Thursday, September 16, 2010

2010 IS THE NEW 1984

Glenn Reynolds writes:
WAIT, I THOUGHT THE BIG THREAT WAS “CHRISTIANISTS:” Molly Norris, the “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” cartoonist, is “going ghost.” “There’s a big Metafilter thread about it, which I’m reading after writing that. A surprising number of people are blaming Norris for bringing the death threats on herself.”

Blaming the victim is what people do, when they’re scared and don’t want to do anything about what’s scaring them.

Meanwhile, David French at The Corner discusses "The Beheaders' Veto"- the new constitutional 'right' recognized by a certain Supreme Court Justice:
In response to Justice Breyer’s comments that Koran-burning may be likened to yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, I’d like to indulge in a bit of dime-store psychology

Typically, American hecklers will merely shout down speakers, throw pies at them, issue largely empty threats, and vandalize. True political violence is (thankfully) quite rare. Consequently, when courts condemn the “heckler’s veto,” they’re simply codifying constitutional common sense. How can your speech be free if petty disruptions can silence you? Why not use law enforcement to protect free speech?

The violence from Islamic radicals, on the other hand, shocks the conscience. Thousands rioting? Dozens dying? Beheadings? Torture? This level of violence is terrifying. It’s orders of magnitude beyond heckling. The manageable heckler’s veto becomes the unmanageable beheader’s veto, and judges have trouble formulating a response that protects speech and human life.

But here’s the sad reality: The violence exists no matter what we do (or don’t) say.

Indeed. And these two posts expose the kind of shoddy thinking indulged in by the postmodern political left. Let's take Michael Moron Moore, as a typical example of the shoddy thinking (as discussed by Jay Nordlinger Jay Nordlinger):
Michael Moore is all for the Ground Zero Mosque. More than that, he would like to see the mosque on Ground Zero, not just next to it. I mention this in Impromptus today. What I do not mention — and add here — is that Joe Klein of Time magazine takes the same position. Last month, he wrote, “I am, admittedly, a bit radical on this subject: I think Ground Zero itself — not a building two blocks away — would be a terrific site for a mosque, as a demonstration of American freedom, one of the truly superior qualities our nation offers the world.”

As I say in my column, why not a mosque on the Pennsylvania field? And maybe we could do something about the Pentagon?

This debate long ago got very weird. For one thing, support of the Ground Zero Mosque has become a test of patriotism and Americanism: If you object to the mosque, you must hate James Madison, the Liberty Bell, and Betsy Ross.

Klein wrote, “. . . you don’t have to agree with me. . . . You just have to like the Constitution. I love it.”

Yeah, yeah: Well, as a Constitution-hater, let me say that there’s a heavy dose of McCarthyism in the rhetoric of the Left, particularly as the Left speaks about the mosque....

The thread that runs through all these links is, as two of them directly mention, a certain deranged psychology that impairs the rational faculty. Interesting, isn't it, that those who are blaming Molly Norris, or the NJ Transit Worker who was fired for burning a Koran in his spare time; or who are accusing those opposed to the GZM of 'hating the Constitution' all seem to be completely ignoring the real problem?

Let's see if we can identify the real problem:

ITEM: Cartoonist goes 'ghost' because of threats from the peaceful followers of Islam

ITEM: Supreme Court Justice thinks constitution protects peaceful followers of Isam who might get violent because someone somewhere burns Koran

ITEM: Michael Moore thinks that we should erect a monument to the peaceful followers of Islam on the site where the peaceful followers of Islam killed thousands of American and destroyed two symbols of America; and that anyone who opposes such an idea must hates the US Constitution.

ITEM: The NJ Transit Authority fires a man because he burned the holy book of the peaceful followers of Islam.

Gee. What could be the common thread in all this?

In every case, the so-called 'peaceful followers of Islam' meme trumps the constitutional right to freedom of speech.

So, who are the ones making a mockery of the U.S. Constitution? Who are the ones who are and have been grotesquely violent? In every case, the postmodern political left has displaced a rational fear of the so-called 'peaceful followers of Islam' and instead have chosen to irrationally fear the actions of the "everyone draw Mohammed' cartoonist; they retaliate against someone who burns a book he doesn't like; and they insist that people who oppose the building of a mosque on sacred ground are haters of the Constitution.

All these actions indicate a combination of psychological displacement and psychological projection. These are two defense mechanisms that I have discussed many times before in this blog; and when used, they tend to distort rational thought and make reason and truth go through wierd contortions so as to allay the defender's intense anxiety.

In displacement, fear of something truly frightening is displaced onto a less frightening alternate: i.e., you blame a victim of violence (or threat of violence) instead of those who actually are violent or who threaten violence.

In projection, you take your own unacceptable or irrational feelings and project them onto someone else; i.e., you are busy shredding and trampling on the Constitution yourself by limiting others' freedom of speech, but you accuse them of it.

As Reynolds suggests, people do this sort of thing because they are afraid of something and they don't want to do anything about it. I would suggest that they do these sorts of things because their behavior is completely consistent with the bizarre and distorted view of reality promulgated by their ideology.


- 1984, George Orwell

No comments: