Thursday, January 31, 2008


Reading this made me realize why I liked Fred Thompson as a Presidential candidate so much. All this hype we're hearing from both the Democrat and Republican candidates about how they are the "CANDIDATE OF CHANGE", is hilarious. They don't represent change at all. For all of them, even the saintly Obama, it is politics as usual.
When journalists and candidates, with their typically childlike enthusiasm, suddenly began gumming the word "change" after the Iowa caucuses, Thompson pointed out the obvious: "Change has been part of every election since the dawn of elections, if you weren't an incumbent." He noted how easy it was "to demagogue" the issue of federal spending by dwelling on relatively insignificant earmarks: "All these programs that we talk about in the news every day are a thimbleful in the ocean compared to the entitlement tsunami that's coming to hit us."

Views like these might have earned another candidate a reputation for "straight talk"--maybe even the title of "maverick." But Thompson was more subversive than that; he was an existential maverick, and his campaign was an implicit rebuke to the system in its entirety. He was a man out of his time. With its reduced metabolism and procedural modesty, his campaign still might have served as an illustration of what politics once was like and--if we have the audacity to hope--might be again.

You should read the whole thing to understand the kind of man Thompson is; the kind of man we don't have time for these days. It seems the American public can only respond to the phonies--both the obvious ones and the carefully crafted ones. We don't care. As long as they say everything we want to hear and suck up to us in the most ostentatious manner possible.

Consider this anecdote about FDT:
Fundraising events scheduled to last two or three hours often guttered out when the candidate departed after twenty minutes. High-end donors complained of being uncourted, unpampered, unloved--even unphoned. At one party in a private home last year, Thompson made the rounds of money-shakers, delivered brief remarks, and then slipped into a bedroom to watch a basketball game on TV by himself.

So that's what it's come to. We want to be 'courted', 'pampered' and 'loved' by the candidates. It's all about them convincing us that it's all about us.

Narcissists in Love. Not a smidgen of reality exists between the two lovers; only dreams, fantasies, ego-gratification and mutual pleasuring.

That's why our idealized relationships with politicians (I wish there was a way I could denote spitting out the word) never last. Neither are real in their expectations of each other and when the truth finally hits the fan....

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but normal people; psychologically healthy people aren't consumed by the need to have power over others; or the need to have everyone love them all the time. Normal people are often fairly boring, sometimes (gasp!) ordinary people who do what needs to be done without the whining, and even without all the perks and kudos. That's why I can really relate to Greenspan's proposed constitutional amendment: "Anyone willing to do what is required to become president of the United States is thereby barred from taking that office."

Please come back, Fred! I'll take a 'man out of this time' any day over the bunch of hypocritical and specious blowhards--male and female--we've got to choose from now.


I have a really busy morning so no blogging until later.

In the meantime consider this cartoon from Chuck Asay, which summarizes the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the Democrat party position--and all their Presidential candidates-- on some of the most significant issues of our time:

But gee, they mean well...just because their self-righteous and emotional posturing always seems to result in exactly the opposite outcome from what they say they intended--i.e., enabling our enemies, increasing our energy dependence, maintaining the poor and sick as perpetual victims of the evil capitalists--doesn't mean they aren't really swell guys and gals. Or, does it?

Either most of today's Democrats are incredibly stupid and genuinely clueless; or, they are malevolent beyond measure in their heart of hearts. Maybe both.

Feel free to debate these and any other hypotheses in the comments.

Wednesday, January 30, 2008


There is a really excellent article at Pajamas Media discussing the rise in Gay bashing in Europe, "First They Came for the Gays":

Not very long ago, Oslo was an icy Shangri-la of Scandinavian self-discipline, governability, and respect for the law. But in recent years, there have been grim changes, including a rise in gay-bashings. The summer of 2006 saw an unprecedented wave of them. The culprits, very disproportionately, are young Muslim men.

It’s not just Oslo, of course. The problem afflicts most of Western Europe....

The reason for the rise in gay bashings in Europe is clear – and it’s the same reason for the rise in rape. As the number of Muslims in Europe grows, and as the proportion of those Muslims who were born and bred in Europe also grows, many Muslim men are more inclined to see Europe as a part of the umma (or Muslim world), to believe that they have the right and duty to enforce sharia law in the cities where they live, and to recognize that any aggression on their part will likely go unpunished. Such men need not be actively religious in order to feel that they have carte blanche to assault openly gay men and non-submissive women, whose freedom to live their lives as they wish is among the most conspicuous symbols of the West’s defiance of holy law.

Multiculturalists can’t face all this. So it is that even when there are brutal gay-bashings, few journalists write about them; of those who do, few mention that the perpetrators are Muslims; and those who do mention it take the line that these perpetrators are lashing out in desperate response to their own oppression.

Very telling from my perspective is the discussion in the article about a "study" commissioned by the mayor of Amsterdam mayor:

Its purpose? To try to figure out what motives underlie the increase in attacks on gay men and lesbians by Dutch-Moroccan men in Amsterdam. “Some researchers,” wrote a reporter for UPI, “believe they [Muslim gay-bashers] lashed out at local gays after feeling stigmatized by Dutch society.” In other words, as the straight-talking Norwegian immigration expert Inger-Lise Lien put it sardonically when I showed her the article, “it’s the assailant who’s the real victim.”

I have already noted the "Battle of the Victim Groups" that is taking place in the Democratic Party between the two representatives from sanctioned and approved 'victim groups' of the political left--Blacks and Women. The stakes are high--because whoever "wins" can claim the coveted victimhood gold medal.

Of course, it goes without saying that their eternal victimhood would not end with winning, because the left requires even the winning group to remain steadfastly victimized no matter what--it's all about power. But, even so--or perhaps because of that-- the battle is fierce and very emotional. Succumbing to hysterical stereotype, the feminists have lashed out at the latest "betrayal".

Too bad the feminists have been in so much denial about the socialist "victimhood food chain". If they had been alert--if they knew their place, they might have noticed that there is a very specific heirarchy of victimhood, and that women have a lower "marxist oppression ratio" than blacks.

What does all this have to do with Muslims beating up gays in Europe? The same thing it has to do with Muslims raping uncovered women in Europe. Not only are gays lower on the scale than women; but, with the ascent of multicultural political correctness dogma on the left, Muslims have ascended to the highest level of the food chain.

In other words, because of multiculturalism, which trumps racism, sexism and homophobia, Muslims actually have carte blanche. to victimize the other groups with impunity. The political left will turn a blind eye to such matters and rationalize such behavior as simply a symptom of their extreme victimhood. And, by logical extension, an barbaric act against of NON-approved groups (i.e. white heterosexual males, Jews, Christians, Neocons/Republicans etc. etc. otherwise assumed to be 'the oppressor') is actively encouraged and sanctioned.

All this is part and parcel of the perverted logic multiculturalism, which itself is a symptom of the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of leftist ideology. Not only can't multiculturalists face this salient truth, but everyone on the left is in denial about it.

When today's feminists can work themselves up into an aboslute hysterical rage toward Ted Kennedy for his endorsement of Obama and refer to it as the "ultimate betrayal", then they have little room in their tiny little hearts and minds for women brutalized and 'gangraped' under Islam--let alone for the plight of gays.

Thus the left, having abandoned the moral and intellectual tools necessary to stand against even the worse atrocities of those they deem 'oppressed', will firmly close their eyes, refuse to take any responsibility, and continue down the [psycho]path of denial with their idealized terrorist chums.

Read the entire article at Pajamas.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008


Wretchard notices that:

There seems to be a bipartisan political consensus not to examine the subject of political Islam publicly. It is the most verboten of foreign policy subjects. But like other "open secrets", its exclusion from formal discussion doesn't banish it from public consciousness. It merely pushes it underground, like Barack Obama's middle name.

The key problem with subjecting the question of political Islam to debate is that every other conclusion except that of regarding it as a "religion of peace" implies consequences no one dares face. Concluding that Islam is a 'religion of war' would precipitate a revolution in diplomacy, energy policy and military strategy. It's a bottle of nitro nobody wants to shake; it's a can of worms nobody wants to open: not a Republican administration and most especially not a Democratic one.

Explosive questions such as this are as likely to be resolved by events as by debate. To a very great extent the West is genuinely hoping that Islam is a "religion of peace"; and I suspect many Muslims are too. Unfolding events will resolve the issue -- and perceptions -- one way or the other. Ten years from today we'll have a better understanding of the truth.

Wretchard refers to himself as an "agnostic" on the subject, willing to let events unfold so that the truth (as it usually does) will out. [Read it all].

Some time back, The Adventures of Chester took a long hard look at this very issue--which is really the key strategic issue of our times, if you will. Chester phrased it thusly: Is Islam compatible with a free society?

To say yes to our question, one assumes that there are aspects of being Muslim and faithful to Islam, that can coexist peacefully with liberty, tolerance, and equality. The strategy that follows is one of identifying the groups and sects within Islam that adhere to these notions of their religion, and then encouraging them, favoring them, propagating them, and splitting them off from the elements of Islamic practice that are all too incompatible with the portions of modernity that invigorate men's souls: free inquiry, free association, free commerce, free worship, or even the freedom to be left alone.

To answer no, one states that Islam itself is fundamentally irreconcilable with freedom. This leads to a wholly different set of tactical moves to isolate free societies from Islam. They might include:

-detention of Muslims, or an abrogation of certain of their rights;

-forced deportation of Muslims from free societies;

-rather than transformative invasions, punitive expeditions and punitive strikes;

-extreme racial profiling;

-limits on the practice and study of Islam in its entirety

And even some extreme measures if free societies find the above moves to be failing:
-forced conversion from Islam, or renunciation;


-extermination of Muslims wherever they are found.

These last are especially ghastly measures. But a society that thought Islam incompatible with freedom might in the long term slip towards them.

Chester points out that President Bush has been acting on the basis of a YES answer to the question and our entire strategy in the Middle East is contingent upon it. What is most astonishing about the essay is that the author unflichingly looks at the logical consequences that are inherent in answering NO to the question-- and finds them pretty frightening for any civilized person or nation.

It is no wonder that the "bipartisan political consensus" chooses to flinch for the time being. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that it is part of the unconscious appeal of a candidate like Barack Hussein Obama who--whether he likes it or not-- appeals on many levels to the hope that we can all get along.

Bush has consistently formulated our strategy in Iraq, Afghanistan and the larger war on terror based on YES. This is why he has been very circumspect in what he says about Islam and how he characterizes the war. This is why he never even mentioned the word "Islam" in his SOTU address and why he does things like dancing with the Saudis that enrage both conservative and leftist. His entire Presidency has aimed at preventing a "tipping point" beyond which people no longer believe that a moderate, reasonable Islam is possible.

It is maddening to those who believe that there is probably no such animal.

Post 9/11, the first hint of that was the insane reaction of the Muslim world to a bunch of inoffensive Danish cartoons. Repeatedly, the larger Muslim world--in Palestine, in Lebanon, in Iraq, in Iran, in Indonesia-- crosses that threshold where reasonable people can separate Islam from its growing number of fanatics; and many in the free world are finally digging a line in the sand, jutting out their chins, and more or less defiantly daring Muslims to cross it. This explains the inexplicably moderate response of the White House to many of Islamisms greatest obscenities in the last seven years. . Bush stubbornly believes that he must negotiate a path that will still answer YES to the strategic question.

I don't think Muslims around the world will like what they discover about the West if they decide to cross that threshold. They will not be safe behind the PC rhetoric and blustery resort to cries of "victimization" that have protected the extremists thus far in acting out their fantasies of worldwide domination.

It may eventually be the case that the West becomes convinced that Islam is unable to change and is completely incompatible with freedom. We are well on our way to that eventuality, sadly. Time and again there have been opportunities for the moderates in the religion to pull it back from its suicidal historical course.

Personally, I am not convinced that Islam can change, but I hope it can, given time.

Time is not on Islam's side, however. Leaders like the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad in Iran and Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon; and the remnants of Al Qaeda and the Taliban all seem to desire catastrophic confrontation. They foolishly believe that the West will back down--if not because of a belief in the superiority of Islam; then from doubts about the superiority of Western values and from a reluctance to act decisively and ruthlessly.

The psychopathic elements in Islam believe this is our fundamental weakness; but they are wrong. This is actually our fundamental strength. President Bush has bet that Islam can be changed if it is infused with some democratic opportunities and freed from some of the political and religious tyranny that has dominated the Middle East. If such a democratizing process had been started--and carried through-- a decade or two earlier, well who knows how much the situation might have changed by now?

And, contrary to the infantile imaginings of the antiwar and so-called "peace" movements, Bush's strategy actually represents the BEST POSSIBLE HOPE FOR PEACE.

It is a strategy that faces the grim reality of Islamic contradictions and historical brutality; yet has enough optimism and goodwill in it to be genuinely worth the price we are paying. If it works, millions of deaths might be prevented. And if the peace crowd really cares about peace, then they would do well to reconsider their own antics.

Because, if the left succeeds in its determination to undermine American policy as it is now formulated; or if the extremists succeed in eliminating any voices for moderation and tolerance; then there will be only one strategic option open.

As events in the middle east unfold; as we witness the desperate suicide bombers and mindless hate that daily disrupts any kind of a normal life for Iraqis in Baghdad; as we witness the Frankenstein-like rise of the fanatical and murdering Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan--it is hard not to conclude that the answer to the strategic question is NO.

Islam itself seems more and more incompatible with Western values; even antithetical to them. But still, we could live with that if they were not hell-bent on converting us to their medieval religion or alternatively, killing all infidels who refuse their path. The Mullahs and Imans; the fanatics and barbarians; the petty despots and tyrannical kings of Islam around the world-- are all united in their evil vision for all of mankind--and no olive branch; no amount of appeasement; and no appeal to reason and good will seems capable of bringing them into the fold of humankind.
Andy McCarthy voiced many people's frustration when he wrote:
We've been told for some time now — against common sense and the weight of our own national experience — that the way to defeat international jihadism is to spread democracy.

So now the Lebanese democracy can't control Hezbollah (which has been freely elected and controls about a fifth of its legislature), while the Palestinian Authority IS Hamas (the Palestinian people having democratically put them in power).

How much do we figure that Israel is hoping democracy breaks out in Egypt, with the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic Jihad waiting in the wings? All it needs right about now is yet another democratic neighbor.

Democracy has many enduring benefits, but it doesn't stop terrorists from operating — and in many ways, it makes life easier for them. When are we going to stop talking about it as a national security cure-all?

We have to kill al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas and the rest. This is harder work than the administration's rhetoric is preparing the nation for. We are not going to democratize these savages into submission.

America continues to find homegrown terrorists on our own free soil. Some of these pathetic people have had the benefits of freedom and choice for their entire lives--but the poison of Islam is strong, and they are determined--along with their Islamic brothers--to destroy any free country that stands in the way of their vision.

They hate America because, where there is freedom, their oppressive beliefs can never be more than in the minority. When people are free to choose, and not killed for apostasy for not choosing Islam, they will be unable to force their beliefs on others. Until Islam itself comes to terms with that reality, it will only be just another thuggish totalitarian ideology. Just as socialism and communism were the 20th century's worse nightmare, so Islam is set to become the 21st century's.

After two world wars, humanity had pretty much rid itself of the bane of socialism and its more immature sibling communism. Only to see it rise up again, hanging on the coattails of Islam.

I hope I am wrong about all this, because many lives are in the balance. I am open to a debate about these issues. But, every day that passes seems to give more and more credibility to the NO answer.

Even the dhimmist bulb in the EU; the most deliberately and consciously delusional member of the international peace crowd cannot fail to see the lack of good will; the perverse determination to provoke war; and the genocidal glint in the eyes of Islam's brightest stars.

It is possible that the introduction of the seeds of democracy and freedom will make a difference in the years to come. There are some hopeful signs--in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example. Like Wretchard, I will wait and see.

Will it be enough? I don't know yet. But I will give President Bush full credit if it works out; and a great deal of credit even if it doesn't. Because his audacious vision was and is still the only one that may bring the hope of freedom and the promise of prosperity to a dysfunctional, barbaric and backward part of the world.


Last night The Sanity Squad hosted an Obama-rama on BlogTalkRadio. Who is this guy that is being compared to JFK? Why are so many jumping on his bandwagon and accepting him as their personal savior. Saint Obama has already replaced Saint Bill in the pantheon of holy leftist icons...can the White House be far behind?

Join Siggy, ShrinkWrapped, Neo, and me for some psychological and political analysis that's sure to be provocative and, hopefully, annoying.

Click below to listen:

Monday, January 28, 2008


Tonight's topics will be an Obama-fest as The Squad shine a psychological spotlight on the Obama-phenomena! Who is this guy, anyway? And why are so many jumping on his bandwagon and accepting him as their personal savior -- even the notorious Kennedy clan!

