Sunday, September 30, 2007

CARNIVAL OF THE INSANITIES--An Ahmadinejadpalooza !

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.

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.

**NOTE: I am now getting many more submissions than I can possibly include in the weekly Carnival. Please don't be offended if your submission is not used (oh, okay, be as offended as you like) as it only means that for a variety of reasons I wasn't able to fit it into the "flow" as I put together each Carnival.


1. He came, he spoke, he left; he set the record straight on all those hangings and stonings; and in the imaginary poll conducted by Allah (I assume) 77% of students thought he was right! A triumph indeed....of propaganda anyway.

2. Shall we have a sewer-side chat ? Or watch a reality TV show whose time has come?

3. A tyrant at a tea party? If you invite, must you be polite?

4. Has anybody seen his gays? "My blowjob with Ahmadinejad".... Guys don't get in bed with guys in Iran...they have to leave the country to do that sort of thing!

5. Does this marriage made in hell need some therapy?

6. Nyahhh nyahhh :P We're rubber and you're glue....

7. El senor dictator and the Big Mahdi on Campus . Sort of a metrosexual version of LaVerne and Shirley....Schlemiel! Schlemazl! Hasenpfeffer Incorporated! Nothing can defeat them now! But we can make fun of them.

8. The breakup of a once renowned ivy league university.

9. Human rights, the postmodern UN incarnation. Thousands of people rising up to peaceably protest a brutal dictatorship seems soooo 1989. Yawn.

10. A multiculti PC Pledge of allegience.... Is that going chomsky? Or, do you need to get an A+ in 'socializing'?

11. The military version of Munchausen's...and the Dems ought to think twice about castigaing anyone denouncing them.

12. Lost in translation & Translation found!

13. I sense a disturbance in the Farce. Every large organization has its infighting!

14. Speaking of farces...this explains the Democratic Underground and much of the lefty blogsphere! They split off into one of these after the 2000 election. Moveon ad disses Moses ?

15. Global warming causes amoeba to eat brains. Perhaps that's what happened to the guy giving these energy saving tips?

16. A talking bottle of pomade? Yes, that fits. Wonder where Madame Speaker Pelosi, protector of the little children, stands on this issue? And, Rudy, looking henpecked is no way to out-macho Hillary

17. Creating outrage to your outrage over some outrage. That was his "Plan B" all along. Don't get outraged, get pissed off! A lot of people do....It's a bit healthier.

18. And when someone offers you this sort of advice, it's OK to get pissed off. You go, girls!

19. The new high-tech, concussion-sensing, skull encapsulator .

20. What some people will do just to bring home some California wine.

21. The right to bear Pink guns?

22. Everybody's got a good personality?? What planet does this person live on?

23. Yeah...dream on, mister. If only Larry Craig had read a blog like this one....

24. What a turkey! And, speaking of turkeys...Ramallah raves about this female one.

25. Economic progress goes boink in Zimbabwe.... There's a lot of insanity expressing itself in the African continent these days.

26. Would you buy this house?

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

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

Heard the Word of Blog?

Saturday, September 29, 2007


Recent articles in the MSM (see here and here) suggest that the left is gearing up for an all out assault on the possibility of war with Iran. They intend to do this by using the talking point that "they can live with a nuclear Iran."

SC&A have an important post up that discusses the ramifications of this full court press by the antiwar crowd to undermine efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and "prevent" war:
It is not the Israelis who have threatened the Arabs or Iran. It is just the opposite. It is the Arabs who constantly threaten the Israelis with extermination. It is the Arabs and Iranians who announce ‘Israel’s destruction is near’ or the ‘fires of hell will engulf the Israelis.’ Those messages are reinforced in media, school curriculum and preached from the pulpit. Other messages, even less obtuse, praise and endorse the idea that Iran and the Arab world must acquire nuclear weapons for ‘balance’- and to endorse their stated foreign and religious policies of extermination.

There is a very big difference between the Israelis and the Iranians and the Arab world when comes to nuclear weapons. For the Israelis, they are real deterrent. For the Iranians, nuclear weapons are hammer, to be used to blackmail the west- or worse.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize Mahmoud Ahmadenijad’s pronouncement of his affection for Jews is suspect when his best friends are proud supporters of racism and genocide. The Iranians are the major political, economic and military backers of Hassan Nasrallah and Hizbollah. Nasrallah, never shy refers to Jews as ’sons of monkeys and pigs’ and has expressed his delight that there are so many Jews in Israel- ‘It will save us the trouble of rounding them up.’ Given the Iranian penchant for supporting Hizbollah, et al, do we really want to take the chance that the Iranians might supply that terrorist organization with a small nuke, to be deployed inside Israel?

Siggy is also very cognizant of the historical parallels and the devastating consequences of this sort of psychological denial:
Imagine being a black person in a neighborhood where you are surrounded by KKK members who for decades have promised to lynch you. They have no problem stating what is they have in store for you and they teach those lessons to their kids in neighborhood schools and in summer camps and and even in churches. Parents display their pride as their children play games like ’slaughter the nigger!’ and express their desire from a young age to participate in the killing of blacks.

One can only imagine the scenario if the Iranian and Arab world nuclear ‘imbalance’ and ‘inequality’ of nuclear programs were allowed to be addressed. If history tends to repeat itself, we have plenty to consider.

Prior to WWII, Hitler broke the Treaty of Versailles, rearmed Germany to the extreme, beat the drums of war and put that nation on a war footing. The Europeans, loathe to fight another war, recalling the horrors of WWI, did everything they could to avoid another conflagration, even turning a blind eye after Hitler waltzed into Czechoslovakia and took the Sudetenland. They believed him when he said ‘that was all he wanted, to correct past injustices suffered by the German ethnic minority.’

(Does that ring a bell yet?)

Chamberlain, the gold medal champion of European denial and psychopathy, went to Berlin and met with ‘civilized’ Hitler to much newsreel fanfare. He returned home to an adoring crowd, waving a piece of paper ’signed by Herr Hitler.’ There was to be no war, Chamberlain assured a nervous nation and continent. In fact, he soothed European fears and declared, ‘There will be peace in our time.’

"Peace" in Chamberlain's time translated into millions of Jews exterminated before the West finally woke up and confronted the unbelievable evil that they had "learned" to stop worrying about as they indulged their psychological denial.

In fact, we can translate "learning to live with a nuclear Iran" into "learning to live without Israel and the Jews". Because that is what the practical consequence of this leftist line of reasoning amounts to.

Will we wait for the equivalent of more than 2000 WTC's when (not if) a nuclear Iran inevitably pursues it's religious destiny--the one that Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs have repeatedly emphasized over the years? You must admit that would be a strange sort of "love" and "compassion", wouldn't it?

If the German people with all their "ordnung" and their restrained national character-- which might lead one to imagine they would have abhored all the chaos, disorder and destruction they unleashed in WWII--could perpetrate the genocide known as the Holocaust, then what can we expect from the Arabs, whose entire bloody history is one of belligerance and emotionality, rather than a willingness to accommodate and compromise? Has Iran "accommodated" homosexuals--or has it exterminated them?

Unfortunately, the unwillingness of the left in this country to face the reality of the rise of Islamofascism and the barbarism it has unleashed around the world has had the consequence of facilitating that barbarism and even encouraging it.

I think of such people as beyond mere psychological denial...In a previous post I refer to them as "denialists" because their reliance on this defense mechanism is more than transiently striking--it is a dedicated way of life. They proudly and defiantly wear the multicultural and PC blinders of the psychologically obtuse. Usually they refer to themselves as "progresssive" and "reality-based"; which just goes to show how creative and imaginitive they are.

But, the reality is that some people in denial prefer the lethal consequences of their denial as long as they don't have to question their own motivations, beliefs, and ideologies.

Those individuals, groups, or nations who live in the world of deep denial are essentially untouchable by reality or rational argument. They go through their daily lives secure in the knowledge that their self-image is protected against any information, feelings, or awareness that might make them have to change their view of the world. Nothing--not facts, not observable behavior; not the use of reason, logic, or the evidence of their own senses will make them reevaluate that world view.

Thus the antiwar crowd are more interested in the halo they have drawn around their own heads for being against war--something no sane person is for.

In my post "Peace Like A River, i.e., Denial River" , I quote from ShrinkWrapped's excellent discussion on how people's conscious thoughts and actions, often reflect contradictory unconscious desires. In particular, he focuses on unconscious aggression:
Nowhere is this more significant than in our understanding of aggression. People typically fear their primitive aggression and defend against their awareness of the intensity and depth of their aggression as well as against the expression of their aggression. Yet it is a truism that unconscious impulses always seek ways to find discharge. It is not uncommon to see parents who are committed pacifists, who commit themselves to having homes which display no evidence of aggressive toys, raise children who are themselves aggressive and problematic; via the magic of unconscious processes which include identification and projective identifications, fantasy formation, primitive parent-child introjection and incorporation, among many others, the child becomes the agent for expressing the parent's disowned and disavowed unconscious aggression.

When our oldest was ~5, he often played with a neighboring child whose parents were ideological liberals and aggressively anti-aggression. This child owned no guns and wasn't allowed to play with toy soldiers, watch violent cartoons, etc; there were many other rules governing his play too numerous to enumerate. His parents were what one might refer to as "controlling" people (which is why we did not maintain a long term friendship.) We would carefully place our son's militaristic weapons/toys out of sight when this child came to visit. On one of his last visits, in his mother's presence, he quite cleverly took bites out of his grilled cheese sandwich in just such a fashion as to create a gun which fit quite nicely in his tiny hand; he proceeded to shoot everyone and everything in sight. His mother was quite apologetic, though I suspect managed in her own mind to blame us for her son's behavior. You will not be surprised to find that he was having some "issues" in kindergarten with aggression.
I have wondered for quite some time if this kind of projective identification is an aspect of the Left's fascination with, and (denied) support for, anti-civilization violence.

Indeed. This is the sort of psychological dynamic that is hard for a competent psychiatrist to miss--unless he or she has issues with their own aggressive impulses.

Shrink is absolutely correct in asserting that by denying our own aggressive natures we end up enabling and supporting the aggression of others. And, the most blatant example is the appeasement of terrorism and terrorists by the political left and the Democrats; or any who are totally invested in seeing themselves as "antiwar" as they cozy up to enemies whose explicit goal is to destroy our civilization.

The actual track record of so-called "peace" movements is abysmal. Look at how the same sort of "peace" movement in the 1930's allowed the rise to power and the subsequent aggression of the most dangerous evil ever to confront the world.

Once again we are faced with a loud contingent of the clueless, who would rather deny their own aggressive impulses and embrace the delusion that they are saintly, compassionate people--proudly standing against the horrible evils of war--rather than confront reality.

Thomas Sowell once commented that, "If cease-fires actually promoted peace, the Middle East would be the most peaceful region on the face of the earth instead of the most violent. "

Clearly it is not. And there is an important psychological reason for this reality. Every aggressor today has been recast by the political left as a victim of the imperialist West; and thus those aggressors know that the full force of the left's postmodern rhetoric and its antiwar fervor will provide a protective umbrella shielding them from any consequences for their aggression. No matter how egregious their behavior is; or how many innocents they slaughter, they can count on endless demands for cease fires, negotiations and concessions; and that the left will blame the West.

Antiwar protestors always make a point of asking rhetorically what war is good for? You have heard them chanting this query at almost every one of their peace marches.

The truth is that no sane person wants war, but aggression may be the only possible response to evil.

And in human history, there have been many evils far worse than war.

The result of all this antiwar activism and rhetoric has been the ongoing enabling and appeasement of an intolerable evil that thrives on hatred and that has grown strong and sure of its holy mission to kill.

But still, after decades of self-delusion, the rhetoric continues, as diplomats insist on getting back on "the roadmap" that should lead to peace; but which--surprise! surprise!--seems to lead only to more violence and death.

Maybe it is time to give up on the idea of a Mideast Peace where it has come to either enabling one group of psychopaths versus another?

By not getting in touch with our own aggression, we have abandoned the very means by which peace could actually come about. By undermining any action that could serve, in the real world, to cause Iran to consider the negative consequences of becoming a nuclear power, they are ensuring a much more dangerous and violent future.

If the peace movement really were a peace movement, its members would be denouncing the true threats to peace and trying their damndest to disarm and neutralize the likes of Iran, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and so on.

Instead they invite tyrants like Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia and laugh at his ridiculous assertion that "there are no homosexuals in Iran." Yeah, the left can laugh at this deliberate, cynical lie----and that's why they have stopped worrying and learned to love the idea of a nuclear Iran--even as the stooges of the Mullahs murder and terrorize Iranian homosexuals. Very funny.

They don't take the reality very seriously either.

In the blissful state of denial, these saintly "pacifists" fail to understand how their behavior actually champions the terrorists; and rationalizes terrorist behavior. They fail to appreciate that by refusing to call terrorists like the rulers of Iran to account--not through words, but through actions-- for their uncivilized and barbaric behavior, they, these wonderful, compassionate, antiwar activists have become the root cause of the even more deadly confrontation that will inevitably ensue.

In today's world, those who are truly evil know they can get away with practically any horror; and that there will always be a large cadre of dupes who are willing to rationalize, excuse, or minimize any atrocity.

For all their rhetoric to the contrary, the actual beneficiaries of the "antiwar" movement are the warmongering tyrants of the world whose naked aggression remains unchecked and is always rationalized away. The only outcome in the real world of all that lovely pacifism is the triumph of evil.

War is a always a terrible choice. No reasonable person could believe that it is benign or intrinsically "good" to wage war. Yet, it is sometimes a choice that reasonable people need to make simply because evil exists in the world and it cannot go unchecked--that is, not if you truly care about innocent human life.

If you cannot consciously tap into the aggressive side of your human nature and permit the use of aggression and even violence to serve the good; you will inevitably end up serving all that is evil in the world.

Pacifists cannot deal with this simple truth.

The left's antiwar activism is simply part of its ongoing struggle against reality. Watch for more hysterical rhetoric in the days, weeks and months to come regarding the Iranian situation.

Watch especially as the new meme about being able "to live with a nuclear Iran" is pushed aggressively in the press, and as supposedly "reasonable" people piously mouth it. Don't forget when you hear them say it what they are really saying; and especially don't forget that the political left once again, is perfectly willing to sacrifice millions of people on the altar of their own narcissism and psychopathology.

UPDATE: Carolyn Glick hears what the left chooses to ignore: "Ahmadinejad's Overlooked Message":
During his visit to New York this week, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad attacked every basic assumption upon which Western civilization is predicated. Ahmadinejad offered up his attacks while extolling his vision of Islamic global domination.

Refusing to note his existential challenge to the Free World, the Western media concentrated their coverage of his trip on his statements regarding specific Western policy goals....

Ahmadinejad gave two major addresses this week - at Columbia University and at the UN General Assembly. He devoted both to putting forward his vision for global Islamic domination. And while the Western media sought hidden meanings and signals for peaceful intentions in his words, the fact is that on both occasions, Ahmadinejad made absolutely clear that his vision of Islamic domination cannot coexist in any manner with Western civilization. Consequently, Ahmadinejad's statements were not negotiating stances. They were the direct consequence of the world view he propounds. As such, they are non-negotiable....

Read on.

Friday, September 28, 2007


Today is my birthday, do I am going to take a day off blogging and concentrate on a few other things for a change!

Consider this an open thread on life, the universe, and anything. Or, you could read this fascinating article at American Thinker by Ray Robison (hat tip: Larwyn) which will make your day (but only if you want an American victory against Al Qaeda and the forces of evil). This article represents an analysis of recent events and a "connecting of the dots" that we can no longer expect to find in much of our useless and short-sighted media. It also, in Robison's words, "is the exact sort of thing that the Democrats and their media accomplices always complain that we are not doing and then completely ignore when we do it."

Check it out.

If you would like to leave a tip/birthday present, feel perfectly free! I have an Amazon button or a PayPal button in my left sidebar if you scroll down.

Thursday, September 27, 2007


Victor Davis Hanson asks, "Have American academics lost their collective mind?"

Having been in academia for much of my professional career, I think I am qualified to andwer that question in the affirmative. And let me add, that it is because the "mind" of academia has become a "collective", that it has been lost.

Hanson considers some of the more recent examples of academic lunacy and then points out:
In each of the above cases, the general public has had to remind these universities that their campuses should welcome thinkers who have distinguished themselves in their fields, regardless of politics and ideology. The liberal Chemerinsky, the Clinton Democrat Summers and the conservative Rumsfeld have all courted controversy -- and all alike met the criterion of eminent achievement.

But the propagandist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has not. Unlike Chemerinsky, Rumsfeld and Summers, he used the prestige of an Ivy-League forum solely to popularize his violent views -- and to sugarcoat the mayhem his terrorists inflict on Americans and his promises to wipe out Israel.

Here's a simple tip to the clueless tenured class about why a Larry Summers or Donald Rumsfeld should be welcome to speak, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shunned: former Cabinet secretaries -- yes; homicidal dictators killing Americans -- no.

I noted in this post that:
Columbia University does not, as one person has astutely pointed out have to "give a soapbox to every lunatic in the world" to somehow "prove" that it believes in free speech or the free exchange of ideas. Giving a soapbox to a Hitler or a Bin Laden or a pipsqueak like Ahmadinejad is merely yet another histrionic display of narcissistic self-indulgence by a politicized academia; just as the decision to recind Larry Summers invitation to speak was at another institution of higher learning.

What both incidents have in common is the dedication and committment to a particular political ideology, rather than to any value or belief in "the free exchange of ideas."

And the collectivist ideology that many American universities and their faculties implicitly and explicitly promote and represent is what I have termed neo-Marxist fascism.

If students in these madhouses aren't anti-American by the time they enter college, quite a few are by the time they finish.

I am reminded of this pathetic state of affairs in our educational system by this humorous editorial about Columbus that I read the other day, which exemplifies how American history is being taught these days in the elementary school curriculum.

The neo-Marxists have also reinterpreted the history of slavery in order to demonize America--the country and people that were one of the first to put an end to a barbaric practice that had been going on for centuries (see this article "Six Inconvenient Truths about the U.S. and Slavery"). Instead of celebrating the ideas and the paradigm shift that America represents, the political left has chosen to use the imperfections of America as an indictment against the very ideas of political liberty and individualism.

The process of indoctrinating young minds into utopian Marxism and all other variants of collectivist thought has become the holy mission of many universities and colleges and their faculty. This travesty has implications for generations of minds, whose thought processes have been perverted by the distortions of reality that are necessary to shore up the underying totalitarian ideologies.

Hiding behind the concept of "academic freedom", the purveyors of thought oppression have gained control of education in this country.

The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of those overly-prized qualities of "diversity" and "multiculturalism" need to be thoroughly and painstakingly exposed for what they are: the politically correct posturings of incompetent social engineers who wish to impose their own mediocrity on all aspects of society. They champion a new kind of oppression (the oppression of the competent) under the benign guise of "political correctness". If your ideas merely hurt their feelings, you can be sent to their gulags.

The transformation of our intellectual centers of knowledge into vast emotional swamps of multicultural victimhood, offended by any idea that they don't like, can be best appreciated by the unwillingness to tolerate dissent and difference of opinion, and the utter willingness to resort to physical violence to silence anyone they don't agree with.

In this manner, the professors--sure of their ideological and moral superiorty-- are no longer bothered by pesky ideas, which might actually have to be defended by reason and logic. No, they rely almost totally these days on the primacy of their feelings, which they proudly point out need no defense, since they are honest feelings and reflect the utmost emotional sensitivity--except, of course, to those who happen to disagree with them.

So, Hanson wonders if American academics have lost their collective mind? My answer is that it is precisely the "collectivist" and totalitarian mindset taught in American Universities and colleges that has ushered in an era of academic lunacy with its disconnect from the real world; its worship of feelings over thought, and its betrayal of knowledge, truth, and reason.

UPDATE: Four rather long articles for you to read if you want to understand some of the issues related to Academic Freedom today. First, the report "Freedom in the Classroom" put out by the AAUP; Peter Wood's response to that report, "Truths R Us"; the detailed, point-by-point scholarly and detailed critique of the AAUP report by Balch and Wood of the National Association of Scholars here; and Erin O'Connor's essay "AAUP To Critics: What, Us Biased?" that just came out this week. (hat tip: The Corner)

Wednesday, September 26, 2007


Rich Lowery reminds us that in the real world, Iran is a deadly enemy of the US and actively killing Americans:

Democrats angered at American casualties in Iraq can’t summon more than pro forma denunciations of one of the main forces responsible for them. It’s the Iran exception: Because our intelligence on Saddam Hussein’s weapons was flawed and the Iraq War devilishly hard, Iran has practically carte blanche from half the American political spectrum to develop a nuclear weapon, kill Americans in Iraq, pledge to wipe a nearby country off the map, arm dangerous militants throughout the region and take Westerners hostage.

These Iranian depredations usually evoke a steely Democratic resolve — to oppose whatever measures that the Bush administration might be contemplating in response. Sen. Dodd, a Democratic candidate for president (if you hadn’t noticed), wrote President Bush a letter a few days ago complaining about “increasingly bellicose public statements by United States officials.” What was this reckless saber rattling?
Liberals like to say of the Bush administration’s allegedly militaristic foreign policy that if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Likewise, if the only tool you have is dialogue, everyone looks like a reasonable interlocutor.

So it is that Columbia University could invite Iranian President Ahmadinejad to come speak on campus for, as President Lee Bollinger put it, “academic purposes.” As if Ahmadinejad were merely a vehement participant in the graduate seminar “Jews and Arabs: Approaches Toward a Problem.” The Iranian inevitably blustered and lied, and probably enjoyed the legitimacy conferred by the visit, even if Bollinger did scold him.

Dialogue is a wonderful tool--as a psychiatrist, I use it all the time; but when you are not in the presence of a "reasonable interlocutor" it is a relatively worthless one. Someone who is out of touch with reality cannot be reasonable; and someone who is a pathological liar--chooses not to be.

Someone who thinks the Holocaust is a myth perpetrated by a Jewish/Zionist conspiracy and holds a "scientific" conference to prove that it doesn't exist is delusional.

Someone who claims "There are no homosexuals in Iran" with a straight face after being responsible for the execution of hundreds--or more, is a psychopathic liar. And, he is either a grandiose liar or a rather stupid one, if he imagined that his words would automatically accepted by a gullible audience.

By definition it takes two people to have a dialogue. But the one person in that conversation who is deeply invested and committed to "dialogue" even if the other person is not, is in danger of hearing only what he wants to hear--no matter what. His psychological investment in the success of that one strategy quickly becomes disconnected with reality.

The old joke, "how many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb? Just one--but the lightbulb has to really want to change", is applicable. Anyone who imagines that the dysfunctional leaders of Iran really want to change, needs to question his or her own connection to reality.


Did you catch the unreal speech given by the President of Iran at the UN today? If so, you might have come away somewhat confused about how similar this Marxist religious fanatic sounds to the Al Qaeda Marxist religious fanatic; and how both of these tyrants keep reiterating the talking points of the [supposedly] anti-religious poltical left.

According to the Ahmadinejad, we don't have the courage to face the fact that we have lost the Iraq war.

You wonder if he's been channeling Harry "the war is lost" Reid, or something.

But news of our defeat has been greatly exaggerated, it appears. Victor Davis Hanson enumerates all that is actually going well in the Middle East--including Iraq-- and suggests a way for Dems to save face:

If this were to continue, and I think there is a good chance it will, then the Democrats need to start once again readjusting, especially on Iraq. They might want to consider a tactic along the following lines: their initial votes for the removal of Iraq were sound and not to be apologized for; then their timely constant haranguing led to the necessary changes that came kicking and screaming; and now thanks to their vigilance there is some hope of resolution — combined with reminders that they always supported principled aid for Middle East reformers.

