Chrenkoff Scoops the Media--Again

From Chrenkoff:
Our special correspondent and translator Haider Ajina wants you to know about a new opinion poll from Iraq. It was published in the April 18 edition of Iraqi Arabic newspaper "Almidhar". 778 Baghdadis were asked:

"Do you support the pull out of foreign troops?

"At once - 12.56%

"According to a future timetable - 81.80%

"Do not know - 5.64%

"Has the security situation improved since the start of the new government?

"Yes - 55%

"No - 35%

"No change - 10%"

Go read the rest of what Haider Adjina says in the Chrenkoff post.

I believe I failed to see this important poll and story in my newspaper. Obviously Chrenkoff scooped them and it will soon show up. Yeah, right.

God Bless

Apparently some people are extremely disappointed that the new Pope will be Catholic. Some are concerned because he is too old..

I'm waiting for the forthcoming comparisons with John Bolton and Tom DeLay. Especially since Pope Benedict XVI is pretty direct about what he believes (and is referred to as the "hammer" just like DeLay!); and in questioning the moral relativism of the world. He even sort of looks like Bolton, but without the mustache. So we're likely to hear some unkind remarks about his appearance anyday now from the gurus of the fashion elite. And even more about how blunt, hardline, and uncompromising he is. Some are even saying that he will alienate people from the Church, but I don't see it. What is more likely to alienate is giving into the attraction of the "popular" and embracing indiscriminantly what is modern, simply because it is modern. I don't think he will do that. He is the leader of the Catholic Church, after all. Not some political party trying to get elected.

God bless him.

Common Sense About the UN

I just noticed this column by Victor Davis Hanson , who wonders if it may not be time for the UN to make a radical change:

Well, here we are in 2005 with nearly 60 years of the U.N.—and more people have been lost in wars since 1945 than during World War II itself. Americans now distrust the U.N.'s record as much as they might applaud its idealism in theory. Why?

A half-century of Soviet bloc politics poisoned the body. Dictatorships that had killed millions of their own won an equal say to many Western democracies. Third-World countries were silent about the 80 million butchered by Stalin and Mao—and the millions more lost in tribal and religious wars in Africa and Asia.

Instead, over 400 U.N. resolutions gratuitously targeted tiny democratic Israel—without equal condemnation of its autocratic neighbors or commensurate concern for China's annexation of Tibet or Russia's absorption of the disputed Sakhalin Islands.

The terrorist Yasser Arafat addressed the General Assembly with a holster—to applause. Autocratic Cuba, Iran, Libya and Syria sat on or even chaired the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. U.N. blue helmets could not do anything to save innocent millions in Cambodia, Rwanda, the Balkans and Darfur.

Elected governments replaced autocrats in Panama, Nicaragua, Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq only because of American action—not U.N. resolutions. The multibillion-dollar Oil-for-Food disgrace dwarfs the Enron mess but shares the same symptoms of influence peddling, shredded documents and funny insider accounting.

Any council is only as good as its membership; thus allowing a Sudan, Cuba, Iran or North Korea into the General Assembly de facto gave them as much legitimacy as a democratic Brazil, Holland or South Africa.

If the United States nearly 150 years ago fought a war to end slavery, why does the U.N. still welcome in a country like Sudan that will not? Many delegates vote only when they come to the U.N. They would never offer their own people the same rights that their spokesmen take for granted in New York.

Read the entire post and its proposal about where to move the UN. I certainly have my own ideas as to where it can go.

The Power of Victimhood

New Sisyphus has a great post on the culture of victimhood and its implications for winning the war on Islamofascism. First he discusses the victimhood culture:

As Shelby Steele has so eloquently written about, one horrific side effect of the otherwise righteous movement for civil rights and black emancipation in the late 1950’s to the late 1960’s was conditioning the wider population to view victimization as a claim to moral authority and, through that authority, political power.

The result has been an ever-expanding culture of victimization, where every small interest pressure group fights to prove and establish facts that lay claim to its special victimization, its unique suffering, as a means to power. Environmentalists focus on the harm done to our forests, feminists on rape, homosexuals on hate crimes, and child advocates on child abuse. Only by demonstrating that the wider culture—consciously or unconsciously—has victimized the target group can that group lay claim to the power of modern liberal guilt; and, through that guilt, legislation designed to promote or protect that group’s perceived interests.

The phenomena is so wide-spread, so common now, as to not require much in the way of illustration; any observer of the modern political scene knows all too well the horrible power of victim’s groups. After all, who can stand against them? Do so and you’re a horrible person who cares nothing for the suffering of these poor people. And so it goes, in an ever-increasingly ridiculous circus of victimhood.

Now, turning to the War on Terror and Islamofascism, we find that there is a REAL victim of oppression by our enemies:

As we have pointed out before, one of the advantages we in the anti-Islamist camp possess is that the Islamists, like the National Socialists before them, are so in love with their ideology that they are loathe to hide it. Instead, they shout it from the rooftops for all to hear: the goal is an Islamic world-state in which clerics of Islam will rule, Islamic law will be the only law recognized, people of other faiths will convert or pay heavy taxes in tribute and where a woman’s every move, every public and private act, will be the target of the most intrusive body of laws and regulations ever imposed on human beings.