Join Siggy, ShrinkWrapped, Neo, and me for some psychological and political analysis that's sure to be provocative and, hopefully, annoying.

Click below to listen live at 8 PM tonight:

CALL-IN Number during show is (646) 716-9116


Here is an interesting news item regarding Israel's analysis of Iran's nuclear capability:
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said, in an interview published Saturday, that Iran is "quite advanced" in its work on atomic weapons and may already be fashioning a nuclear warhead.

"We suspect they are probably already working on warheads for ground-to-ground missiles," Barak said in an interview with The Washington Post and Newsweek magazine.

He also suggested that Iranians "probably ... have another clandestine enrichment operation beyond the one in Natanz."

The remarks were in stark contrast the conclusion of a US National Intelligence Estimate released late last year that said Tehran had abandoned its quest for nuclear weapons as far back as 2003.

Barak sharply disagreed with this assessment.

"Our interpretation is that clearly the Iranians are aiming at nuclear capability," he said. "It's probably true that ... they may have slowed down the weapons group in 2003, because it was the height of American militarism."

But he said Israel now believed that Iranians "are quite advanced, much beyond the level of the Manhattan Project."

Call it the Tehran Project, if you will. And, doesn't this suggest that the Iranians have got all their religious ducks in a row to actually use nuclear weapons they already possess or anticipate possessing? NIE to the contrary.

That psychological interpretation dovetails with the arrogant, smirking demeanor that always accompanys the calculated baiting of the West by Ahmadinejad, the Iranian Psychopath-in-chief. Whether it is making suggestive remarks about the state of Israel and its future; or sending speedboats to harass American ships in the strait of Hormuz, Ahmadinejad always tries to appear to be a beacon of reason and nuanced diplomacy.

He reminds me a lot of many of the paranoid patients I have dealt with over the years.

All the behavior and rhetoric of the past year strongly suggest that the Iranians already have a nuclear weapons capability, or soon will; and that they certainly intend to use it at a moment of their own choosing.

Of course, they would want that moment to be a grand, heroic, Islamic gesture. They would need such a gesture to maximize their sense of Arab honor while simultaneously shaming their hated enemy, the Jews. They would need for the gesture to come at exactly at the moment when they can most appear to be the enlightened purveyors of "peace" and "brotherhood".

The hapless intellectual leaders of the West will continue to bend over backwards and even engage in desperate contortions to appease and mollify the sociopathic bullies of Islam; but that will only escalate their violent behavior and give them the rationale they need to press on, more self-righteously convinced that they are superior. This is the completely predictable psychological response to appeasement, solicitation, and compassionate understanding. It's simple really. Bullies will always push the envelope of bad behavior when they think they can get away with it.

And they are getting away with it, aren't they? Just check out the sense of relief and jubilation with which the recent NIE was received by almost everyone. Whew! We don't have to worry about Iran any more! Isn't that great?

But this is simply the transient sense of safety and security that psychological denial can bring. No rational person wants to believe that Iran could be so crazy and suicidal that they would really try to "wipe Israel off the map." The NIE was tremendously reassuring because it suggested that the religious fanatics of Iran are really motivated by rational considerations, just like us!

Well, yes. To a point. They clearly don't want something to happen that would interrupt or put a premature end to achieving their ultimate goal. And logically, rationally, they will do whatever they need to make sure of that.

Don't forget that reason and logic can--and frequently are--used to promote the most illogical, irrational and insane of objectives. In the end, reason and logic are only intellectual tools and their usefulness depends entirely on the reality and truth of the premises for which they are being used. If the premises or objectives for which they are being used are bogus; or if they are not what you think they are; or the opposite of what your own would be under the circumstances; then it hardly matters that the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad give the appearance of being reasonable fellows negotiating rationally with the West.

I can easily imagine Ahmadinejad rubbing his hands together like The Simpson's Mr. Burns, cackling, "Exxxxcellent!" as they promise one thing even as they do the opposite--which logically and rationally proves to them the superiority of Islam and the inevitability of Allah's will.

It's no use saying that by pursuing the development of a nuclear warhead they would use against Israel doesn't make any sense and would be completely irrational, not to mention downright suicidal.

They have repeatedly stated they think it would be worth the human price.

Just think of Ahmadinejad as the ultimate, high-tech suicide bomber who has wrapped that nuclear bomb belt securely around his entire country.

I have said before that I hope I am wrong in this assessment, but all my psychiatric instincts continue to tell me that this is a situation where we are facing imminent suicidal and homicidal behavior. And, the lives of millions are in the balance....

Sunday, January 27, 2008


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. Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes... It's a planetary emergency!

2. Oh, the moral equivalence! Their evil is larger than life! Clearly, the Palestinians are horribly oppressed. The question is, by whom? A list of 'approved' Gaza solutions.

3. Oh dear...worse than Gitmo?? The tragedy of a non-Muslim West?

4. Hugo the Benevolent. Hugo the bank robber.Hugo the food thief. Hugo the coke-head. What a guy! Things are going well in Venezuela, I see.

5. Multimillion $$$ Bush Bash. They should use some of that money for their own desperately needed psychotherapy. Don't let a little thing like bias confuse you to the 'higher' truth that Bush lied, people died.

6. First they came for Sambo, then they came for they'll come for these

....which only goes to show--is it the diversity training that's ineffective? Or, is the need to force diversity down everyone's throat that's a wee bit insane? What a strange place we've come to.

8. Halal toast? The Top Nine new names of "Islamic Terrorist"--sure not to offend! Delicious pork-centric recipes...put that in your mouth and stuff it.

9. He had a dream. But, We're having a primary nightmare.

10. Going down with the [swift]boat...again.

11. Mutant super cockroaches from space! Hello, Darth Kitty! Killer dolphins? Alien monsters from the ID!

12. Is our children learning math ok? I'm inclined to agree with the School Adminsitrator's wife on this one.

13. Rejects in the kid publishing world...for now.

14. Are different textbooks for different sexes an example of Female Mental Mutilation? Just another form of female 'circumcision', I guess, to preserve their chastity and make sure they don't get too uppity. Remember, all cultures (except the West) are simply wonderful!

15. You've come a long way, baby. Hmmm. Sorta suggests a primal urge toward being dominated, doesn't it? Or, congenital insanity.

16. They're becoming more human every day!

17. PUT THIS ON IMMEDIATELY ! Socialized medicine at its absolute finest.

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, January 26, 2008


Jonathan Chait wonders if the political right has been right all along on...the Clintons:
Something strange happened the other day. All these different people -- friends, co-workers, relatives, people on a liberal e-mail list I read -- kept saying the same thing: They've suddenly developed a disdain for Bill and Hillary Clinton. Maybe this is just a coincidence, but I think we've reached an irrevocable turning point in liberal opinion of the Clintons.

The sentiment seems to be concentrated among Barack Obama supporters. Going into the campaign, most of us liked Hillary Clinton just fine, but the fact that tens of millions of Americans are seized with irrational loathing for her suggested that she might not be a good Democratic nominee. But now that loathing seems a lot less irrational. We're not frothing Clinton haters like ... well, name pretty much any conservative. We just really wish they'd go away.

Yes, well. It's simply amazing what a little insight can do for one's perspective. Chait and others don't like it when their own rhetorical style is turned back against them. They don't like it when the causes they have championed for two decades suddenly seem corrupt and rather empty.

They don't like it when they are forced to open their eyes and see reality.

As for me, I had one of those "irrevocable turning points" toward the entire neo-marxist ideology that has overcome the Democratic party, making it the one of the last surviving remnants of the cold war. It was during the Vietnam war that I first became painfully aware of the fact that the political left was both morally and intellectually bankrupt.

It would be really nice, now that their eyes are wide open on the Clintons--who once could do no wrong--that the Democrats take a good look around and see the devastation their leftist religion has wrought.

Take a long, hard look at your other Presidential candidates, please. It is impossible not to notice that, with few exceptions, pretty much everyone in power on the Democratic side of the aisle has sold their soul to what was once the lunatic fringe of your party, and is now the mainstream. You are now the multiculti PC Dhimmicrats; the party of perpetual victimhood; the racist and sexist party that long ago traded away its principles for power; i.e., you are the party of nothing.

Before you endow Obama with sainthood (the same way you did Bill) why not look at the mindless--and ultimately destructive--socialist drivel he is spouting. Before you are overcome by Edwards' perfect exterior beauty, listen to what he is actually saying and believes about this country.