Hanson also notes how Europe is changing as they adapt to reality:

Geopolitically, the face of European leaders seems almost unrecognizable from its 2003 visage. Sarkozy and the French on Iran sound like the U.S. on Iraq in the late 1990s. Fear of Islamism has made the Swiss, Danish, and Dutch appear almost as 16th-century Europeans fearing the Ottomans. Even anti-American Greece, amid the forest fire outrage, reelected a conservative government.

Ahmadinejad, Bin Laden, and the lunatic left are too far gone into the realm of delusion, however, for us to ever expect that they will acknowledge the real world. They will never admit defeat because their entire identity and world view is dependent on keeping up the fantasy.

Being a true fanatic means never having to say you're sorry.

Isn't it simply tragic that the political left is once again--in a new century--already on the wrong side of history?

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of reality-biased, clueless ideologues.

From Cox & Forkum Editorial Cartoons (hat tip: LGF)

Tuesday, September 25, 2007


Let's see how the Iranian news is playing Ahmadinejad's appearance at Columbia:

Before President Ahamadinejad's address, Colombia University Chancellor in a brief address told the audience that they would have the chance to hear Iran's stands as the Iranian President would put them forth.

He said that the Iranians are a peace loving nation, they hate war, and all types of aggression.

Referring to the technological achievements of the Iranian nation in the course of recent years, the president considered them as a sign for the Iranians' resolute will for achieving sustainable development and rapid advancement.

The audience on repeated occasion applauded Ahmadinejad when he touched on international crises.

At the end of his address President Ahmadinejad answered the students' questions on such issues as Israel, Palestine, Iran's nuclear program, the status of women in Iran and a number of other matters.
Or, "President receives rapturous welcome in New York.

Or, "Ahmadinejad's bouquets of flowers at Ground Zero enlighten public opinion"--which reports something that hasn't even happened as far as I'm aware.

Gerard Vanderleun was impressed with Lee Bollinger's rebuke of the Iranian President and thinks we bloggers who chastised Bollinger owe him an apology. I don't see it that way.

Having invited Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia in the first place accomplished every possible goal that the President of Iran and the Mullahs could have possibly wished for in the propaganda war.

But let me ask you, Gerard, what was the ultimate result of that lovely rebuke by Bollinger?

Amadinejad essentially danced around answering any of the hard questions (did Bollinger think he wouldn't?) and chastised the Columbia President for being rude to a guest (a big no-no from the Iranian perspective).

Everything Bollinger said in his introductory remarks should have been reasons why he didn't invite the lying, murdering, kidnapping, son-of-a-bitch from Iran to speak at an academic institution in the first place. And, Bollinger could have said without giving a terrorist status or a forum to spout his lying nonsense.

Lee Bollinger has now established himself as a tough guy, willing to ask the tough questions and a champion of "free speech". Bully for him.

Bollinger feels good about himself; Gerard and others feel good about him, too; and yet, as we see above, the Iranian press goes on and on about the "rapturous" welcome their president received in America. For them it is a public relations coup.

They can have no doubts now that they are our equals in every respect. Didn't their President just give an address at a major US university? Wasn't he welcomed with open arms? Didn't the students just lap up his "answers" to those hard questions and cheer him on?

The whole event was an exercise in political narcissism and as far as I can tell had nothing to do with free speech. There really are brave and courageous people confronting the Iranian regime on a daily basis and putting their lives on the line for freedom. Their status has surely been undermined and Ahmadinejad's status has been elevated by Bollinger--no matter how tough the contents of Bollinger's opening remarks were.

I admit Bollinger did better than I expected by saying the things he did. Nevertheless, the damage is done. It is well to remember that for a narcissistic psychopath, any attention--positive or negative-- is better than none at all; because basking in either the positive or the negative limelight suits his needs equally.

I would have adapted those opening remarks of Bollinger's as the introduction and context for a speaker from the Iranian opposition; thus demonstrating to the world that the tyrant of Tehran has no academic status; nothing worthwhile to say; and no credentials worthy of intellectual attention.

Giving a voice and a podium to the students and professors that Ahmadinejad has imprisoned and silenced would have been a real triumph of free speech.

Monday, September 24, 2007


Mr. Ahmadinejad, you are no George Washington, that's for sure. See the interview here--Part I and Part II.

And the left's response?(hat tip: One Cosmos)

Daily Kos: 45% Want Ahmadinejad As US President
I Am a Jewish Lesbian, and I Have a Crush on Ahmadinejad.

[Cartoons from Cox and Forkum here. And their site here. ]


In his post "Hitler at Columbia", Wretchard delineates the essential characteristics of the children of postmodern nihilism:

To everything there is a season,
a time for every purpose under the sun.
A time to be born and a time to die;
a time to plant and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
a time to kill and a time to heal ...
a time to weep and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn and a time to dance ...
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing;
a time to lose and a time to seek;
a time to rend and a time to sew;
a time to keep silent and a time to speak;
a time to love and a time to hate;
a time for war and a time for peace.

And those who can't tell the difference are idiot savants of the worst kind. For some it is only ever a time to prattle. One man who might have held seminars on the combustibility of the human body while ovens at Auschwitz consumed their ghastly fuel is in the video below. What is moral blindness but the inability to tell right from wrong, friend from enemy, love from hate? And what is moral deafness but a man who can hear words and never understand their meaning?

He goes on to post a video of John Coatsworth, dean of the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia, defending Columbia's decision to invite the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak, and declaring he would have also invited Hitler to speak if he'd had the chance.

Coatsworth and Bollinger are only two of the many academic examples of children who were carefully marinated in the nihilism of postmodernism and are now bursting with its aeductive flavor.

As such, they firmly and passionately believe in nothing and stand courageously for nothing.

They make up the ranks of today's political left and utter the same old tired and worn self-serving platitudes about"free speech" and "academic freedom" etc. etc., but they have distorted and twisted those concepts, and many others, to make them almost completely unrecognizable.

Let us consider the idea of "free speech", shall we?

Freedom of speech is a right of the people that is recognized in the Bill of Rights. It is in the Bill of Rights to insure that the government not infringe on speech and make any limit on that fundamental freedom. Only by force of the government can this politicial right be restricted or abridged.

I, however, am free to restrict your speech on my blog. A commenter's "right" to say what he/she wants here does not supercede my right to exclude their comments for whatever reason I deem important.

Any parent is free to restrict the speech of their children.

A university or any school is free to determine who can speak and who cannot on their campus. They can be philosophically consistent about it, or not; and, as we have seen recently, they generally are not. Check out this article from the Harvard Crimson, for example, reporting the argument that because Larry Summers words "still sting", he should not willy-nilly be allowed to speak--“It’s not necessary for [Summers] to be able to speak anywhere and everywhere".

It really doesn't really matter how inconsistent and ridiculous any particular campus chooses to be. BECAUSE THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH IS ONLY IN DANGER WHEN ANY ARM OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IS THE ENTITY THAT IS BLOCKING IT.

Let us also not forget that the Bill of Rights applies to American citizens. It does not mean that we American citizens must eagerly extend the rights granted to us by our constitution to every non-citizen Tom, Dick and Mahmoud.

Columbia University does not, as one person has astutely pointed out have to "give a soapbox to every lunatic in the world" to somehow "prove" that it believes in free speech or the free exchange of ideas. Giving a soapbox to a Hitler or a Bin Laden or a pipsqueak like Ahmadinejad is merely yet another histrionic display of narcissistic self-indulgence by a politicized academia; just as the decision to recind Larry Summers invitation to speak was at another institution of higher learning.

What both incidents have in common is the dedication and committment to a particular political ideology, rather than to any value or belief in "the free exchange of ideas." And both incidents allow the academic world to plump themselves up self-righteously as the champions of politically correct thought.

"Look at how tolerant we are! Look at how much we believe in freedom of speech! See how bravely we intend to engage this tyrant (or, how bravely we prevent an awful person like that sexist Larry Summers from speaking). Why, he is going to be stunned at our courageous stand for freedom and may actually see the light! Aren't we wonderful?" And so on, ad idiota infinitum.

But that narcissistic display is only the tip of the iceberg. If you really want to see the moral and intellectual bankruptcy that lies underneath the histrionic and self-serving posturing, you will have to read this stunning take-down of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and their encyclical on "Freedom in the Classroom".

