--but if they blame it on human beings, then the solution is to control people.

Global warming is a scientific issue. I can be convinced that the earth is getting warmer, but it will take more than slogans and hysteria to convince me that the warming is something other than a natural cycle in our planet's history that may have some repercussions on human life. The solution lies in technical advances to help humans adapt to climate change. Not to kill off the humans in order to save the planet.

If the radical environmentalists really wanted to "do something" about global warming, then they would be calling for funding projects that explore countermeasures and methods to adapt to it. What we see instead is the same kind of religious fanaticism and holy fervor that the left so despises in the fundamental right. What they really want is power over people.

Theirs is basically a totalitarian agenda in which they, the "elites", will dictate how people should live on this earth.

For some time there has been a struggle between the totalitarians of the right and the totalitarians of the left to dominate. All the major conflicts of the last century occurred when one or the other tried to take control over the world.

The Marxist left always based its claim for socialist leadership on "scientific principles" --including technology--which they assert "proves" that socialism works; except of course, that it didn't. Which is why the left has adopted the "new and improved" doctrine of radical environmentalism (which asserts that technology is evil and destructive),insisting that human society and progress are "destroying" the earth. Of course, they cleverly invoke "science" as a justification for their beliefs--a strategy that is identical to that adopted by the creationists in their "Intelligent Design" arguments (which, of course, the left has complete contempt for).

Neither represents real science.

Over at Gates of Vienna, the Baron noted in an earlier post:

Now, implicit in these statements is the fact that it must have been even warmer before that. Sometime previously, the Earth was warmer than it is now. Can you believe it? How did civilization survive such a catastrophe? Was that what put Atlantis under the waves — ancient global warming?

What do you think caused it? Was it those coal-fired generating plants the Romans built all over the Empire? Or maybe the SUVs that Jesus and His disciples tooled around the desert in?

What this all goes to show is that the world has been colder than it is now, and it has also been warmer — presumably considerably warmer at times. Regardless of the effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide, there are natural, cyclical fluctuations in global climate that far exceed any changes in temperature that have occurred since the Industrial Revolution.

It’s too early to identify the effects that the human activity has on global temperatures; serious and reliable data have only been available for a micro-instant in climatological terms. The apocalyptic stampede by the cognoscenti to embrace Kyoto and destroy the world’s economy is one of the more foolhardy ideas to come down the pike.

But the elites are certain that Global Warming is Truth; all else is Heresy.

The "elites" have never abandoned their dreams of imposing a socialist paradise, and one of their basic strategies is to undermine capitalism by using the talking points of their "environmental religion".

I suspect that they truly believe that if humans would abandon capitalism and technology; go back to the cave and live the "simple life", then their ideology would finally work in the real world and their dreams of a religious caliphate international socialist paradise would finally be realized.

Perhaps that is why they have consciously and deliberately joined forces with radical Islam, which suffers from the same inabilty to bring peace (unless you count death as the ultimate "peace") and prosperity to their adherents; and has the same fantasy.

Fantasy environmentalism -- bringing new life into the utopian agenda, and coming soon to a theater near you!

Monday, May 21, 2007


In my mail: a commenter who objects to my recent post about Islam has this to say:

What the hell kind of a woman are you?

Why do you have a problem with Islam? Islam is a peaceful religion, for the whole of humanity. If some Muslim confuses Islam to mean: "lets act a asshole and blow shit up" thats the problem of the person, just like we don't blame every single white person for the lynching of negroid race. Or killings of the Jews. Its all good an dandy to have freedom of speech - but I think its a bad idea giving this kind of freedom to women such as yourself.

Just stick to what you know best. i.e cooking an cleaning.


...and an anonymous emailer who also objected to my posts about Islam had this to say:

I was on your blog, just reading some of the banal garage (sic) you posted. It was quite amusing for me. I always say "women have a child like nativity" and you women never fail to have my opinion reasserted by some of the things you say. Anyway I am not actually emailing you to discuss your stupidity. I am wanting to ask you a question, you claim to study "Psychiatry" let me as a normal sane 19 year old Muslim boy tell you something, psychology is a pseudo science, it has no scientific credibility it was invented by the Nazis in world war 2 to advance euthanasia in concentration camps. Its a load of nonsense, get a real job stop kidding yourself believing you're some kind of an intelectual woman. Women only have half the intellect of men.

So, in the spirit of "sticking to what I know best", I thought I would provide some psychological analysis of the particular mentality that believes such nonsense.

Discrimination against women and a belief in their moral and intellectual inferiority is certainly nothing new in history. Bu, in the 21st century, t it is hard to be as fanatical and mindless about it unless you happen to be a member of the culture/religion that specializes in the abasement, oppression, and humiliation of women as a societal imperative.