Here's hoping for a few more 'irrevocable turning points' --turning points that only occur when people have the courage to carry out some honest and painful introspection into their own motivations and behaviors. Only then will you come to appreciate the envy; the sense of entitlement; and the plentiful narcissism that has always been there, ready, willing, and eager to be pandered to by the likes of the Clintons.

When all is said and done, St. Obama and the Pretty Boy do it ever so much better than Bill and Hill ever did, don't they?

UPDATE: Sullivan has a partial insight about the moral bankruptcy of today's feminists, which I have written about repeatedly (see here and here for example). I wonder why he is so shocked. It's only going to get worse until you scrap the whole victimhood/identity politics scam. I mean, how dare anyone (particularly a gay white male) criticize the girlie girls? Doesn't he know his place on the victimhood heirarchy? Next they will undoubtedly weep, or possibly swoon, at the horrible meanness of it all.

Friday, January 25, 2008


Otherwise to be known as the League of Looters. Then there's the socialist looter-wannabes and looter-liteweights (the rest of the Democratic Party candidates).


Excellent analysis at The Belmont Club about how the discredited ideas of socialism, communism, and marxism--instead of being defeated in the Cold War--have managed to ride the democratic process into power in a growing number of locales :
If Zimbabwe used the vote to reverse the domination of the whites by the blacks, in Latin America switch involved the rich and the poor. But one of the unfortunate legacies of the Cold War has been to resurrect in third world countries many of the Marxist nostrums that have been laughed into the grave in Eastern Europe, Russia or China. Five year plans may be largely dead in those countries, but they still roam like zombies in parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America. The archetype of this phenomenon is Zimbabwe. Majority rule brought Robert Mugabe, who in turn brought his vision of '30s socialism to power. Then the Night of the Living Dead began: those long buried policies roamed the earth again bringing starvation, misery and impoverishment in their wake.

The process of "Zimzombification" is now overtaking Venezuela. The Chavez government is now seizing food in order to stem shortages. "Venezuela's top food company has accused troops of illegally seizing more than 500 tonnes of food from its trucks as part of President Hugo Chavez's campaign to stem shortages. The leftist Chavez this week created a state food distributor and loosened some price controls, seeking to end months of shortages for staples like milk and eggs that have caused long lines and upset his supporters in the OPEC nation."

As anyone with the slightest knowledge of economics knows -- excepting Marxists, who by definition already know everything about economics -- Chavez's policies will guarantee even greater shortages, spur the growth of blackmarkets, recreate the breadlines, drive producers into idleness, and in general follow along the well-trodden path of Robert Mugabe.

The political consequence of this "Zimzombification" may be to create such desperation that the starving populations will turn once again to the old elitist juntas of the past, hoping that subsistence in subservience is better than starvation while in political power. The danger is that democracy will be discredited along with the Mugabes and Chavezes of this world. Thus the essential crisis confronting third world democracies is whether it can resolve the ideological debates of the Cold War, especially with respect to economic policy, within the framework of the electoral process.

Read it all.

A good question is WHY do such crackpot ideas and thuggish dictators like Chavez and Mugabe who use them to manipulate large populations, stimulate the imagination of any human being anywhere anymore? WHY is it that the world is regaled on a regular basis to these boring sequels to the political equivalent of "The Night of the Living Dead"; and WHY do people seem all too eager to turn themselves into the mindless zombie hordes that support such regimes?

Lee Harris once noted in a TCS article titled "Why Isn't Socialism Dead?":
It may well be that socialism isn't dead because socialism cannot die. As Sorel argued, the revolutionary myth may, like religion, continue to thrive in "the profounder regions of our mental life," in those realms unreachable by mere reason and argument, where even a hundred proofs of failure are insufficient to wean us from those primordial illusions that we so badly wish to be true. Who doesn't want to see the wicked and the arrogant put in their place? Who among the downtrodden and the dispossessed can fail to be stirred by the promise of a world in which all men are equal, and each has what he needs?

Here we have the problem facing those who, like Hernando de Soto, believe that capitalism is the only rational alternative left after the disastrous collapse of so many socialist experiments. Yes, capitalism is the only rational method of proceeding; but is the mere appeal to reason sufficient to make the mass of men and women, especially among the poor and the rejected, shut their ears to those who promise them the socialist apocalypse, especially when the men who are making these promises possess charisma and glamour, and are willing to stand up, in revolutionary defiance, to their oppressors?

The shrewd and realistic Florentine statesman and thinker, Guicciardini, once advised: "Never fight against religion...this concept has too much empire over the minds of men." And to the extent that socialism is a religion, then those who wish to fight it with mere reason and argument may well be in for a losing battle. Furthermore, as populism spreads, it is inevitable that the myth of socialism will gain in strength among the people who have the least cause to be happy with their place in the capitalist world-order, and who will naturally be overjoyed to put their faith in those who promise them a quick fix to their poverty and an end to their suffering.

It is discouraging to see the insanity continue through the efforts of the neo-marxist totalitarians like Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, Robert Mugabe et al, rising on a tide of populist socialist-bullshit, even as Castro's failed paradise--which once was the last stronghold of these discredited ideas in the hemisphere-- waits expectantly for its dear leader's impending demise.

These newest embryonic nations of "misery and bloodshed" have only a limited time until they too, reach their anti-human potential. The question is WHY are we seeing this happening all over again, in another hemisphere; in another century?

To understand why this is happening, why socialism continues to live; and why we just can't kill this beast, we must return to the fundamentals of human nature.

In re-reading Harris' excellent analysis, it occurs to me that if socialism cannot die because its mythology is seared into the psyche of the individual; captialism, the bane of socialism (just as socialism is the bane of capitalism), also cannot perish for precisely the same reason--each one is the political expressions of one of the two fundamental developmental lines of the human psyche.
In an earlier series of posts on Narcissism (PART I , PART II , and PART III ) I argued, using primarily Heinz Kohut's concepts of the Self, that the development of a healthy, integrated, mature Self required the integration of two separate developmental lines.

At some point, the Self and the Other--once "perfectly" merged--are now two distinct objects. This important process of separation-individuation is facilitated by the normal shortcomings(i.e. imperfections) in maternal care, which spur the child's development as an individual. For example: baby demands food, but mother is unavailable right now and doesn’t feed baby until her schedule permits (but doesn’t let him starve either!). Such natural and normal imperfections of empathy with the child are actually healthy. I won’t go into a full discussion of this, but suffice it to say that the Other must not be too perfect, nor too imperfect, as either extreme carried on for too long will interfere with the developing Self of the child.

It is because of the slow separation of Self from Other--Child from Parent-- that the two developmental lines come into being. The first line Kohut refers to as the “Grandiose Self”(or idealized self image) and the second is referred to as the “Idealized Parent Image”. Both of these images represent psychological attempts to save the original experience of "perfection" by the infant when the Mother (Other) and the infant (Self) were “one”.

The “grandiose self” will develop over time (if not disrupted) into healthy Self-Esteem; and the” idealized other” (or idealized parent image) will eventually lead to the development of ideals that give meaning to the individual’s life; to empathy and healthy interpersonal relationships.

I also argued in that series that from these two emerging parts of the narcissistic self comes the predeliction for one type of social/political/economic system or another; and that, without the full integration of the two poles of narcissism into a fully cohesive self in the members of various groups, we see the excesses of both narcissistic rage and awe acted out on a grand political scale, sometimes alternating between the two sides of the dialectic.

The grandiose self prefers to live in those systems that maximize individual liberty and self expression i.e., "life, liberty, and the pursuit happiness." On it's extreme side (without any integration of the idealized self into its functioning) , it can lead to excessive ambition, narcissistic grandiosity, indifference to others, and what is commonly referred to as "narcissistic rage" when it is thwarted in its pursuit of satisfaction.

The idealized object/self, on the other hand, prefers the authoritarian society because it recaptures the primitive--and seemingly perfect-- union the infant once had with mother. Those social/political/economic systems that promise such a union (i.e., most religions, socialism, communism and all their totalitarian variants) are the systems that feel right.

In a narcissistically impaired society, groups can easily alternate between the two poles, just as individuals do.

On the idealized object's extreme side are the intense utopian urges that distinguish any cult; the submersion of individual identity and selfhood into the collective; and what I have referred to as the "narcissistic awe" one experiences in contemplating the pursuit of union, or utopia.

On their own, without the attenuating influence of the other side of the developmental line, either side is a distortion of human nature. Each side sees the other as the extreme expression of the opposite pole of the self, thus leading to the polarizing stereotypes with which political left and right attack each other.