To quote from just the introduction of Wood and Balch's response to the AAUP:
The American Association of University Professors issued a report titled Freedom in the Classroom on September 11, 2007. In a press release accompanying the report, the AAUP characterized it as a defense of "the right of college faculty to make comparisons, contrasts, and analogies across the whole range of subjects and historical periods-no matter what course they are teaching." But in effect the report is an attempt to answer critics who have complained of the widespread practice in American higher education of professors bringing their politics into the classroom. (Emphasis mine)

As a vehicle for obtaining political power, postmodern philosophy and its attendant rhetoric are unparalleled in today's academic world. Through the deliberate manipulation of reality, truth, and reason, the children of postmodern nihilism have figured out a way to win any and all arguments. They have pretty much taken over the curriculum from kindergarden through college and thus no major area of that curriculum is now free from political interference.
In the UK, for example, this report on the educational systems found that:

"The traditional subject areas have been hijacked to promote fashionable causes such as gender awareness, the environment and anti-racism, while teachers are expected to help to achieve the Government's social goals instead of imparting a body of academic knowledge to their students...."

It goes on further to say:

History has become so divorced from facts and chronology that pupils might learn the new "skills and perspectives" through a work of fiction, such as Lord of the Rings, it says.

Teenagers studying for GCSEs are being asked to write about the September 11 atrocities using Arab media reports and speeches from Osama bin Laden as sources without balancing material from America, it reveals.

Does this sound familiar? It should, because the same process has been ongoing on American campuses for the last few decades. Professors not only expound on their area of expertise, they now also are inclined to indoctrinate their students in politics, specifically their politics. And they use "academic freedom" to justify the brainwashing.

For more on postmodernism and its rhetorical techniques, see here, here, here, here, here and here, for example.

The children of postmodern nihilism are not afraid of someone like Ahmadinejad. They completely understand someone like him from the top of his irrational little head to the tips of his anti-semitic toes. No, the children tremble in fear whenever the real world presents them with something or someone who contradicts their religiously held beliefs and thus threatens their self-indulgent narcissism.

They are in a great deal of terror at the moment. Not, of course from Jihadis or terrorists (which would be rational) but because their world view is under attack whenever a George W. Bush is elected; or a Sarkozy or Merkel. They cling to the Hugo Chavez types for dear life, celebrating them openly; and pray that thugs like Ahmadinejad and Zawahiri are able to humiliate and defeat their real enemy--which is America and all it stands for.

These children were raised on postmodern milk; and their brain development has reached a point of no return and is functioning now for the sole purpose of blocking out the real world; rather than trying to understand it. Reality, truth and reason are far too dangerously threatening to their childish beliefs and behaviors. So are genuine committments to free speech, academic freedom or political liberty.

If you can convince children that objective reality is an illusion; that A does not equal A; that black is white; and that good is bad; if you can make them accept that everything is subjective and relative; then you own them. They will believe any drivel. Through the appropriate manipulation of language, everything can be distorted, without the messy need to resort to facts, logic, or reason.

Without a rational metaphysics--or worldview--that explains the nature of existence and reality; and without an epistemology that says our minds are able to acquire knowledge of that reality; then it is easy to enforce conformity, totalitarian thinking, and political passivity.

Ethics, or the study of how man should behave in the world--or, what is good and what is evil--is totally dependent on both metaphysics and epistemology, because it is impossible to make choices withoug knowledge; just as it is impossible to have knowledge without a reality that can be known by our minds.

What matters in the postmodernist's convoluted thinking is not truth or falsity--only the effectiveness of the language used. Lies, distortions, ad hominem attacks; attempts to silence opposing views--all are strategies that are perfectly satisfactory if they achieve the desired effect. Ideas and reason must make way for reification of feelings; and freedom is replaced by thought control.

If you wonder why they exhibit so much animosity and emotional hysteria directed against traditional values and ideas; and against Republicans, neocons, Christians, Males etc. etc.; then understand the nature of the postmodern nihilism that defines and sustains them. The pervasive and unrelenting trickle down of postmodern theories and thinking in education, art, politics and all the social areas of life has resulted in a crop of humans who are opposed to thinking because it is far too dangerous to their secular religious beliefs. Even science has not been immune from the nihilism and anti-reason, anti-reality agenda of the postmodernists (just consider the hysteria regarding global warming and the attempts to convert a scientific issue into a political one).

If you want to understand why nothing seems to make sense and the most blatant contradictions and relativistic meanderings are presented as absolute truth; why language is abused and words don't seem to have the same definitions anymore; and can sometimes even mean the opposite of what they used to; why photographs can lie; why contradictory discourses and distortion of truth; and ad hominem attacks and a distinct reluctance to face reality are all a part of the "reality-based" community--you need look no further than postmodernism.

If you want to understand why a presumably serious institution of higher learning, founded on the principles of truth and knowledge, reaches out to a confirmed and dedicated apocalyptic terrorist; a man who has repeatedly announced his intention of destroying Israel and the Jews; a man who cheerfully oppresses his own citizens--including those in academia; a man who is a focal point for holocaust denial; who encourages the hanging of homosexuals and uppity women; a man who has declared war on our country; a complete and total lunatic who desires to hold the world hostage with nuclear weapons...then you need not look any further than the toxic relativism and endless narcissim of children like Bollinger and his ilk.

And finally, if you want to understand why that which is truly evil --embracing death, slavery, and nihilism--is now presented and even trumpeted as the "good" while the good is dismissed, denigrated and mocked; then you would do well to understand the psychology and ideology of the covert enemies of America and of civilization--the adult children of postmodern nihilism.

Keep all this in mind today as you watch what happens at Columbia. If you think that President Bollinger stands on some sort of moral high ground; or that his debating skills will humble the megalomanic he will courageously "challenge", then consider this imaginary exchange written by John Podhoretz, via Betsy's Page:
B: And what about saying you are going to wipe Israel off the map?

A: What about it?

B: Well . . . that's not very nice, is it?

A: Actually, I was once very pro-Israel.

B: You were?

A: Yes, I was. Until I read the works of a Columbia professor named Edward Said.

B: Really, that is absolutely . . .

A: It was reading Said that convinced me Israel was an apartheid nation guilty of monstrous crimes and, therefore, that it should cease to exist. Well, now I am in a position to give aid to that cause. What kind of person would I be if I failed to heed the guidance provided by a respected Columbia professor?

B: Now wait a . . .

A: He was very august, wasn't he, Edward Said? I mean, you even have a professorship named after Edward Said here at Columbia. Oh, who's that I see in the front row? It's the Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies here at Columbia, Mr. Rashid Khalidi!

Khalidi: Not now, Mahmoud. I'll Skype you later.

B: I can understand your anger at Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, Mr. President, but surely 5 million Israelis shouldn't be wiped off the map.

A: Why not? After all, at your sister school, Barnard College, you are in the process of granting tenure to Nadia Abu El-Haj, who has written a book that proves there was no ancient Jewish kingdom in Israel. Her work has had a great deal of influence on me. After all, if there is no Jewish claim on the land dating back to the time before Christ, there really is no reason for Israel to be where it is, right, Bollinger?

B: I have no say over Barnard tenure decisions, Mr. President, but I must say that there are some questions about the quality of her scholarship because she does not take account of the archaeological evidence.

A: That is uncalled for. Ms. El-Haj says in her own book that she rejects your "positivist commitment to scientific method," Bollinger. She has a narrative. A narrative, Bollinger! So shut your pie hole.

B: Now about your state support of terrorism . . .

A: What is terrorism, Bollinger? I take my wisdom from another newly tenured professor here at Columbia, Mr. Joseph Massad. You remember him. He's the one who Jewish students claimed had intimidated them in his classes.

B: That was never conclusively . . .

A: Right here on this campus, he called Israel a "racist state" and then said: "Every racist state should be destroyed." I don't know why you are upset with me, Bollinger - I'm learning so much from people who are paid by your institution!

What do you suppose will happen when the children of postmodern nihilism (also known as the political left) interact with a postmodern master of annihilation? Here's a nice preview of how the former will likely react.