For starters, you can go here for a good laugh to listen to some Islamic jerk sheikh discussing the difference between men and women in a highly scientific and creative manner. That way, you can choose to take whatever I say (if you are Muslim, especially) with a grain of salt. It's in the Quran, so this must be how Allah decreed it to be.

In a post "An Unveiled Woman that discusses the epidemic rapes committed by young muslim males in Europe, I wrote:
One of the most damning aspects of the rapes of "unveiled women" in Europe is the acceptance--even encouragement--of the young men's families. As discussed in this seminar, these families are not only unconcerned with the violent rapes committed by their young men, but fail to understand why European authorities are making a fuss about them.

I continue to think that the treatment of women under Islam is not only the key to understanding the pathology of the culture, but also the key to developing an antidote to its most poisonous and toxic elements. Unveiling the women of Islam and eliminating their second-class status; empowering them in the oppressive Islamic countries where their individuality and self-expression has been crushed-- may cause a ripple effect that could eventually alter a family structure that encourages the development of generation after generation of dysfunctional and pathological men and women.
Honor killings of women are all too common in Arab culture, and, even more importantly are not dissuaded by Islam. Here is a graphic video of an honor killing (don't watch it unless you are prepared to be sick) . Or, See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here-- I could go on and on...about FGM (discussed here and here); or about the brutality of the Taliban and the desperate attempts that enjoy the sanction of Islam to subjugate women, dehumanize them, and cover up any hint of their evil sexuality so that it doesn't "defile" others.

If there was ever in history a better example of the paranoid fear of female sexuality, I can't think of it. You don't have to be much of an expert on Islam or Muslim culture to be able to observe that it has evolved into a societal structure whose primary purpose is to contain and manage female sexuality.

This containment has not only become a key aspect of the worship of their god; but it also is a key factor in individual personality development; as well as the main pollutant of all possible social interactions within the culture.

The men of Islam are obsessed with sex beyond even the wildest imaginings of the Western male's mind. And the obsession is far from healthy and even further from reality.

We frequently joke about men's preoccupation with sex and female body parts in the West, but our fascination with "T&A" is nothing when you consider that the Muslim world is literally consumed by female sexuality and with their fear of it. It is ironic that both Muslim men and women are under the mistaken impression that Western society is oversexualized compared to them, when in fact, it is practically impossible to be more obsessed with sexual matters than they are in Muslim communities.

Consider for a moment a culture that would prefer to let young girls die in a burning building than to risk having them run out of said building not clothed in properly modest dress; and tell me that such a society is less preoccupied with matters of sex than we are in the West.

Enormous effort goes into veiling women, dressing women modestly, silencing women, covering women's bodies, punishing women, controlling women, reviling women, humiliating women, beating women, subjugating women, avoiding the dishonor of women, keeping women uneducated, policing women, infantilizing women--in short, dehumanizing women in every way possible -- all under the guise of "protecting" and "honoring" them as they relegate them to animal-like status.

The women in this misogynistic Islam are brainwashed from birth into thinking that this cultural preoccupation somehow is necessary and that it "liberates" them in some bizarre manner.

Amazingly, this medieval culture has grasped the fundamentals of both Orwellian and postmodern rhetorical rationalizations, that are so prominent in certain intellectual quarters within our own culture! I have heard the canned rationalizations coming from their lips of muslim women myself; and they all claim that it frees them from having to be "sexual objects."

On the contrary, in Islamic society that is apparently the only role open to women. That, and breeders for the jihad.

This societal psychopathology poisons all interactions between the genders; takes up an incredible amount of time and effort in so-called "intellectual" circles and is the subject of religious edicts and innumerable rules and strictures on women's behavior and in the religious and social life; and causes the pseudoscientific rantings of arrogantly pathetic men (like the one above) who try to justify their misogyny so that they don't have to deal with the reality of their frightened and impotent masculinity.

Women become mere possessions-vessels/repositories of the impotent and inadequate male's honor. That men and women could relate equally in every sphere of human endeavor is a concept that is so alien and so threatening; I suspect it is what partly drives the rage the males feel toward western culture in general.

Without the subjugated woman, the entire house of cards of Islam and Arab culture will come tumbling down. And with at least 50% of their population de-humanized, is it at all surprising that Islamic culture wherever it has taken root inevitably evolves into backward, primitive, violent, and non-productive societies?

I have said it before and I will say it again here: the treatment of women under Islam is not only the key to understanding the pathology of the culture, but also the key to developing an antidote to its most poisonous and toxic elements.

Unveiling the women of Islam and eliminating their second-class status; empowering them in the oppressive Islamic countries where their individuality and self-expression has been crushed-- may cause a ripple effect that could eventually alter a family structure that currently encourages the development of generation after generation of dysfunctional and pathological men and women.