The extreme left (idealized other) sees all members of the right as sociopaths out to get whatever they can from the world at the expense of others, while ignoring that side of themselves and glorifying the likes of a Hugo Chavez because he espoouses their utopian fantasies. OTOH, extreme right (grandiose self) sees all members of the left as the collective mob whose goal is to erase individuality and freedom, while ignoring the human need to believe in something outside themselves. But the truth is that at the exreme left AND the extreme right there is a striking convergence of grandiosity and totalitarianism.

The grandiose self, left to its own devices with minimal interference from or integration with its counterpart, the idealized object, becomes the prototype of the tyrant--cold, ruthless, and without pity for others. He goes his way wreaking havoc in the world, supressing other individuals to his will and disposing of them without a thought. When thwarted his narcissistic rage and aggression are sights to behold.

With parents and a society both encouraging individuality and social responsibility simultaneously in human development; extreme individuals of this type are generally recognized as sociopaths and held to account for their antisocial and destructive behavior in society at large.

The idealized object side of the self, left to its own devices with minimal interference from or integration with its own grandiose self, becomes the human fodder that acts out the will of the tyrant. Their overwheming desire for union with the perfect god, the perfect mother--i.e, the perfect "other"-- will inevitably lead them to revere the onminpotent grandiose self of others. They see only the "goodness" and perfection of the other; and they actively and single-mindedly pursue "union" with that other; often desiring to drag others with them toward that utopian ideal.

Parents and societies that deliberately try to suppress all individualistic tendencies (as is seen in most totalitarian societies) will encourage the development of a psyche that is ripe for takeover by a strong, grandiose dictator-thug.

It is important to note that the extreme, or "pure", state of either of these developmental lines does not exist in a real, living human being. We can discuss them in this sort of abstract manner; and tease out the implications of one side's development or the other; but both sides exist to some degree in every single human because every single human originates from the same biological starting point and grows within a mother's womb; and is initially helpless and completely dependent on that mother for its existence. (And, no. I am not going to go into some of the exceptions to this at this time--even though they pose some extremely interesting questions from a psychological development standpoint)

Rather, these two processes can be thought of as flip sides of the same coin. Extremes of one side or the other occur because of breakdowns in empathy between the child and the parent or the larger environment. If these breakdowns are not resolved by adulthood, then the adult will continue to act them out, and they will flip back and forth between the two poles of the dialectic.

On the one hand, when the will of the grandiose self is thwarted, the individual will experience narcissistic rage and act out various types of aggression. When the union with the "perfect" object is not perfect (since it never will be), they experience even greater narcissistic idealism/awe and redouble their efforts to submit to the will of Big Br(other). Often they simply alternately cycle between the two extremes.

Harris discusses the myths of socialism and bemoans the fact that capitalism has no myths to compete with the romance of the former. But both of these political ideals are played out on the ultimate battleground within the developing psyche.

The "revolutionary" myth of the idealized other side of the self involves submission of the individual to the collective, and may be stated as follows:

One day, I (we) will be reunited with, and submit to, the will of the perfect other; and when that happens, utopia will be achieved and I (we) will be whole.

The counterpart myth of the grandiose self involves aggression and may be stated as follows:

One day, I will achieve total power and dominance over the imperfect other; and when that happens, I will be whole.

Both myths originate from the primitive narcissism of the infant whose needs are too imperfectly met by the parents (and secondarily by the society those parents live in).

But both political myths are delusional; in that they attempt to compensate for defects in narcissistic development by going to one extreme or the other; and hence do not recognize that human nature requires both poles of the dialectic for optimal psychological health.

If you are with me so far, then the next thought in this logical sequence is apparant. For the purposes of this essay, I will refer to these two aspects or poles of Narcissisism as the Narcissistic Dialectic.

Somehow, a healthy individual must find a way to integrate these two opposing parts of the self into their psyche. In other words, they must achieve a true, dialectical synthesis.

In the Narcissism series referred to earlier I wrote:

We have seen that the development of a Cohesive Self is dependent on two separate, equal and parallel developmental lines that arise originally from the biological and psychological fusion of the Infant and Mother early in life. If each of these lines are not interrupted in their normal evolution the Infant will eventually become an Adult with both narcissistic poles adequately developed and be able to function in the world in a healthy way—both in his attitude toward his own physical and psychic self; and in his attitude toward other human beings.

In some ways, the rise of human civilization from the cave to the present day has resulted because of attempts through the Rule of Law and social controls to set limits on the unrestrained Grandiose Self. This is primarily due to the destructiveness of the Narcissistic Rage generally associated with that part of the Self.

Because of this, the Grandiose Self has received a bad reputation philosophically, morally, and politically. The natural development of Governments and Religions (which ultimately are an expression of the Idealized Parent Image/Omnipotent Other side of the Self)have all too often attempted to ruthlessly suppress the Grandiose Self--much to the detriment of the individual AND the success of the particular society or religion.

In fact, despite the obvious truth that governments, nations, and religions are in a much better position to wreak far more systemized misery and death on human populations, it is almost always the Grandiose Self that gets the blame. As Wretchard at The Belmont Club pointed out in a recent post, a review of the 20th century, for example, shows that all the "people's revolutions" supported by the Left and purportedly for the purpose of "freeing" large populations of people; resulted instead in enslaving them and increasing authoritarian rule.

I discuss all this further, as well as some of the important implications for both individuals and society at large, in a post "The Narcissistic Synthesis"

All over the world, on a daily basis we see the horrible and tragic consequences that occur when either of the dual aspects of human narcissism are given complete control over human destiny. Individuals and groups; religions and nations act out their narcissistic rage at various insults--real and imagined-- and people suffer and die for the purposes of the grandiosity of the tyrant, or the glory of the religion.

When not pursuing the objects of their narcissistic rage; the same rage-filled and aggressive individuals and groups easily submit to the will of Allah, God, the religion, the government, the collective, or the despot of the day, as they are filled with the desire for a reunification of the perfect other.

It has been said that the 20th century was the “century of the narcissist”, but the 21st is well on its way to outdoing the horrors of the past, as a seemingly never-ending epidemic of malignant narcissistic rage and idealism--both caused by a defect in narcissism and both in turn combining to crush the human spirit--all for the purpose of serving the self-aggrandizing vision of the few.

It was a big mistake to think that when the West was victorious in the cold war; and when all the defects and deadly outcomes of socialism and communism were exposed, that it was the end of the matter. Like a zombie brought to pseudo-life by some mysterious cosmic process, eating the flesh of the living, socialism never was completely dead. In the same way, no matter how many tomes are written to discredit religion or a belief in God, it will not make the fundamental psychological need of homo sapiens to yearn for the perfect "other."

But without the mitigating influence of the grandiose self, these utopian fantasies have a way of devolving into scenes from "The Night of the Living Dead."

The task of the Free World in the 21st century is not only to "resolve the ideological debates of the Cold War", it is undo the narcissistic psychopathology that continues to strangled human potential and freedom all over the planet.

Thursday, January 24, 2008


The world's most celebrated victims have once again scored a PR coup and managed to get the major news services pimping for them. Of course, the UN Commission on Human Rights (otherwise known as the UN Israeli CRimes Against Palestinians --UNICRAP-- Committee ) has already sprung into action. One can only sit back in admiration and awe at the skill and talent--not to mention energy and resources it takes to pull off a victimhood scam of this magnatude!

Here are a people and a culture who have managed to remain pathetic refugees for literally decades as they bask in the warm glow and regard of their fellow Muslims, who would literally do anything for them--except grant them citizenship in their countries; or allow them to build the infrastructure for a functioning society (that would mean they'd have to leave those charming, sewage backed up refugee camps). No, as long as the Palestinians can promote their victimhood and oppression at the hands of the evil Jews, the Muslims in the Middle East will never have to enter the 20th century, let alone the 21st; and their medieval culture can remain untainted and forever backwards.

So, for all their continued efforts on behalf of promoting the benefits of eternal victimhood, I dedicate this brief course to the Palestinians; their loving brother Muslims; and all their helpful, enabling "friends"!

This brief guide is for those searching for an expedited pathway into the exalted status of Victimhood. Becoming a victim --as we all have learned from famous TV stars, prominent politicians; religions, races, and even nations--is an advantageous state of being in many ways, several of which are:

-You are not responsible for what happened to you
-You are always morally right
-You are not accountable to anyone for anything
-You are forever entitled to sympathy
-You are always justified in feeling moral indignation for being wronged
-You never have to be responsible again for anything

As you can see, these are some heavy-duty privileges; and they are not given to just anyone. This list is not exclusive. There are many benefits of Victimhood; and in our current society, new rewards are continuously being discovered! You, too, may be someone who blazes a new path for future victims!