Muslim leaders take no steps to hide these goals. For example, just today the indispensable Tim Blair forwarded a report of a speech by an Australian Muslim leader in which he said:

“Every minute in the world a woman is raped, and she has no one to blame but herself, for she has displayed her beauty to the whole world. Strapless, backless, sleeveless - they are nothing but satanical. Mini-skirts, tight jeans - all this to tease men and to appeal to (their) carnal nature."

Given the Islamist agenda, we anti-Islamists have a natural ally not only in approximately 51% of our own populations, but, incredibly, also in 51% of the enemy’s population. As recent elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention pro-democracy protests in the Islamic Republic, have recently proved, the Islamists have a huge, gaping weak spot, and it has double X chromosomes. Statements like the above cannot help but contrast the diffent deal being offered women by liberal democracy and Islamism.

YES! YES! YES! As I have pointed out many times in this blog, I believe that the key to winning the war on Islamofascism is Women's Rights. As New Sisyphus points out, the Islamists are so in love with their ideology, they regularly trot out women (whether under their own free will or not is a separate question)to advocate for the most atrocious laws and behavior towards women.

If the International Women's Movement were all it's cracked up to be, they would be shouting about this at the top of their lungs. There would be demonstrations by millions of women all over the world in support of freedom for their enslaved sisters.

Unfortunately, the Women's Movement is stuck on applying the vissictitudes of Marxist theory to their petty complaints; and deifying lunatics who preached male hatred; and are far too busy defaming people like Larry Summers (for having the temerity to suggest that males and females are...well different)to take much of an interest in advocating basic human freedoms for women unfortunate enough to be born in certain parts of the world.

Come on, ladies. LET'S ROLL!

Lost Civilization Found !

I studied Greek literature in college, taking several classes because I found it so fascinating. In my favorite class, the professor, who was Greek himself, would read to us in classical Greek as we followed along in English (the Richmond Lattimore translation of the Iliad has the Greek and English on opposing pages).

This is why my heart literally began to pound faster as I read this article. This is unbelievable, incredible, supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!! I can't think of enough superlatives to describe this:

For more than a century, it has caused excitement and frustration in equal measure - a collection of Greek and Roman writings so vast it could redraw the map of classical civilisation. If only it was legible.

Now, in a breakthrough described as the classical equivalent of finding the holy grail, Oxford University scientists have employed infra-red technology to open up the hoard, known as the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, and with it the prospect that hundreds of lost Greek comedies, tragedies and epic poems will soon be revealed.

In the past four days alone, Oxford's classicists have used it to make a series of astonishing discoveries, including writing by Sophocles, Euripides, Hesiod and other literary giants of the ancient world, lost for millennia. They even believe they are likely to find lost Christian gospels, the originals of which were written around the time of the earliest books of the New Testament.

The original papyrus documents, discovered in an ancient rubbish dump in central Egypt, are often meaningless to the naked eye - decayed, worm-eaten and blackened by the passage of time. But scientists using the new photographic technique, developed from satellite imaging, are bringing the original writing back into view. Academics have hailed it as a development which could lead to a 20 per cent increase in the number of great Greek and Roman works in existence. Some are even predicting a "second Renaissance".

Looking around the blogsphere, I note this response by Pejman Yousefzadah:
"OH GOD, OH GOD, OH GOD, OH GOD, OH GOD, OH GOD, OH GOD HOW WONDERFUL"
Exactly.

Narcissism and Society

All three parts of my essay "Narcissism and Society" are now posted.

PART I

PART II

PART III

Comments are welcome. I wrote it to stimulate discussion. It is by no means comprehensive, since in the interests of space I decided to leave out some discussion. My apologies for the use of psychiatric jargon. In all cases I tried to make sure that an appropriate definition of the term or phrase was made, but if you get confused, it is entirely my fault.

It is not my intention to claim that ALL behavior or ALL of the evil in the world is a result of Narcissism. What I do believe is that Kohut's Psychology of the Self might be able to help us understand our own proclivities and leanings in the sphere of human activity. The Self, as I have discussed it, is obviously a critical part of our essential human nature. And, as is pointed out in the essay, understanding human nature is essential for political, economic, and social institutions and theories to work in the real world.

It would indeed be grandiose of me to say that this synthesis is the end of the discussion--rather, I hope it will add to the discussion that has been ongoing for quite some time about the role of the individual in society.

Narcissism and Society - Part III

Part I is here.

Part II is here.

There is no predetermined time limit for the maturation and reintegration of the Grandiose Self and the Omnipotent Object into a Cohesive Self. For some people it can extend well into adulthood; and for some it is never achieved. For some, the inability to resolve either or both of the developmental lines will result in a full-blown Narcissistic Personality Disorder; others will form some kind of tentative balance between the two poles that is fragile and easily disrupted by events in his or her life or by relationships that reignite aspects of the Grandiose Self or the Omnipotent Object.