I predict something of the sort will happen today at Columbia, as all those postmodern children struggle to "keep an open mind" to terror, oppression, and evil.

Sunday, September 23, 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.

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.

**NOTE: I am now getting many more submissions than I can possibly include in the weekly Carnival. Please don't be offended if your submission is not used (oh, okay, be as offended as you like) as it only means that for a variety of reasons I wasn't able to fit it into the "flow" as I put together each Carnival.


1. Incontrovertible Proof of the existence of a just and decent God--who also has a great sense of humor.

2, I read the news today, oh boy... Israel's problems are solved! Olmert as Ed Norton?

3. How about deus ex gubernatio ? Your tax $$ at work.

4. Sculpture under the veil.....Oh goody! A skydiving fatwa! Maybe the skydiving instructor was breastfeeding?

5. Take that, Naomi Klein, friend to Hezbollah and enemy to logic! Unleashing the 'mind' of Naomi Klein....

6. Infidel warrior babes VS suicidal jihadi janes....I know who I want to come out on top.


8. TWO BIG 'IF'S': If Osama were a piece of ass.... and, If existed 65 years ago....

9. Is "The Ballad of Elian Gonzalez" one of the tunes? Did he write the song? What might have been. Barry Manilow, barely man enough.

10. Hsocking Hsu Secrets Revealed! At the intersection of vanity and liberalism...heeeerrrre's Hillary! I did not have sex with that woman!

11. Istead of merging his pic with Jack Sparrow's, I propose it be merged with the pirate on the left. Then he can enter this specialized therapy.

12. Remember, zombies are ALWAYS serious stuff, folks!

13. Mama, don't let your sons grow up to be tasered. Don't let them grow up to be murtha'd, either. Where did he go wrong? At least he made it to the show!

14. And this is not "phony war hero syndrome"; it's "phony psychopathic military killer syndrome". At least the "psychopathic" part is really him.

15. Darwinian theorists would support the "shoot first, ask questions later" way of dealing with this sort of stupidity. And this is an excellent way to insure all your genetic material is eliminated from history. Good thing, too.

16. A conversation between the President of Iran and the President of Columbia. It explains a lot.

17. Reply to a concerned citizen. Reply to a "progressive" college president. Connecting the dots.

18. Smashing Moore's pork rinds. Somebody's gotta do it...for both his sake and ours !

19. Anal bleaching? Perhaps you better think before you ink...

20. Damn, damn, DAMN this storm!!!!! Oh the humanity....

21. Bulletproof Monk.

22. The game is good, but the contestents are idiots. The hemline theory of Wall Street performance.

23. mailto:F@* COUPLES THERAPY ...Amazing orgies and other spam haikus!
24. Happy Birthday

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

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

Heard the Word of Blog?

Saturday, September 22, 2007


How to sabotoge Ahmadinejad's Columbia speech.

The little snot already figures he's won a big victory over the stupid Americans; so just consider how something like this would turn all that 'honor' into some well-deserved shame in the Muslim world (though not for the reasons they subscribe to).

To coin a phrase, heh.


I hate to be the one to break it to the lunatic left (via Cliff May), but they (once again) have misread the American public:
Friends on the Hill have been tracking movement in the polls on Iraq since General Petreaus' testimony last week and it turns out that a majority of Americans now say (1) they have a favorable opinion of General Petraeus (I guess that means they were not coninced that he "betrayed" America), (2) they think he has the right plan for Iraq, (3) they approve his recommendations for continuing the struggle against al-Qaeda and Iranian-backed militias, and (4) if he asks for troop levels to remain in place longer, they would approve that.

See also "How the Left Spent It's Summer Vacation" which describes the antiwar fizzle at trying to force an American defeat in Iraq.

The truth is that today's left isn't antiwar so much as they are anti-reality; and, while the American public--like all sane people--want to live in peace, they don't want to surrender to a bunch of Islamic fanatics who are determined to kill them no matter what.

The political left is salivating at the prospect of American defeat and humiliation because that will serve their own ideological agenda. They are so far out of touch, that they don't mind at all that it also serves the jihadist agenda. Both agendas are entirely compatible since they require submission.

Consider Charles Krauthammer's important op-ed yesterday about what likely went down recently in the Syrian desert:
On Sept. 6, something important happened in northern Syria. Problem is, no one knows exactly what. Except for those few who were involved, and they're not saying.
We do know that Israel carried out an airstrike. How do we know it was important? Because in Israel, where leaking is an art form, even the best-informed don't have a clue. They tell me they have never seen a better-kept secret.

Which suggests that whatever happened near Dayr az Zawr was no accidental intrusion into Syrian airspace, no dry run for an attack on Iran, no strike on some conventional target such as an Iranian Revolutionary Guard base or a weapons shipment on its way to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Circumstantial evidence points to this being an attack on some nuclear facility provided by North Korea.

Normal, sane people would raise their eyes to heaven and be thankful that something is being done to curtail the malignantly grandiose ambitions of the Axis of Evil. So, take a look at the comment threads here and here if you want examples of the abnormal pathology of the left, who sees Israel and America as far more dangerous than the peaceful socialist dictators in the fake democracies of Iran and Syria.

Many of the responses are fairly typical of today's leftist mindset, which is so steeped in the pervasive Marxist claptrap that it long ago lost touch with the American public; and willingly abandoned reality on its "progressive" march to absolute power.

In spite of the almost daily neo-Marxist propaganda; the the unbelievable bias and distortion of the MSM; and the regular appeasement of evil and betrayal of freedom exhibited by the left, the majority of Americans are still capable of recognizing reality when it confronts them:

Friday, September 21, 2007

CHOICES (or, Do Two Half-Wits Make A**Hole?)

Life is all about choices.

In Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Dumbledore says, "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." (page 333).

William Kristol has written a piece that elegantly demonstrates the the truth of that statement; "Ahmadinejad Yes, ROTC NO":
So at the request of the Iranian government, Columbia University will host the president of a terrorist regime which is right now responsible for the deaths of American soldiers on the field of battle. Indeed, this distinguished guest, who is so honoring Columbia by his presence, will be introduced by no one less than the president of Columbia, Lee Bollinger.

But not to worry: "President Bollinger will introduce the event by challenging President Ahmadinejad on a number of his controversial statements and his government's policies."
One can imagine President Ahmadinejad nervously preparing for President Bollinger's "sharp challenges," and wondering whether those challenges will detract from the propaganda victory Bollinger's invitation has given him. He's undoubtedly concluded it won't be a big problem.

Indeed, the Iranian President must be rolling on the floor laughing along with the Mullahs about the incredible victory handed to them by the morally bankrupt Bollinger, a man who symbolizes all that is most nauseating about the political left today.

ROTC at Columbia has been banned since the 60's, and Bollinger was instrumental in keeping it off campus, despite a majority of students who thought it should be allowed back. In the minds of the "peaceful, loving, compassionate and gentle" left, the ROTC stands for the evil military and all those associated imperialist/capitalist warmongers of the West.

There is nothing the political left hates more than naked aggression and violence--except, of course, when it is their naked aggression and violence, which is always justified because their motives are pure and their behavior is completely unselfish and for the good of all.

And, like Kristol, I suggest that this choice demonstrates for anyone who cares to think about it what the political left "truly is" in spite of all its self-proclaimed intellectual 'superiority.'

In a comment to my post yesterday on the marriage of Islam and Marxism, Gagdad Bob of One Cosmos notes a fundamental psychodynamic reality of that union:
"You might say that the Islamists act out the split off unconscious aggressive impulses of the intellectual left, while the left provides conscious intellectual justification for the aggression -- like two half-wits embracing their missing half."

ShrinkWrapped refers to the phenomenon as the "unmetabolized rage" of Islam and Marxism, "who have difficulty modulating and reality testing their anger...."

The result of all this unacknowledged, but nevertheless, potent and destructive rage is the selfish psychopath and his enabling moral counterpart, the selfless psychopath.

Half-wit Ahmadinejad, may I introduce you to half-wit Bollinger?