The badge of victimhood must be "earned" (ha ha, just kidding!) by one of two methods: (1) Membership in a special "victim" class; or (2) having something bad actually happen to you. Method 1 is definitely is superior in every way since it eliminates the need for something bad to actually happen to you (as long as it once happened to someone like you--you are set); thus this method is preferable and automatically puts all sorts of celebrities and famous people on your side. They will not be concerned if you are a good person or a bad person; just as long as you meet the basic victimhood criteria.

You are probably tempted to ask what that basic criteria is for most famous people to support you? Here is a tip (keep it under your hat): most famous people--especially undeserving famous people (i.e., people who are famous not for any particular talent they have, but because they might have a good publicist, for example) have an intense need to feel that they are "champions of the oppressed." This relieves them of the pervasive feelings of guilt under which they must function. Hence, all you have to do is to convince them that you are "oppressed" by one of a number of usual "oppressors", and you are home free!

Here is a handy list of possible oppressors that can be used by almost anyone searching for victimhood status:

- caucasian, heterosexual males
- Republicans (either male or female)
- conservatives (either male or female)
- businessmen or women (commonly referred to as "little eichmanns")
- capitalists
- rich people
- Christians (particularly Republican or conservative)
- the U.S. Military (all services)
- Americans (as a general group)
- Israelis (Jews)

Note: This list is not exhaustive, but it is a good place to start if you are pursuig victimhood for fun and profit.


Victimhood is automatically conferred if you are a member of one or more of the following groups:

- An underrepresented race (whoever is in the minority--the majority are barred from victimhood)
- An underrepresented gender(males are prohibited from victimhood)
- An underrepresented sexual orientation (heterosexuals are not allowed to be victims)
- A nation without land (e.g., Palestinian)
- Any nation the U.S. has a disagreement with
- A religion stuck in the Middle Ages (e.g., Islam)
- A person in jail (your crime is immaterial, but the worse the crime, the better)

Other individuals or groups may petition for Victimhood if they meet the following criteria:

- The Liberal Media confers it on them
- You appear on talk shows and spill your guts about some distasteful event that happened to you
- You use drugs or alcohol but get into treatment after you get in trouble
- You find God after you get in trouble
- You are very sorry for your reprehensible behavior or actions and have a reputable person to blame for why you did it (President Bush is always a good choice, but any parental figure--even God-- will do)
- If you are a nation or religion, it is always safe to be a victim of the Jews
- If you are incompetent at your job and unable to get ahead it is generally due to someone else's behavior; or it might be due to Adult Attention Deficit Disorder-- either way works.
- If you haven't achieved your proper level of power in the world (even if you are a dictator, surprisingly) you could be a victim of American foreign policy
-If you have economic problems, it is likely you are a vicitm of Capitalism (remember, that socialism, communism, fascism, and other ideologies are completely off the hook since they proactively blame Capitalism for all the problems of the world)
-If you are addicted to ANYTHING, you are likely to be a victim!
-If your feelings are hurt by someone--either intentionally or unintentionally-- you are a victim (call our toll-free number above if you have any questions, but most Universities have special policies that cover you)
- If you can attract Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Ramsey Clark, or Bianca Jagger to your cause, you are, by definition, a victim! Case closed!

Having something bad actually happen to you is the second method of achieving Victimhood. However, as mentioned in Chapter 1; it is a much less direct method than the methods listed above and is not recommended.

Why, you might ask? Simple! Waiting around for something bad to actually happen to you is an extremely inefficient way of becoming a victim. After all, you cannot control when or where natural disasters occur. Statistically, other disastrous events (e.g., lightening striking; plane crashes; etc.) do not occur frequently enough to be reliable. And it is important to note that many people who suffer victimhood in this natural way will eventually get on with their lives! And that is the LAST THING YOU ACTUALLY WANT TO DO! Remember the most politically correct type of Victimhood is the kind you can inflict on yourself! Be professional! Our motto at WorldWide Victimhood, Inc. is "Take Control of Your Victimhood!".

IMPORTANT NOTICE: If you are lucky enought to already be a member of an approved victim group AND something bad happens to you (e.g., a hurricane or other natural disaster) well, that is, as we say in the biz, the best of all possible worlds (assuming, of course, that you survive the experience). Then you are a victim twice-over, and entitled to what we will refer to as the Platinum Club victimhood membership rewards. (Discussed in a Chapter yet to be written).


Here are a few helpful strategies to maintain your prized Victimhood status in spite of all efforts to placate, apologize to; help, or support you.

- Resist Resist Resist taking any responsibility for your own behavior. It can always be made to seem like someone else is at fault
- Have a ready list of other people, nations, religions, groups etc. to blame for your situation and do not accept help from those on your list
- Constantly demand your rights
- Use the medium of Television to tell your story as often as possible; however, any member of the media (print, TV, radio) is usually supportive of your goals and will work with you to best frame your victimhood to elicit optimal sympathy.
- Did I mention that you must NEVER take any responsibility for your own behavior? If I did, it is because it cannot be mentioned too often.
- Play up the victim's position of enhanced moral authority. Weep about your plight whenever possible. Do nothing to make things better.
- Become a spokesperson or a media darling for any of the groups who make up International A.N.S.W.E.R.
- Make commercials for; or at least let them use your story to explain how oppressive one of the oppressor groups listed in Chapter 1 are.

When using any of the above strategy, make sure you ACT like a victim--crying, whining, using anger effectively--all these can enhance other's perception of your Victimhood

NEVER take any steps to improve your situation--that way is the OPPOSITE of true, enlightened Victimhood.

Frequently going to see a psychiatrist or mental health professional can improve your Victimhood credentials (and you can apply the other strategies to resisting therapy to change); Other medical professionals are also useful in this regard, and a side benefit is that YOU CAN SUE THEM LATER if you don't like what they say; thus insuring further victimization!

Suicidal gestures are VERY helpful and can garner much sympathy. It is noteworthy that even large groups can use this strategy by encouraging suicidal behavior (or even homicidal behavior--which is counterintuitive, but fortunately often true!) on the part of the most vulnerable of their members (e.g., children or teens are good choices)

As you can see, there are many paths to Victimhood. Keep your head up and really look around for opportunities. One group in particular deserves special mention for their unfailing and extraordinary efforts at maintaining and feeding their Victimhood for decades. I am speaking of course, about the Palestinians.

The Palestinians are, without a doubt the Gold Medal Winners of the WorldWide Victimhood, Inc. Annual Awards. Clearly they represent extraordinarily creative efforts above and beyond the run-of-th-mill annals of victimhoodology.

We at WWV, Inc. encourage all of you potential victims out there to watch and learn from real professionals. They are out there--everywhere you are--and their example can be an inspiration to strive for failure and achieve nothing in Life but to make others pay for their sins against you.

************END EXCERPT******************

Additional information and tips on calculating the level of victimhood (called the "PC factor") for the victimhood-seeking individual can be found here. The "victimhood heirarcy" (or "victimhood food chain", if you will) can be found here.

DR. SANITY DISCLAIMER: To all those real victims out there, who are struggling to overcome diseases; recover from disasters and events; and move beyond those traumas that have temporarily and painfully interrupted your lives--I heartily salute you and in no way aim to denigrate your efforts. Taking responsibility for your life will empower you and enable you to grow beyond whatever you have experienced. May you always rise above what Life has presented to you and exceed all expectations--even your own.

@copyright World Wide Victimhood Industries, Inc.

[Note: the above is reprinted by permission from the Dr. Sanity archives!]

Wednesday, January 23, 2008


With all the heated discussion about which Democratic Presidential candidate is going to work harder for change and which one can pander best to which group, there is at least one fairy tale on which they can both agree:

More Cartoons by Eric Allie here


Sorry...might post later.

Feel free to donate money at the Paypal or Amazon link on the sidebar. That might make me feel a little better.

Consider this an open thread to discuss the latest Soros-inspired nonsense. You've got to hand it to these dead-enders. They are persistent. Sort of like like the bacteria in an antibiotic-resistant infection.