What seems most characteristic about the type of Islam practiced in the Middle East today (and being exported around the world) is that its attitude toward women most certainly has no relationship to reality. Reality is indeed a "mistake" in their eyes, and they fully intend to rectify it--no matter how many deaths and lives are sacrificed to their perverted religious ideology.

Psychiatrists generally refers to this state as "psychotic" and "delusional".

It has been argued (and there is a great deal of merit in the argument, in my opinion) that Islamist terror can be thought of in part, at least, as a response to sexual rage, frustration, and the humiliation of being connected to a "degraded mother." Thus the men in the culture must constantly assert their masculinity, defend their masculine "honor", and strike out in rage against any who "shame" them.

This is apparent in the sexual mutilation of terror victims who are perceived as "inferior" by the Islamists, and on a par with women of their own culture. It is also seen in the Freudian symbolism of the barbaric act of beheading; as well as in the ubiquitous rape of non-muslim women around the world.

To some extent, such behavior has been seen in all cultures that debase or oppress women. In misogynistic cultures (and individuals) there is usually both the revulsion of the "whore" combined with a perverse obsession with, attraction to, and idealization of "perfection" in a woman (the "madonna" complex). In order to be idealized, women must be stripped of any hint of sexuality.
As a culture, the Arab-Islamic world has perfected this "stripping" to a nightmarish art form of shapeless, individualess, blank nothingness.

Misogyny can be defined as an unreasonable fear or hatred of women. Ever since Eve tempted Adam, women have been reviled in many ways and for many overt reasons around the world and in various cultures. They are hated and feared for their bodies, which tempt men to give into their "base" instincts; They are feared and considered "unclean" because of their monthly cycle of bleeding; they are hated for their unique feminine abilities, which are invariably considered malicious--or worse, evil--by the misogynist individual or culture.

There are three basic motivations underlying why men fear/hate/vilify women (and they are not mutually exclusive, but may exist in various combinations or all at the same time) :
-sexual frustration;
-castration anxiety, and
-resentment and anger at being dependent on women, especially the mother.

The idealization of women, on the other hand, originates from the innate desire of all humans, male or female, to return to the perfect union with the mother that each experienced in the womb.

There are also multiple reasons why women might hate other women on both an individual and societal level, and thus are often complicit in their own subjugation in misogynistic societies.

Many women hate or envy other women whose existence lowers their own status with men, i.e., other women who are more attractive than they are either in looks or accomplishment, depending on the cultural expectations. For example, in one culture a woman might attract men because of her beauty; in another because of her purity or religious devotion. A corollary to this is that the aging woman will increasingly become aware of her diminishing attraction to men or usefulness to a society that only values her reproductive capability. This sets up a dynamic tension between old and young women. In all cultures where female genital mutilation occurs, while it is the male-dominated society that mandates it, the operation itself is performed by older women on younger women; and has the direct effect of decreasing the sexual capabilities/responsiveness of the younger--thus "leveling the playing field" by some accounts. Older--"useless" women--can become societal heroes only by embracing the violence and rage of the sexually frutstrated and fearful men.

Needless to say, the family dynamics in viciously misogynic cultures like those dominated by Islamic extremists, create severely impaired girls and boys. It has been noted by many researchers and observers that children of both sexes are routinely physically and sexually abused by male relatives (indeed there are religious rules that designate under what circumstances babies may be used for sexual gratification by adults) . The boys are publicly circumcised and the girls clitoridectomized. Women's behavior becomes the source of all shame and dishonor, and they must be ruthlessly controlled. The degree of control is proportional to the degree of sexual repression and frustration (and hence rage) that is mandated by the culture/religion.

In normal societies, the act of "mothering", which is almost always relegated to the female, may be accomplished by either females or males as long as they provide that early and continual nurturing, acceptance and security that a baby needs. The role of "fathering" can also be taken on either by females or males, particularly to the offspring of the same sex and that role usually begins at about the toddler (age 4 give or take). To raise a healthy child, healthy males and females are essential. But the cultural debasement and humiliation of women has a profound impact on the children.

Male children in societies that demonize or debase women must overemphasize their "maleness" in order to separate from the mother. As grown men, far from being able to mitigate the aggressive impulses of a child, such men will encourage these impulses in order to "prove" to the world at large that they (and later, their sons)have not been "feminized". Cultures where women have extremely low status almost always encourage the development of inadequate, "macho" men, who need to prove their manliness constantly and with exaggerated finesse.

In "Where Have All The Mothers Gone?" I commented about a study which demonstrated the power of "good" mothers --i.e., normal, healthy, functioning and unoppressed by their culture-- in overcoming aggression or "bad" behavior in children. Researchers discovered that "good" mothering was able to prevent aggressive and self-destructive behavior in at-risk monkeys. In human terms, "Good" mothering provides a child with respect, love, and security-- the basic aspects of "nurture" that are essential for normal development.

The findings of this and other landmark research clearly suggest that without an early mothering influence children were much more likely to grow up to be aggressive and antisocial.

From a psychological perspective then, the freedom and empowerment of women in society are absolutely critical because they are responsible for the earliest environmental influences on children--influences that will impact the child throughout his or her life. If the society has little respect for women and regularly demonizes, debases or humiliates them, it will have a profound generational impact. This is why encouraging women's rights around the world should be a high priority in US Foreign Policy.

Women subjected to institutionalized, societal abuse (such as what we saw under the Taliban; and what we see to a greater or lesser extent in almost all Islamic countries--where physical abuse is sanctioned; where women are sexually demonized; where they are deprived of education, as well as physical, social, economic and political freedom) are hardly in a psychological position to be able to provide effective "nurturing" to children.

Women whose own aggressive impulses have been savagely constrained by society and who have few options to sublimate those impulses, are at grave risk of encouraging aggressive and violent "acting out" on the part of their children on their behalf-- especially the male child who must be seriously conflicted about his love for and identification with a lowly-regarded woman.

In other words, such women will hardly prevent inappropriate aggression in their offspring, when such aggression vicariously meets their own needs. And the male children will have to assert their separation and distance from the debased female that is their mother, as aggressively and violently as possible. The father, who might undo some of this early pathology is himself also in the grip of the dysfunctional societal demands, and he must constantly deal with subverting his own normal sexual drives which can only find expression through sanctioned deviancy (as exemplified in Rule 19) and aggression toward women who dare to challenge the societal taboos(i.e., unveiled women, "uppity women", or any infidel women).
Is it any wonder sexual impulses become so perverted and directed toward children? Or that child sexual abuse becomes the only societal outlet for sexuality? Or that the residual aggression is expressed in a barbaric, uncivilized manner?

Family dynamics obviously play an extremely important role in the development of personality, especially in providing values and role-models. The dysfunctional family of Middle Eastern Muslims, where women are hidden and oppressed; prevented from ever being able to grow up normally, while the sexually repressed and enraged men must avoid the shame of the feminine and must aggressively defend his honor and manhood by controlling and debasing anyone who threatens it.

Under the Taliban, which arguably is the most malignant iteration of Islam's dysfunction, women were actively oppressed and beaten for any attempt to express themselves. Even today, there are actual "debates" about this.

Sexuality is an essential part of each of us. The double standards of modesty and behavior encouraged by the current practice of Islam is destructive to the normal development of personality in both males and females. Psychopathic traits in males are societally encouraged, while females are conditioned to be their willing victims. (When women seek to "equal" men by blowing themselves up, you know there is some sort of psychopathy at work--as opposed to "gender liberation"). Also, how will a child grow up normally knowing their mother thinks of them in this way?

A culture that is viciously misogynistic creates both men and women who are severely dysfunctional in almost every sphere of human activity.

Keep those comments and emails coming, boys! They are just more handy evidence of the pervasive psychopathological impairment that the followers of Islam seem inclined to embrace.

And I most certainly intend to stick to what I know best.

UPDATE: Oh joy! A response from the anonymous emailer, who I told in a very therapeutic way to f*** off, as I helpfully suggested that his inadequacies might be related to serious imperfections in a certain organ. He replies:
Just for your information, I am blessed to have a well endowed penis - a point to which my wife could back me up in. Not that I need to prove anything in the first place. I am just saying for the sake of saying.

I did actually find your comments quite hurtful and upsetting. You really have a very disgusting attitude for someone who is educated. You will not get far in live with an attitude like that. We Muslims believe in something called "civility" and giving respect to a person even though he/she may not be deserving of it. We also believe in "obedience" and that a woman should always speak to a man only kind and sweet words. Not utter disgusting filth such as saying he has small penis this is very hurtful for a man to hear. A woman will only be nice, when she is aware of her own limitations. It it only when she is aware of her limitations, and doesn't feel threatened by men who are better than her in some way, that she can be a lady. For example, they will make loads of stupid lies about testosterone, not knowing what the hell it is, or what it does. For your information, it is the chemical that makes males strong, driven, sexual and peaceful. The gentle giant chemical. It is estrogen that makes people aggressive. Aggressive males have too much estrogen in their bodies.

So many girls think that calling any guy they don't like, "a dick" or something is totally fine. But do they ever call any one "a cunt" so easily? No, of course not. That is because females are disgusting creatures, and evil and sexist too.

Females in the west makes all kinds of hypocrisies, such as that men can't hit women but women can hit men. (While claiming they are for equality, hah!) And hypocrisies like feminism means equality, despite the obvious fact that the entire word is about females. Take away the "ism" out of feminism and you have "femin", obviously feminism is only about females. So how can a movement only about females EVER be about equality?

Thank Allah I don't live in the west.

Yes, that is something to be thankful for.