UPDATE: As usual, Eric Allie captures the essence of the left's insanity:

Thursday, September 20, 2007


In an article from City Journal, Theodore Dalrymple makes a compelling case that Islam is fast becoming the Marxism of our time.

I want to take Dalrymple's analysis one step further. Islam is not simply the alternative that today's angst-ridden, alienated youth turn to because Marxism is waning in intellectual circles; it's extremism and violence resonates harmonically with the socialist revolutionaries of the 20th century; and they have appropriated the jihad as an essential component of their political and intellectual strategy to revive Marxism in the 21st century.

Let us take a look at the strategy and how it has evolved to include the Islamic fanatics.

Multiculturalism and political correctness are two of the fundamental pseudo-intellectual, quasi-religious tenets that have been widely disseminated by intellectuals unable to abandon socialism even after its crushing failures in the 20th century. Along with a third component, radical environmentalism, they make up three key foundations of leftist dogma that have been slowly, but relentlessly, absorbed at all levels of Western culture in the last decade or so--but primarily since the end of the Cold War.

All three have been incorporated into most K-12 curricula as well as the academic curricula in Western university and colleges. In combination, they are the toxic by-products of postmodern relativism.

The neo-Marxist fascists who are leading the charge in the academic world have been at the forefront of attempts to rewrite most of history and undo thousands of years of Western cultural advancement.

And, as Western culture has become completely saturated with this toxic brew, any attempt to question the validity of the neo-Marxists' premises; or to contest their value is met with hysterical accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, imperialism, bigotry, or--worse of all --intolerance or insensitivity or hypocrisy.

The self-righteousness of the neo-Marxist fascists is such that they strongly believe they are justified (even in their "antiwar" personas) to violently attack and/or intimidate any who disagree with them.

It just so happens, that these tenets (multiculturalism, political correctness, and radical environmentalism) represent three of the four pillars that are the foundation of an evolving epistemological, ethical and political strategy that the socialist remnants in the world have conceptualized and implemented to prevent their ideology from entering the dustbin of history.

And, what is most interesting is that, even as they encourage and enable Islam with the first three pillars; the Islamofascists are aiding and abetting them by using the fourth pillar- Terrorism.

We can think of the four pillars as the reason why we are witnessing a socialist revival (e.g., Hugo in the western hemisphere recently) and the rapid advancement of the Islamic Jihad all around the world.

Dalrymple's article suggests that Islam has inherited the mantle of Marxism; but I am suggesting that the two have united in a marriage-of-convenience; and that this union is the 21st century reincarnation of the failed, anti-human, anti-progress ideology formerly known as Marxism.

Osama Bin Laden in his most recent diatribe against the West delivered on the anniversary of 9/11 represents the seamless integration of all the above socialist/Marxist talking points into his justification for jihad and mindless violence.

Convert or Die is not only Al Qaeda's favorite ultimatum, it is the motto adopted by our friends the neo-Marxists.

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

UPDATE: Columbia's recent decision to invite the Iranian president to speak is a case in point about how comfortable our academic elite are with terrorism and terrorists for all their prattle about "free speech." Do you doubt that Lee Bollinger would have coddled up to Hitler in much the same way if these "superior" senisbilities of postmodern man had been prevalent on campus in the 30's ("Tell me, Mr. Hitler, do you realize how disappointing it is that you are murdering Jews in gas chambers in such large numbers? Don't you see how upset that makes us?") I expect that any human monster would be confident of a place at Bollinger's table.

I agree with Scott at Power Line:
Columbia and President Bollinger are a disgrace. They welcome to their campus a man who is a ringleader in the seizure of American hostages, a terrorist, the president of a terrorist regime, and the representative of a regime responsible at present for the deaths of American soldiers on the field of battle. Columbia's prattle about free speech may be a tale told by an idiot, but it signifies something. And President Bollinger is a fool who is not excused from the dishonor he brings to his institution and his fellow citizens by the fact that he doesn't know what he is doing..

Oh, but how bravely and courageously Bollinger will confront Ahmadinejad! I'm sure he'll feel just great about himself afterwards.

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

OBL, Democrat

(Cartoons by Payne)

UPDATE: So, you think this is a joke? Absolutely unbelievable.


Bruce Thornton writes about two factors that keep the West vulnerable to terrorism: multiculturalism and what he refers to as "the therapeutic sensibility":
The therapeutic sensibility that now dominates our public thinking reinforces this tendency to excuse Islamic terror. Unlike the old tragic vision of the classical West, which saw human suffering as the consequence of an imperfect human nature and our own bad choices, the therapeutic sensibility sees suffering as a temporary glitch caused by unjust social and economic structures. Evil is just a superstition, for people’s environments, not their own choices, cause destructive actions. The terrorists whom the unenlightened call “evil,” then, are themselves victims; we should assist them in reforming their unjust environments. Meanwhile, we ignore the numerous Islamists, from Sayyid Qutb to Osama bin Laden, who tell us very plainly why they want to destroy us: because we are infidels who must convert to Islam, live in submission to it, or die.

Such hypersensitivity compromises our fight against Islamic radicalism in a thousand ways, ranging from self-censorship — for example, the Washington Post’s recent refusal to run an innocuous installment of Berke Breathed’s comic strip Opus for fear of offending Muslims — to politically correct warfare that refuses to accept the brutality, destruction, and death that have always been the cargo of war. We have seen such self-defeating behavior repeatedly in Iraq, where the Army’s rules of engagement have made U.S. forces hesitant to fire on mosques even though terrorists frequently use minarets as firing platforms.

"The therapeutic sensibility", or what I call "therapeutic psychobabble", is not actually therapeutic (i.e., leading to healing) in the least.

In fact, this sensibility often becomes the major impediment that prevents patients with serious emotional problems from taking control over their lives. And, for individuals who aren't patients (but soon will be, most likely) it reflects a passive world view, where a person is the helpless victim of forces outside their control.

Let's look at a just few aspects of this 'sensibility' that permeates the culture to such an extent that it grossly interferes with real psychological health and functional coping mechanisms:

One of the big pieces of the psychobabble industry is the promotion of "self esteem" at the expense of self control and personal responsibility. But, contrary to popular myth, self esteem is not the holy grail of psychological health. In fact, it is not necessarily even good for you, and most bullies, tyrants and other dysfunctional people fairly ooze self esteem.

Most people confuse "self-esteem" with a "sense of self". It is the latter--not the former, that is so often screwed up in the angry, violent, grandiose, and generally narcissistic people in the world. If you have a healthy "sense of self", you are likely to have a healthy self-esteem; and a healthy self-esteem is not the same at all as a high self-esteem.

The psychological defect that leads to so many problems for people in their lives is a defective or distorted sense of one's SELF. The excessive self-esteem you see in a bully comes from a distortion of reality that person develops with regard to their self. It used to be widely believed that low self-esteem was a cause of violence, but in reality, violent individuals, groups and nations happen to think very well of themselves. Do you really suppose that individuals like Ahmadinejad or the Iranian mullahs suffer from poor self-esteem? Do you think bullies like Saddam or thugs like Zawahiri had "fragile" egos as they made their way through life? And that they were simply misunderstood or had unhappy childhoods and that is what made them so bad? If only social conditions be improved and poverty eliminated then the world would not see the development of such people--or so goes the thinking, anyway.

I'm afraid not. The reality is that human nature is what it is whether you are rich or poor; or what color your skin happens to be; and without regard for the particular political structure you live in. Exaggerated self-esteem that is not based on personal achievement or responsibility is one of the hallmarks of a pathological narcissist or psychopath.

The pop-psychology that promulgated the widespread belief that if you nurture kid's self-esteem neglected to mention that if the sense of self was already damaged, all the social engineers would manage to do was to create a narcissistic monster. That is why our society is filled with the pursuit of unhealthy narcissistic gratification. In this new century, that narcissism seems to be morphing into an even more malignant sociopathy that pervades society and impacts almost all our social, political, and educational institutions.

Our cultural focus on enhancing "self-esteem" has resulted in the near-worship of emotions and feelings at the expense of reason and thought; on emphasizing "root causes" and victimhood, instead of demanding that behavior be civilized and that individuals exert self-discipline and self-control--no matter what they are "feeling".

This brings me to the second bit of psychobabble and sensitivity: the emphasis on and near-worship of feelings and emotion, which is felt to be "superior" to reason for enlightened living in the modern world.

Feelings and emotion can be extremely valuable tools for perceiving the world; particularly if an individual does not allow feelings alone dictate his or her behavior, but instead uses emotion, tempered by reason; or reason, tempered by emotion as the basis of action.

But somehow, our culture--once founded on and dedicated to reason and rational thought, which is what has led to the creation of all the wonders we enjoy in the modern world--has slowly evolved into a cult that worships emotion and whim at the expense of reason.

There are many psychological [unconscious and conscious] factors that can make one's feelings completely untrustworthy. These include the immature psychological defenses which, if unexamined in the cold light of insight and conscious thought can result in denial, paranoia, projection, displacement and many other dysfunctional behaviors.

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

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

These days we hear a lot about "coping with stress"; and about how "stress" is behind all sorts of medical and psychological problems. Of course, what is really meant by this is that there are many situations in life--some of the common and some not so--that we must respond to in order to live our lives. Stress can be understood as a frustrated "fight or flight" response.

Our bodies, which have not changed much since the days of the caveman, are hardwired to respond to danger in certain ways. Either we gird our loins and fight; or we take flight and run away. These two strategies covered pretty much everything for our ancient ancestors had to deal with to survive, and they lived or died depending on effectively these strategies were utilized.

In our modern world, it is no longer appropriate or even civilized--most of the time and in most situations--to do either. Imagine if you will, the office worker called on the carpet by the boss, who reacts to this threat to his livelihood by punching the boss; or by running screaming from the boss's office. Neither response would be considered very stable.

We hear on the news fairly frequently of such occurrences; e.g., the postal worker who comes in and shoots his superior, and--as long as he's at it--a few coworkers he holds grudges against.

The point is, that our body's hardware is designed to respond to perceived danger in this way, whether we like it or not. Of course, the boss yelling at us is not the same degree of danger our ancestors used to deal with, but our bodies aren't able to tell the difference. Hence, as we became civilized and our interactions with others and with our environment became more complex, the normal physiological responses of our bodies to danger remained the same, but the behavioral expectation --i.e., how we acted on the physiological imperative -- changed significantly.

And so, the concept of stress was born. We can't often fight; and we can't often run away; and when we do, significant problems can arise for us and for society. Our bodies still physiologically respond, but the usual behaviors that discharge the built-up toxins and return us to a physiological normality are gone. Psychologically and physiologically, this tends to take a toll on our bodies; either as physical or emotional problems.

Most people are aware when they are experiencing stress and the physical and emotional discomfort can be a powerful reason to change whatever behavior is causing the sensation. Stress can also be a source of extra energy (e.g., in sports) if the physical and emotional aspects of it can be converted to a less destructive form. This is where the concept of psychological defense mechanisms comes in.

Many people seem to think that ALL stress is bad for you and must be eliminated from your life. But this position fails to understand the importance and necessity of stress in our lives.

Where once our stress response existed merely to protect us from extreme danger (and still does); today it is a key biological element that can promote and and encourage psychological growth and development and help us to learn mastery over ourselves and our environment.

So this is the good thing about stress. Stress and our response to it can help us to mature and expand our capabilities. Without stress, there is little motivation to change or improve either ourselves or our environment. Too little stress and we stagnate. Too much, and we are at risk of falling apart. But just the right amount of irritation can encourage us to create a pearl!


as I wrote in an earlier post on victimhood:

If you have any doubts about the power and sanctity that can be yours if victimhood status can be officially confered upon you; or of the endless moral benefits of being "oppressed"; just consider that even a mean SOB like Saddam Hussein can be deemed a victim of American oppression--just ask Ramsey Clark how that is done! Or that, for the sake of the Palestinians--the most publicized and creative perpetual victims in all of history-- a group of "experts" were recently convened in Iran to prove that the entire world has been bamboozled by a clever Jewish conspiracy regarding the Holocaust. Those darn Jews!

Holocaust Deniers are particularly noteworthy in the annals of victimhood, and demonstrate a degree of unsurpassable cleverness because they have managed to take the actual victims of a horrific episode in world history and twist that history to turn those real victims into oppressors! Surely one of the most magnificent applications of the new victimhood rules.

In the quasi-religious cult of victimhood that is part of today's leftist, Marxist dogma, "victimhood" has been identified as critical; and promoting it and nurturning it has become a way of life.

This has come about in part, because many on the political left have an intense narcissistic need to see themselves as "champions of the oppressed"; hence the constant need to find and maintain an oppressed class of people to champion. But it also dovetails nicely into the the Marxist dialectic that underlies that ideology. The world is divided up into two groups, you see: the oppressors (i.e., white, male,heterosexual, Republican, Americans or Israelis) and the oppressed (everyone else).

The political left proudly stands in solidarity with the oppressed victims of the world; and it is worth noting that their stance is particularly ego-gratifying if those they champion are undeserving victims (i.e., similar to Alfred P. Doolittle's "undeserving poor"-- who have needs as great as the most deserving of victims; in fact, their needs are even greater).

What all the modern psychobabble about self esteem, feelings, stress and victimhood lead to is a culture of pervasive and malignant narcissism.

Instead of healthy ambition, goals and ideals, the malignant narcissist pursues either the sociopathic selfish type of gratification; or the sociopathic selfless variey.

This is a complicated topic, but I discuss it at length in this series of posts . Suffice it to say that our current culture either emphasizes and encourages a bloated sociopathic grandiosity or it encourages the exact opposite- a selfless sociopathy. Both are extremely dysfunctional and malignant for the individual as well as the society at large; and psychological health requires a synthesis of these two extremes of narcissism. The celebrity culture and the quest for superstardom, constant ego-gratification and promotion of self-esteem (at the expense of self-control) has encouraged an unhealthy grandiosity; while at the same time overcompensating with an unhealthy pseudo-selflessness that manifests itself in politics and religion.

The holy trinity of therapeutic psychobabble, the glue that holds this passive, helpless, and ultimately nihilistic world view together is : the deification of victimhood; the supremacy of feelings over reason, and the glorification of self-esteem over self-control.

Those therapists who subscribe to the psychobabble religion and indoctrinate their patients into it, tend to be predisposed to think of themselves as heroically pursuing "social justice" for the poor, unhappy and oppressed masses. But, when you peel away the layers of pseudo-Freudian babble, you discover that the basic premises, the foundation--or "default mode" if you will of the babbler therapist, is the tacit acceptance of Marxist political theory, which neatly sets up the conditions for individual, cultural and societal suicide.

The Marxist dialectic insists that you can either be an "oppressor" or one of the poor "oppressed". From the Marxist moral perspective it is clearly much better to be a victim of oppression. Thus this world view neatly reinforces the passivity and helplessness of victimhood by proclaiming it to be a higher moral value; and, when the only way to get out of this oppressed victim state is to enter the morally inferior ranks of the "oppresors" most people will prefer to reap the rewards of their victimhood--which in our Marxist-drenched culture have proliferated beyond imagining.

Just ask those who finally escape from the oppressed victim mindset only to discover to their astonishment that they are now perceived as "the enemy" and a "traitor" to their gender, race, class, politics etc. etc.--I'm sure you've heard the rhetoric.

At best, a culture or society can either encourage the development of healthy, mature psychological defenses with which to cope with reality and channel human nature; or they can encourage the development and expression of the worse aspects of basic human nature--i.e., those which result in violence, racism, criminality and all the other pathologies. Either way, social, political and economic systems can only encourage certain human traits that result in civilized behavior; or, encourage those that are barbaric and antisocial. Human nature is the same, though, no matter what type of society or political system it finds itself in.

The therapeutic psychobabble that has become the default mode of our culture leads inevitably to the kind of societally dysfuntional and suicidal behavior we witnessed in the recent British confrontation with Iran; and which we witness almost daily now in our dealings with Islamofascism. Our default mode is suicidal. The enemy's is homicidal.

It is a perfect postmodern fit.