Tuesday, January 22, 2008


While we are on the subject of the toxic and corrosive impact of the political left's bankrupt ideology on Western civilization (see the previous post) and the defense of freedom, Wretchard has a salient post up that discusses this development in NATO (sure to raise the hackles of the pseudo-pacifist political left). He notes:

No other recent political development has underlined the destructive effects of the Left's opposition to the War on Terror as much as this manifesto. To now stake the safety of the West upon pre-emptive nuclear attack rather than endure the constant sniping of the Left exposes the full bankruptcy of the "pacifist" position. This alternative may take the world to the brink of a catastrophe. One wonders whether any NATO majority will have sufficient confidence in their intelligence agencies to order a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the basis of a warning. In all probability they will not. What will likely happen is that the West will be left waiting for the descent of the first nuclear blow in order to generate the political capital to strike back, and then in the only way they can -- with atomic fires -- in place of the men who could not be mustered to defend it under the galling fire of their critics. Having refused to fight limited wars to preserve the peace, the West may now be left with threatening global catastrophe to preserve itself. The price of appeasement has always been high.

As is typical with the thoughtless, brainless and mindless posturing of the left--particularly it's lunatic antiwar wing--the situation is precarious for the proponents of liberty and democracy. Blind to everything but their own narcissism, in which they revel, the left will continue to blame the policies of the Bush Administration and completely fail to appreciate how they, themselves, have totally undermined the ability of the West to be able to defeat the threat that it faces. Their "constant sniping" has not only made usually reasonable people nervously ambivalent about even the worth of Western values; it has vastly emboldened the enemy and given them the audacity of hope that their anti-human policies may be able to prevail.

These fanatics know, that with the Democrats and their leftist base in charge in the U.S., they can easily wait us out and watch the last remnants of our resolve crumble to dust. The Islamofascist's singleness of purpose (and make no mistake, their purpose is enslavement to their ideology or death) will ultimately overcome our ambivalence and tepid responses to their atrocities. They are certain we will become too fatigued to deal with them, and thus they will win by default.

In this sense of superiority and single-mindedness, they aren't much different from their allies (whether they are conscious or unconscious about it) on the political left.

But, the left doesn't care about the fanatics that want to destroy us (Hey! After all, these jihadists represent the pure and perfect revolutionaries that the left has always dreamed of ! ) because they are far too wrapped up in their postmodern marxist narcissism and the histrionic nihilism that it engenders. As one of their own once said, "In the long-run, we're all dead."

And, while there is certainly truth to that rather useless and dead-end observation; I, for one, would prefer to die a free woman; knowing that my daughter has inherited a world where life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the highest values and where "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

As Wretchard says, the catastrophic consequences of the left's appeasement and the way they have tied the hands of those who would defend freedom and democracy, are almost too painful to contemplate.


This is exactly the sort of racist, sexist BS we've come to expect from the political left these days and which we discussed last night on The Sanity Squad podcast. It's no wonder people are getting fed up with this stuff, since the underlying assumption is that they can only vote on the basis of their skin color or ovaries. Brains are clearly optional for Democrats.

For those who haven't got a clue, this is both racist and sexist; and the Democrats are finally having to deal with the bitter fruit of "identity politics". Beneath the incessant appeals to the racist and sexist proclivities of the average human lies the stark nakedness of the victimhood ideology that has motivated the bankrupt left for decades.

We were mistaken in the 90's when we thought we had won the cold war against the communists.....The same Marxist dialectic crap is now being played out in the Democratic primary. Which "oppressed" group will triumph over the other oppressed groups and go on to be oppressed by the evil Republicans, I wonder? There exists a heirarchy that determines whose victimhood is more worthy (I refer to it as the "socialist food chain" here). Will it be Obama or Clinton? Or, perhaps the pandering Edwards, who, while the low man on the victimhood totempole, is trying to suck up to both groups at the same time.

Isn't it time we finally showed this ideological nonsense the door and slammed it shut? We have a chance to not only finally put an end to the kind of racial and gender discrimination that only divides us and keeps us in perpetual victimhood; we have the chance of truly renouncing the vile communist and socialist ideas that suck the freedom and dignity out of all of us.

In fact, we can drive a nail in communism's coffin once and for all by killing off this communism/socialism-lite being actively promulgated by the political left, hiding behind the skirts of the once proud Democrats. Reject the modern Democratic Party which has become the repository of the same old, tired cliches of the leftist/marxist manifesto. Reject identity politics... and vote with your brain.


Monday, January 21, 2008


Tonight's topics will include the treatment of American soldiers by the political left and right--victim, villain, or hero? Also we'll talk about the view of the military as it is portrayed in the MSM; and finally (can we help it?) we'll discuss the latest in the Presidential primary circus!

Join Siggy, ShrinkWrapped, Neo, and me for some psychological and political analysis that's sure to be provocative and, hopefully, annoying.

Click below to listen live at 8 PM tonight:

CALL-IN Number during show is (646) 716-9116


Which cartoon character are you? (hat tip: Oh Bloody Hell)

My results:

You are Tweety.
You are cute, and everyone loves you.

You are a best friend that no one takes the chance of losing.
You never hurt feelings and seldom have your own feelings hurt.
Life is a breeze. You are witty, and calm most of the time.
Just keep clear of back stabbers, and you are worry-free.

Don't know how accurate that is [LOLOL!]; but that last part about back stabbers (i.e., certain puddy tats) is rather hard to accomplish!


Piet Hein, whose works I admired quite a bit (but who is no longer in print--see here), once wrote the following 'grook':


Whenever you're called on to make up your mind,
and you're hampered by not having any,
the best way to solve the dilemma, you'll find,
is simply by spinning a penny.
No -- not so that chance shall decide the affair
while you're passively standing there moping;
but the moment the penny is up in the air,
you suddenly know what you're hoping.

We have just finished spinning pennies in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina and I finally had a an epiphany, just as the poem suggests. I have been moping around trying to figure out if there's anyone I could support on the Republican side of the aisle, since, as usual, I find the Democratic candidates complete disasters. I have spent literally hours looking at each candidate's website and listening to various ads, etc--trying to cut through the jungle of inaccurate reporting and MSM (and candidate) 'spin'; and then, quite suddenly, after Michigan and North Carolina, I realized what I'm hoping:

Thompson and/or Guiliani.

Either one, or both, on a Republican ticket. I simply can't get into supporting either McCain or Romney with any degree of enthusiasm; and as for Huckabee, if I wanted a populist charlatan, I'd vote for Edwards, who's even better at that sort of thing.

Now, if only other conservatives follow Hein's psychological tip (or Roger Simon's, for that matter) we should all come to appreciate what we're hoping by Super Duper Tuesday.

Sunday, January 20, 2008


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. The new lepers? A f**king brilliant response to the Times' insanity.

2. Palestinians escalate; the UN springs into action. We already have a pretty good idea what they will do. HE had a rough day? Oy.

3. Islamic family values: a visit to the family self-mutilation store. Islamic cultural values....And then there are Islamic cars. Yes, I know; it's very culturally insensitive of me.

4. The problem is no candidate today even comes close to him. Though he's not Reagan by any stretch, Bush definitely rocks in the freedom and vision areas.

5. Let his people go?? Rather grandiose.The care and feeding of autocrats and tyrants . So, this explains why they are sooooo prosperous!

6. Proof that Siggy has class!

7. It's ok, they're liberals so they can get away with it. In fact, anything goes. Everything you need to know about the way she will reign. Los tres amigos! A year of spoofs!

8. Is black the new teflon? Or, is it the X-chromosome that is? But that's what happens when identity politics is the name of the game.

9. As long as the war on terror is a 'bumper sticker' then it's ok! In this campaign we won't have Unity08 to kick around anymore, that's for sure. Answer this question and you will know your candidate.

10. Our survey shows the worst polluters are....... Hah! 35 inconvenient truths

11. "Multiculturalism is Canada's gift to the world"??? where can we find the gift return department? The problem can be left for tomorrow....or so the morons think. Wait till the joke police come for them. Now that will be really funny.

12. Little known facts about that monster of political incorrectness, Ezra Levant.

13. Pink ladies are soooooo blue these days. Now this is grossly sexist--and funny.

14. While we're at it, how about recognizing privacy in the back seat of a car, too?

15. Probably the worse military recruitment ad in history....

16. Stupid there any other kind? Maybe they, too, can appeal to a kangaroo court? Because, they're just dirty rats...of unusual size.

17. Shouldn't they have seen this coming?

18. Hmmmm. The native Americans' revenge on those disease-ridden Europeans?

19. The meanest mom in the world...fabulous.

20. The "new" list of tired, old blogging cliches. Please. Don't. Stimulate. Us.

21. The cost of going bald.

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, January 19, 2008


Norman Podhoretz makes the case for why military action against Iran should still be an option:

Whatever else one might say about the new NIE, one point can be made with “high confidence”: that by leading with the sensational news that Iran had suspended its nuclear-weapons program in 2003, its authors ensured that their entire document would be interpreted as meaning that there was no longer anything to worry about. Of course, being experienced bureaucrats, they took care to protect themselves from this very accusation. For example, after dropping their own bomb on the fear that Iran was hell-bent on getting the bomb, they immediately added “with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons.” But as they must have expected, scarcely anyone paid attention to this caveat....

Since only an expert could grasp the significance of this cunning little masterpiece of incomprehensible jargon, the damage had been done by the time its dishonesty was exposed.

The first such exposure came from John Bolton, who before becoming our ambassador to the UN had served as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, with a special responsibility for preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Donning this hat once again, Bolton charged that the dishonesty of the footnote lay most egregiously in the sharp distinction it drew between military and civilian programs. For, he said,
the enrichment of uranium, which all agree Iran is continuing, is critical to civilian and military uses [emphasis added]. Indeed, it has always been Iran’s “civilian” program that posed the main risk of a nuclear “breakout.”

Thus, as Lincy and Milhollin went on to write, the main point obfuscated by the footnote was that once Iran accumulated a stockpile of the kind of uranium fit for civilian use, it would “in a matter of months” be able “to convert that uranium . . . to weapons grade.”

...[T]he new NIE, which executed another 180-degree turn—this one, away from the judgment of the 2005 NIE concerning the ineffectiveness of international pressure. Flatly contradicting its “high confidence” in 2005 that Iran was forging ahead “despite its international obligations and international pressure,” the new NIE concluded that the nuclear-weapons program had been halted in 2003 “primarily in response to international pressure.” This indicated that “Tehran’s decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs.”

Never mind that no international pressure to speak of was being exerted on Iran in 2003, and that at that point the mullahs were more likely acting out of fear that the Americans, having just invaded Iraq, might come after them next. Never mind, too, that religious and/or ideological passions, which the new NIE pointedly neglected to mention, have over and over again throughout history proved themselves a more powerful driving force than any “cost-benefit approach.” Blithely sweeping aside such considerations, the new NIE was confident that just as the carrot-and-stick approach had allegedly sufficed in the past, so it would suffice in the future to “prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear-weapons program.”

The worldview implicit here has been described by Richelson (mainly with North Korea in mind) as the idea that “moral suasion and sustained bargaining are the proven mechanisms of nuclear restraint.” Such a worldview “may be ill-equipped,” he observes delicately,
to accept the idea that certain regimes are incorrigible and negotiate only as a stalling tactic until they have attained a nuclear capability against the United States and other nations that might act against their nuclear programs.

True, the new NIE did at least acknowledge that it would not be easy to induce Iran to extend the halt, “given the linkage many within the leadership probably see between nuclear-weapons development and Iran’s key national-security and foreign-policy objectives.” But it still put its money on a
combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways.
It was this pronouncement, and a few others like it, that gave Stephen Hadley “grounds for hope that the problem can be solved diplomatically.” But that it was a false hope was demonstrated by the NIE itself. For if Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons in order to achieve its “key national-security and foreign-policy objectives,” and if those objectives explicitly included (for a start) hegemony in the Middle East and the destruction of the state of Israel, what possible “opportunities” could Tehran be offered to achieve them “in other ways”?

Podhoretz realizes, after a debate with a junior colleague:

So little did any of this shake my opponent that I came away from our debate with the grim realization that the President’s continued insistence on the dangers posed by an Iranian bomb would more and more fall on deaf ears—ears that would soon be made even deafer by the new NIE’s assurance that Iran was no longer hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons after all. There might be two different ideas competing here—one, that we could live with an Iranian bomb; the other, that there would be no Iranian bomb to live with—but the widespread acceptance of either would not only preclude the military option but would sooner or later put an end even to the effort to stop the mullahs by nonmilitary means.

It is invaluable to read the entire piece, because Podhoretz lays forth with chilling accuracy the manner in which determined psychological denial and unwillingness to face reality--that regimes like Iran and North Korea don't play by the rules of civilized societies--directly lead to embracing false hopes that blithely put millions of lives at risk.

Psychological denial about the consequences of nuclear weapons in the hands of fanatical regimes which could ultimately lead to wholesale slaughter and destruction on a grand scale, is bad enough; but when that denial is also used to 'make nice' with those same incorrigible and psychpathic regimes, while pretending they are simply 'misunderstood', it surpasses even the usual level of psychopathology and willful blindness.

I don't know why I am surprised at the degree of denial that resulted after the release of both the 2003 and the 2005 NIE. I see this sort of thing on an individual basis all the time. But when you witness a delusion of such magnitude afflicting a vast number of people in a nation like the U.S., you hope against hope that grown-up people would exhibit more sense.

Sadly, though, such primitive psychological defenses are highly contagious; and susceptible ideologies are highly vulnerable to delusional thinking for their maintenance. Like mass hysteria, this sort of group phenomenon is a reflection of severe group anxiety and an attempt to cope with a sense of ideological inadequacy to effectively deal with a reality that is too frightening to contemplate.

In a post titled Insight vs Self-Delusion, I wrote:

Many paths can be taken to reach self-delusion, i.e., a denial of reality. Each individual will embrace the psychological denial--through projection, paranoia, displacement or any one of a number of strategies-- for their own personal reasons; even when the delusion or distortion of reality is a shared one (e.g., the striking phenomenon called "Bush Derangement Syndrome"; or any of the bizarre conspiracy theories about 9/11).

But there is only one path that leads to insight and self-awareness and it is directly through the individual's distortions and lies; and straight to the heart of his or her most cherished beliefs about himself and the world. If he can look at those beliefs and face himself and his own motivations squarely and honestly; and then reconcile them to the painful reality and truth he observes in the outside world; he is surely on that one path that leads to personal growth and self-discovery.

OTOH, if he never is willing to look in the mirror or question his beliefs; if he believes himself to be both intellectually and morally superior and that it is unnecessary to question his own motivations; then he is on one of the many paths that will take him to the wonderful world of denial.

Insight is an amazing thing. The power or act of seeing into a situation and apprehending the inner nature or motivation of one's self--especially the why--can be extremely liberating; or, it can be extremely painful--sometimes both. But, only when a person becomes aware of the his own hidden agenda and his inner motivations can he begin to gain control over them and correct any dysfunctional behavior that they generate....

Typically, the insight gained from self-analysis is able to free a person from a life of bitterness, unhappiness and unearned guilt (see here, for example)....

By making the unconscious conscious, we gain control over our lives and are able to make choices and attack problems based on a clear view of reality. Yes, we may make the wrong choice, or screw up in dealing with the problem even so; we may even discover some unpleasant truths about ourself. But when our psychological defenses are distorting or obscuring reality to begin with, we are far more likely to ignore a problem or pretend that it doesn't exist and then suffer even more serious consequences.

The only sensible thing to do after contemplating the two diametrically opposed NIE reports is to (1) realize the limitations of this sort of intelligence to begin with; and (2) conclude that our intelligence community needs a vast overhaul and 'de-politicalization' before it can be trusted in any of its assessments.

This should have been done after its failure to alert us to the possibility of 9/11; and if necessary, drastic steps should have been taken to fix the problem; because something clearly remains broken 6 years later. The 2005 report is practically useless as a measure of reality; and instead,seems only to be a barometer that measures the direction and intensity of current internal political winds.

In point of fact, it would be downright dangerous to rely on the wild swings of politicized 'intelligence' (deja vu all over again) that is closer to a manic-depressive cycle than it is to an intelligent "analysis" of the situation.

The NY Times the other day decried attempts to "tie the [future] President's hands". Of course, they didn't mean it like I am suggesting; but nevertheless, they are entirely correct. Any analysis that limits our options to deal with a potentially lethal, dynamic and unstable (not to mention ambiguous) situation should be identified for what it is: a failure.

Thw whole purpose of accumulating intelligence of this sort is to expand the options available to us, not limit them; and not to tie the hands of the very people whose job it is to protect this country from future 9/11's.

By emphasizing "false hopes" that Iran is motivated by common sense-- and not religious fanatacism; and by overly encouraging a pollyannaish, feel-good psychological denial, the recent celebration of the 2005 NIE in the media and by the left--precisely because it ties the hands of the President and the military-- has done great harm and placed all of us at risk from what are arguably the most incorrigible and deadly regimes in history.

Take a bracing dose of Norman Podhoretz, and call me in the morning.

UPDATE: To see a recent series of interviews with Podhoretz on this topic, go here; and, if you have not read his book, click on the link below.