Many people never completely resolve all the tension between the two poles; thereby never reaching a fully Cohesive Self. While not Narcissistic Personality Disorders, such people have extremely dysfunctional narcissistic traits that continually interfere with their own and other’s lives.

FRAGMENTATION OF THE SELF

When the normal development of the Self is interrupted (i.e., the development of either the Grandiose Self earlier in life is disrupted; or that of the Idealized Parent later; or both are disrupted) for whatever reason, it results in what is called a fragmentation of the Self with concomitant Narcissistic Rage or Narcissistic Idealism/Awe -- or both.

Some of the typical expressions or symptoms of the fragmentation are:

(1) The Grandiose Self is dominant, and the individual exhibits:
• Continual claims for attention and admiration
• Cold and uncaring behavior toward others
• Sees others only as an extension of the Self to be manipulated and/or eliminated as needed; not able to relate to people as people or separate from oneself
• Grandiosity
• Hypochondria, or an obsession with individual body parts and illness

(2) When the Grandiose Self is repressed, the individual exhibits:
• Doubt in his abilities
• Low self-esteem and a sense of worthlessness
• Guilt –particularly if successful
• A feeling that one is not entitled to exist; or to be successful
• An erosion of ambition and personal desires

(3) When the Idealized or Omnipotent Object is dominant, the individual exhibits:
• Rigid adherence to a belief system/ Ideal
• Willingness to sacrifice people for the Ideal ("their own good")
• Others are seen as omnipotent and all-powerful or all-good
• Intolerance of mistakes
• Unforgiving of transgressions—especially those against the IDEAL
• Tendency not to acknowledge flaws in the IDEAL

(4) When the Idealized or Omnipotent Object is repressed, the individual exhibits:
• Cynicism
• Inability to believe in anything outside the Self,
• Vulnerability to “religious conversion” experience
• Tolerance of evil and a denigration of the value of human life

As I suggested previously, not everyone with a narcissistic injury to their Self presents to the Psychiatrist's office. Hypochondria is a common symptom of a defect in the Grandiose Self and can lead to frequent presentation to other physicians' offices (the bane of medical practice). Or, alternatively, excessive grandiosity, paranoia, and entitlement can land an individual in jail. Or, a need to find something, anything to believe in can lead to joining a cult or following a charismatic leader against their own long-term interests--even to blowing themselves and/or others to pieces for their particular god.

This leads (finally!) to some of the political and economic implications of Narcissism, a question that has interested me for many years.

POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS

All that has been written and discussed in Part I and II sets the stage for this analysis of politico-economic systems and the Self.

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.

Without a political or economic framework that is able to incorporate what we refer to as "human nature" into its calculations, all so-called "perfect" societies and ideologies will at best simply fail in the real world; and at worse cause untold human suffering. With the best of intentions (this is perhaps debatable), the social engineers of philosophy, political science, and economics have caused so much more slavery, misery and death on a grand scale--that the grandiose CEO's of the largest corporations can be considered mere pikers by comparison.

When we talk about the individual versus society; or the individual versus the state; or indeed any discussion of individual rights versus the rights of a group, we are also referring to the psychological tension between the two poles of the Self. Any political or economic system that expects to succeed in the real world will have to accommodate that tension, and find a way to optimally negotiate the needs of BOTH sides of the Self--that is, they will have to take into account human nature.

A perusal of any list of economic systems will demonstrate that ALMOST ALL OF THEM are relatively extreme expressions of the Idealized Parent Image/Omnipotent Object. Almost all emphasize the group, the community, the collective, the nation, the state, or god at the expense of the individual. Examples are numerous. Socialism and Communism; fascism and religious fundamentalism.

The major exception is Capitalism, where the individual and the individual's needs are emphasized over the the group. Anarcho-Capitalism is another example, and it differs from Capitalism by its extreme rejection of the Idealized Parent/Omnipotent Object.

There are two general types of political systems--Freedom-based (Libertarian) and Totalitarian-based (Authoritarian)--and everything in-between.

The diagram below hypothesizes how the essential aspects of two poles of the Self, will cause the individual to be attracted to the political and economic system that best expresses the developmental level of their Self.


NOTE: This diagram is by no means all-inclusive or exhaustive, and is only presented for the purposes of illustration and discussion.

The political and economic system that is optimally compatible with the Grandiose Self and the Idealized Parent; and which maximizes individual freedom, while acknowledging the needs of others...is Democratic Capitalism. When combined with Democracy and individual freedom, Capitalism will provide the greatest measure of happiness and well-being (by encouraging a Cohesive Self)for the greatest number of people. It allows for optimal expression of the Grandiose Self and limits (but does not suppress) it by the Rule of Law. And Democracy limits the power of the state also by the Rule of Law and by specific protection of minorities from the majority. The optimum advancement of each individual person will occur by securing for the individual the greatest amount of mental and physical freedom compatible with the general welfare.

The unique aspects of Democratic Capitalism are not shared by any other political, economic or religious system. To the extent that other systems permit capitalistic endeavors within a fundamentally authoritarian system (e.g., China), individuals will be somewhat better off. But it is still not the optimal combination that maximizes the expression of both sides of the Self.

The healthy individual cannot ignore the Idealized Parent side of the Self either. Many institutions exist to provide meaning and purpose in life. Religion is one of them, but not the only one. Psychological health and a Cohesive Self require this pole of Narcissism just as surely as it requires the Grandiose Side--otherwise even the Grandiose Self will eventually despair at the meaningless quality of his or her life. This is why so many ideologies that reject religion become "religions" for their (true)believers; and why logic and reason cannot sway them from their belief, or make them see the horrible consequences of forcing their IDEAL society on everyone.

There are undoubtedly more ramifications to be seen by the application of the Psychology of the Self to Society. I do not pretend to have all the answers, nor do I believe this analysis is perfect. Narcissism alone cannot explain all of human behavior, let alone all of the evil in the world. There are clearly other developmental lines besides Narcissism that a truly healthy individual must negotiate.

But having said that, I do think that Kohut's ideas have a peculiar resonance to modern society and the current state of the world. When I see the explosion of Liberty and the demands for freedom across the globe; it is as if hundreds of millions of people are suddenly able to express a side of their selves that had been ruthlessly suppressed.

There is a Star Trek episode from the original series that I have never forgotten (I know, I know--but everything I ever learned, I learned from Star Trek!). It is titled "The Enemy Within" and in the story, a transporter malfunction results in Captain Kirk being divided into two versions of himself. One side is grandiose, aggressive, capable, clever, ambitious, paranoid and brutal; the other is kind, sensitive, empathic, passive, and depressed. The personality mix that makes Kirk an effective and capable leader and a balanced man has been completely disrupted by this malfunction. The so-called "good" Kirk realizes that without his so-called "bad" side, he is unable to muster any enthusiasm for life, and cannot make decisions or function with any degree of effectiveness. The "bad" Kirk is only bad without the "good" side; and the "good" side cannot live without the "bad". To be fully functional, balanced and psychologically stable, Kirk must have both both versions of himself united.

And so do we all.

Narcissism and Society - Part II

Part I can be found here.

Part III can be found here.
In the first part of this series, I presented some basic information on the Psychology of the Self and discussed the development of a normal, healthy Self, which is referred to as a Cohesive Self. This is the goal of the two independent developmental lines: to recombine the Grandiose Self with the Idealized Parent Image (sometimes called the Omnipotent Object or the Idealized Object) in a way that permits the adult to feel worthy of existing; have ambition, confidence and self-esteem; as well as to be able to have ideals and meaning in his life; and to establish healthy relationships with other individuals.

What we call Narcissism is a normal part of every human being’s Self. Without Narcissism, we are unable to feel good about either ourselves or other people. In the healthy adult, the Grandiose Self is tamed and harnessed to an appropriate set of ideals and is capable of perceiving others as separate sources of action, thought, and feeling. All humans must undergo this process of maturation, the goal of which is the Cohesive Self.

THE COHESIVE SELF

The Self is developed from a complicated interaction between (1) inborn capability and genetic vulnerability – which will predispose one toward or away from psychopathology; and (2) the environment--particularly the interaction in early years with significant Others, who can either strengthen and support the developing Self of the child, or interfere with its optimal development.

I am not going to talk about genetics, biology or physiology in this essay. This does not mean I think such matters are unimportant. Clearly every psychological process has a biological correlate in the brain. We are born with a set of physiological and biological mechanisms which make us more or less able to be able to function in the world. These biological processes-- for good or ill-- form the basis of our temperament and predispose us toward or away from specific psychiatric disorders; and also influence the way we view the world. But while nature has an important role to play in how we come to view the world, the role of nurture must not be ignored either. And nurture plays a crucial role in determining how the Self develops—i.e., how the child comes to view him or herself in relation to the environment and to other selves. In the end, nurture has an impact on biology(nature), even as nature (biology)has an impact on it.

Basically the child has two (and possibly more) chances to develop a Cohesive Self. The two chances are represented by Mother and Father (or the equivalent) who can adequately respond to the infant’s early needs; as well as the child's needs up to adulthood. As the child matures the environment must provide him or her with two things: First, it must properly “mirror” or respond to him as a whole person--not just a conglomeration of parts; and give encouragement and praise. And second, the child must be permitted to idealize his parents and then slowly over time (and not all at once) grow to understand that they are imperfect, but still good (or “good enough”). This allows the child to keep his ideals but to be able to subject them to reality.

Problems for the individual and for society occur when remnants of the Grandiose Self or the Idealized Parent Image are not fully integrated into the Self and then emerge or re-awaken as an adult.

NARCISSISTIC RAGE AND NARCISSISTIC AWE/IDEALISM

These two processes are flip sides of the same coin. Both occur because of breakdowns in empathy between the child and the parent or environment. If these breakdowns are not resolved by adulthood, then the adult will continue to act them out.

Kohut’s second break with traditional psychoanalytic theory was his concept of Aggression. Rather than view Aggression as a “primary drive” as Freud conceptualized it, Kohut believed that Aggression with its concomitant rage and destructiveness was not something inherent in the child, but occurs as a result of a failure of empathy on the part of the child’s “SelfObjects”. SelfObjects arepeople or things that the child perceives as extensions of himself, without independent thoughts, feelings or actions.

In other words, Aggression can be thought of as a response of the incompletely integrated Self to the failure of the Mother/Environment to acknowledge his needs. When this happens the child--or adult-- explodes in “Narcissistic Rage”.

One could say that the entire psychological process of maturation is one in which the child is able to form a cohesive sense of himself AND at the same time appreciate the separateness of the Mother and Father --and by extension, all other people. When this process is achieved, true empathy and benevolence toward others is possible.

A second, but equally important reaction to the imperfection of the parents can be thought of as Narcissistic Awe or Narcissistic Idealism.

Basically Narcissistic Idealism is a compensatory mechanism (usually later in the child's development) when an idealized person (such as the Parent) fails to live up to expectations (which inevitably occurs). Not able to adequately deal with this truth, the Self immediately transfers its idealization to a new SelfObject. Rage is kept at bay by focusing on the new person/SelfObject who now receives the excessive awe or admiration withdrawn from the previous Object.

Every therapist has had the "pleasure" of being the recipient of both Narcissistic Rage and Narcissistic Awe and this situation is referred to as “splitting”. The patient either sees you as All Good or All Bad, but never as simply a good-enough person who makes mistakes. Indeed, every parent experiences this with the adolescent child who usually come to the realization that their parents are not perfect (surprise!). The adolescent then searches to find someone who can fill that empty need. These days, their idealization (idolization) falls onto icons of the popular culture--music or sports stars. Eventually they get over these kinds of infatuations as they further mature.

Narcissistic Awe in its extreme form can be expressed as bizarre mystical feelings; hyper-religious awe or hyper-religiosity in general; as obsessive love; as total immersion in a cult or belief system—all of these behaviors can compensate for the fear that one is forever separated from that “perfect” Other.

Remember, we are not talking about appropriate admiration for someone, but an over-idealization that essentially treats the person as a “god” rather than a typical human being with imperfections and flaws.

Neither Narcissistic Rage nor Idealization is able to accept the reality that people can have good and bad qualities co-existing inside them. Neither see other people as acting separately from their own wishes or desires.

The diagram below summarizes these processes:


Narcissistic Personality Disorder as a clinical syndrome will occur at the extremes. But points A, B, C, D in the diagram signify individuals who have narcissistic defects--either in the Grandiose Self or in the Idealized Parent Image, or both. These individuals function in the real world, but their behavior will alternate between the extremes of Rage and Awe; and they will have considerable turmoil in their relationships; their work; and in their sense of themselves.

Much of the evil that humans do to each other comes as a result of Narcissistic Rage and Narcissistic Idealism. In the former case, we hear about or know individuals who manipulate, control, subjugate, hurt or kill others and they are able to do this because they do not consider other people as human or separate from their own Self; or because they are so enraged they are not capable of empathy.

We see stories of this happening all the time on the news, frequently exclaiming, "How could someone do that?" The ex-boyfriend who cannot accept that the woman has dared to withdraw her love and so must kill her (and often himself); the serial killer who does not experience others as really human. The pedophile who abuses then murders his child victim. Every petty criminal who believes implicitly that his feelings and desires are paramount and justify his behavior.

The second type of evil is more subtle, and it comes from the the opposite side of the Self. This side also does not see other people as individuals either; and instead sees them only as fodder for the expression of an IDEAL or as pawns for an Omnipotent Object (e.g., a dictator). People with this Idealizing Narcissistic defect (and by the way, such people are also capable of Narcissistic Rage when thwarted) completely reject the needs of the individual and enslave him or her to their IDEAL. Eventually, the enslavement--whether religious or secular--snuffs out human ambition, confidence, energy and self-esteem. These "do-gooders" cause considerable human misery and their ideologies can lead to genocidal practices and unbelievable atrocities on a grand scale, all in the name of the IDEAL or GOD.

Or, as C.S. Lewis wrote:

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

In Part III, I will discuss the fragmentation of the Self that occurs when adult individuals with narcissistic vulnerabilities (i.e. , those who do not develop a fully Cohesive Self) and the political and social proclivities that our essential Narcissism stimulates .

Carnival of the Insanities

Time for the weekly insanity udate, where the insane, the bizarre, the ridiculous, and the completely absurd are highlighted for all to see! Be sure to send in your entries to the Carnival, which will be posted every Sunday. Entries need to be in by 8 pm on Saturday to make their way into the list that week.

1. This is a little hard to believe. (from Jeff at Beautiful Atrocities) I guess all of us obsessive brushers are doomed.

2. Searching for life on Earth. Good Luck.

3. Millions of tons?? See #2.

4. These bills get no respect.

5. This gives new meaning to the term "pot head". (scroll down to the end of the article)

6. There are some places in the world where going to prison may be the best thing that ever happened to you.

7. More breathtaking hypocrisy from the Secretary General. What else is new?

8. Maybe he just loathes someone other than himself, Bill? I wonder who? Do either of them believe in anything besides themselves?

9. Socialist scholars protest lack of democracy. About time.

10. Mother of the year.

11. Priceless.(hat tip: Release the Hounds)

12. Sodom and Scalia? Sigh...no one's ever allowed to disagree anymore.

12. the first Lego Church of Christ. No, really.

13. An example of academic scientific rigor. NOT. And here's a like example of journalistic integrity.

14. Cybercheating, cyberdetectives, and cyberangst.

15. The secret life of the Pope's shoes. Really interesting.

16. These protesters are all wet.

17. Anger management ...for bloggers perhaps?

Another Example of My Grandiosity...

I apologize that it has taken me so long to finish the Narcissism and Society essay. It has taken longer than I first imagined, and it has expanded a bit so that now there will be THREE parts! However, Part II and Part III will both be posted tomorrow afternoon after a final edit in the am.

I'm sorry that it has taken so long; I'm sorry that it became so long; and I'm sorry...well, let's just say that my grandiose side got the better of me [note to myself: isn't this entire blog a monument to my grandiose side?] and I foolishly imagined I would be able to finish it fairly quickly and with ease!

Part I is located here, if you haven't read it or want to check it out again.

Thanks for everyone's patience and encouragement. And thanks for the great discussion.

Taking Responsibility

From ShrinkWrapped, we get a wonderful post about Responsibility:

The Psychoanalyst interprets defenses (essentially to help people stop fooling themselves about their own mental processes) in order to bring into consciousness those motivating ideas and feelings that the person has been incapable of facing directly. As I have pointed out to patients on many occasions: When you do not know why you behave the way you do, or feel the way you feel, you can not change anything. It is only once you understand why you are feeling the way you feel and why you do the things you do, that you have the choice of changing the behavior that causes you, and others, grief. In brief, the goal of psychoanalysis is to enlarge the area of mental life, feelings and behavior, that a person can take conscious responsibility for.

(Please note there are many types of treatment that help people change behavior, that do not involve "making the unconscious conscious", but they are treatments with different, more modest, goals than Psychoanalysis, which aims for deeper structural alterations in the character. The differences lead to a long discussion, better suited for another time and place.)

I have never been fond of "Pop" Psychology. Typically, when media types write about psychology and try to use psychoanalytic concepts, they oversimplify to the point of meaninglessness and generally misuse the concepts they write about, often with a (probably unconscious) political and philosophical bias. The emblematic themes of modern liberalism, with their selective use of psychological concepts, are victimhood and externalization of responsibility. In so much of what has occurred in our culture over the last 40 years, the idea of "root causes" became an unquestioned assumption. The "root causes" invoked as explanatory and exculpatory all seemed to arise in the external culture and especially in "abuse" by the powerful (with "abuse" being defined by spokespeople for the designated victim classes), or in the person's biochemistry, over which he would, of course, have no control.

The outcome of much of this has been the novel theory of causation, which essentially says that man is a helpless creature, at the mercy of his surrounding society and internal psycho-physiology, and therefore cannot be held responsible for anything he does. The exception is that the wealthy and successful, whether individuals, companies, or nations, are responsible for all that goes wrong for the victim and for the world.

What a refreshing attitude! I know that I grow weary sometimes fighting the perception that somehow Psychiatry (of which Psychoanalysis is a part) encourages victimhood and decreases personal responsibility. ShrinkWrapped correctly asserts that this is a result of "pop" psychiatry and psychology, which over-simplifies and trivializes psychological processes. This same "pop" psychology has either glorified or demonized theorists like Freud, and have used watered down versions of hisand other's ideas to "prove" many ridiculous assertions. The entire societal attitude towards preserving a child's "Self-Esteem" at any expense is a perfect example.

Read the entire post!

Orwell in Academia

Jonah Goldberg on "The Darker Side of Quotas":

This confirms data from California and Texas that when racial preferences are lifted, whites don't gain much, but Asian admissions jump through the roof. At the University of Texas-Austin, when preferences were removed, Asian freshmen jumped to 18 percent in a state where Asians comprise only 3 percent of the population.

In other words, what is denied with Orwellian savoir-faire by defenders of the Diversity-Academia complex is just plain obvious to people who are not professionally or ideologically invested in denying the existence of the elephant in the corner: The diversity "racket" discriminates against some minorities for the benefit of other minorities.

At this point, most anti-quota tirades tend to follow fairly predictable lines about the merits of meritocracy, the "soft bigotry" of low expectations, etc. These are all important and worthy arguments. But I think the Asian-American example highlights a point that often gets lost: Diversity regimes would be unfair even if minority applicants were completely qualified.

Today, the debate over diversity is driven largely by the unavoidable fact that, on average, African-Americans and Hispanics are less academically qualified than whites and various other demographic groups. This was highlighted a few years ago during arguments over the University of Michigan Law School's quota system. Justice Antonin Scalia noted during oral arguments before the Supreme Court that the easiest way to increase diversity would be to lower the law school's standards. If diversity is "important enough to override the Constitution's prohibition of racial distribution, it seems to me it's important enough to override Michigan's desire to have a super-duper law school."

This is where the Orwellian savoir-faire tends to kick in. The school's lawyers, along with columnists such as The Washington Post's David Broder and countless others, insisted that increasing diversity never comes at the expense of quality.

Well, if the trade-off didn't exist, we wouldn't be having this debate. If there were a surplus of high SAT-scoring, straight-A blacks and Hispanics, no one would sue because they lost their slot to a less-qualified minority. The entire affirmative action controversy is predicated on the unavoidable fact that there is a greater demand for well-qualified blacks than there is a supply. Period.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
-George Orwell

Chutzpah

This article has some interesting history that I was not aware of: "Justice: For Arabs Only?" It discusses the Copts in Egypt—millions of them—who had their country overrun by conquering, settling, subjugating, and occupying Arabs; the Berber population of North Africa whose lands were overrun as well over the past centuries by conquering, settling, and subjugating Arab hordes creating Arab empires; and the brutal Arabization policies—Syrian settling, conquering, and occupying Arabs—employed against Kurds who predated them in the land by thousands of years.

Literally millions of native African Blacks have been butchered, maimed, enslaved, turned into refugees and seen their lands forcibly Arabized. All of this still going on today, and not just in the Sudan.

Half of Israel's almost six million Jews originated in the Arab/Muslim world. They too predated the Arabs in many of those lands that they were forced to flee as refugees, leaving far more property and valuables behind than Arabs who fled in the opposite direction after the latter's brethren invaded a reborn Israel in 1948.

The famous Jewish community in Alexandria, Egypt, was prominent centuries before Jesus. The Jews of Iraq had been in that country at least since the days of the Babylonian Captivity and Nebuchadnezzar. The Jews of Yemen were on the Arabian Peninsula before Muhammad was born, and the latter Prophet of Islam fled Mecca to Medina, a Jewish date palm oasis on that peninsula where the Jews were still prominent when Muhammad sought refuge there during the Hijra. When they would neither convert to his new faith (based largely on their own), nor accept his religio-political leadership, he butchered and enslaved them. Jews also took part in the resistance against the Arab imperial invasions of North Africa in the 7th century C.E. Recorded history, replete with similar instances, is difficult to reconcile with Amr Mussa's demand that the Jewish state submit to the will of the Arab world.

A better course for the Middle East might be the following:

It's time that the Africans of southern Sudan gain independence from the Arabs who have butchered, subjugated, and enslaved them over the centuries—long before the hypocrites in the United Nations raised so much as a mutter.

It's time for thirty million truly stateless people—such as the Kurds—to finally get their own state. They were promised one after World War I but saw it sacrificed at the altar of British petroleum politics and Arab nationalism. An Arab Iraq was pieced together in its stead.

Trusting Arabs—whether Shi'a or Sunni—is probably an unwise decision, given the track records of Arabs of any stripe towards these people. With almost two dozen states already—including one carved out of almost 80 percent of the original 1920 borders of "Palestine" and today called Jordan—Arabs now have an American-sponsored roadmap to help create yet another for themselves. Yet even as they demand justice for Arabs, they seem deaf, dumb, and blind to the plight of the Kurds.

Read the entire piece, which puts into historical perspective the Arab-Israeli conflict. I especially like the conclusion:

Jews have a word describing demands such as those made by Amr Musa. It's called chutzpah. Israel must have leaders who will respond to such so-called Arab prerequisites for "peace" by telling them where to stuff them.

What Media Bias?

Here's a headline: "US Has No Exit Strategy for Iraq, Rumsfeld Says". (hat tip: LGF) The headline was picked up here and here, for example. Note that the Indymedia piece (first link) conveniently places a large picture between the headline and the text.

Now, here's what Rumsfeld actually said (found in the second paragraph of the report):

"We don't have an exit strategy, we have a victory strategy,'' Rumsfeld told soldiers during a surprise visit to Baghdad, according to a pooled broadcast report from the capital. "The goal is to help the Iraqi Forces develop the skills and the capacity to provide their own security.'' (emphasis mine)

If this is not an example of bias, misdirection, deliberately misleading and complete and willful dedication to the political purpose of portraying everthing this administration does in the most negative light possible--I don't know what is.

Ok, I'm waiting to hear the usual apologist BS from the usual apologists for the incompetence and liberal bias of the media.

The Council Has Spoken !

The Watcher's Council has posted this week's winners over at the Watcher of Weasels.
This week there were some outstanding entries, so you should go and check all the winners out!

Here are the top posts in each category:

BEST COUNCIL POSTS:

1. China's Time Bombs The Glittering Eye

Not bad for his first week on the Council!

And, tied for 2nd place:

Is There Evidence of Life at NASA? Dr. Sanity

Indonesian Quakes Could Trigger Supervolcano Eruption Alpha Patriot

BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:

1. War With China: 2008 - 2010? The Redhunter

And ANOTHER tie for 2nd Place:

A Change in Tactics Terrorism Unveiled

Talabani, the Kurds, and the Jews Neo-neocon

There's a lot of good reading in all these posts, so be sure to check them out!

Toast

One last thing related to the UN for the day! From an email to The Corner:

Subject: News Flash re Bolton
I have it from a close source that Bolton once dismissed a subordinate with a raised open palmed hand and uttterd the word, `whatever’ in a snarky, Valley Girl sorta way.

Let’s hope the Times or the Post doesn't run this above the fold--the nomination will be toast.

Too funny.

Quaking In Their Boots

I'm certain that this action taken by the courageous UN will have the evil-doers quaking in their boots.


(above) Bravely Bold Sir robUN votes to outlaw nuclear terrorism.

DISCLOSURE***DISCLOSURE***DISCLOSURE
Some of you may notice that I am not happy when the UN does something (e.g., as noted in this post); and I am not happy when the UN doesn't do something (e.g., Darfur). I can't be pleased, you say! When it comes to the institution of the UN, you are absolutely correct!

When the UN actually does something--no matter how feeble, even like this example where they passed a resolution--all you have to do is just wait for the other shoe to fall. Soon they will be declaring that along with Israel, the United States meets their definition of being a "terrorist" and must unilaterally disarm. Just wait.

A New Proverb for the UN

"People who live in glass houses should be very, very afraid of Bulls..."


Cox and Forkum.

National Brotherhood Week - UN Version

U.N. Calls for Combating 'Defamation' of Islam: (hat tip: Free Thoughts)

The United Nations Commission on Human Rights called on Tuesday for combating defamation of religions, especially Islam, and condemned discrimination against Muslims in the West's war on terrorism.

The 53-member state forum adopted a resolution, presented by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), deploring the intensification of a "campaign of defamation" against Muslims following the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States.

Western countries, including the United States and European Union (EU), voted against the text, calling it unbalanced for failing to address problems suffered by other religious groups.

Putting aside the fact that this is a blatant attempt to limit freedom of speech, I wonder what the countries who voted for this would think of this or this or this ?

Personally, I think their resolution should be amended to combat any DELUSIONAL defamation of religions (as in the above examples, which I found in about 3 minutes). Islam is in continual state of psychotic delusion about Judaism. On the other hand, rational governments are appropriately concerned about Islam's obvious connection to international terrorism.

However, like all true Paranoids, the countries of Islam project their own psychopathology onto others, and then whine piteously about being persecuted.

And the United Nations feels their pain....

Personally, I can't wait for Bolton to be confirmed.

Oh, the white folks hate the black folks
And the black folks hate the white folks
To hate all but the right folks
Is an old established rule

But during National Brotherhood Week
National Brotherhood Week
Lena Horne and Sheriff Clark
Are dancing cheek to cheek
It's fun to eulogize
The people you despise
As long as you don't let 'em in your school

Oh, the poor folks hate the rich folks
And the rich folks hate the poor folks
All of my folks hate all of your folks
It's American as apple pie

But during National Brotherhood Week
National Brotherhood Week
New Yorkers love the Puerto Ricans
'Cause it's very chic
Step up and shake the hand
Of someone you can't stand
You can tolerate him if you try

Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics
And the Catholics hate the Protestants
And the Hindus hate the Moslems
And everybody hates the Jews

But during National Brotherhood Week
National Brotherhood Week
It's National Everyone-Smile-At-
One-Another-hood Week
Be nice to people who
Are inferior to you
It's only for a week, so have no fear
Be grateful that it doesn't last all year!- Tom Lehrer

Cats, Dogs, and Arab Women

From MEMRI:

Writing in Elaph.com on March 7, 2005 Saudi author Wajiha Al-Huweidar explained: "All of the Arab regimes are U.N. members and have ratified the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights, which clearly establishes justice and equality in the rights and obligations of all citizens. Despite this, women in our chauvinist countries are still considered the property of their relatives. All Arab countries, without exception, harbor covert animosity and open discrimination against women. To this day, all official bodies reject any scientific discussion of a solution to women's problems – while on the other hand the men, who benefit from women's oppression, continue to regurgitate [the mant r a] that 'women are respected' [in Arab and Muslim societies]…
"Arab countries' legislation patently discriminates against women and clearly denies their rights, which affronts them as human beings. They are still treated as though they contaminate purity, and arouse temptation and immorality. What is astounding is that most Arabs, at all levels and in every area – whether governments, institutions, or individuals – still consider women's issues a religious issue, and thus believe that her concerns should be dealt with through outdated chauvinist [religious] interpretations…

"An improvement in women's status will not come through invalid solutions which have been proven ineffectual. The laws grant female citizens only half a voice, diminish women's rights, classify them as having only partial sense, denigrate their importance, doubt their capabilities, permit beating and banishing them, permit their caging within four walls, allow their husbands to treat them as they see fit, and allow them to be bought and sold according to legal agreements. When women fail [in matters forbidden by religious law], the laws welcome their barbarous execution.

"These laws are clearly no longer suited to an era in which cats and dogs in the developed world have more rights than Arab women, and more even than those of Arab men…

Read the entire article for the views of several women scholars. One of the women quoted makes this observation which I found particularly pointed (scroll down in the article):

"The question that must be asked is what the Arab and Islamic countries have given women on their world day of celebration. I look beyond the horizon and see nothing. I see nothing but the tightening of the noose around the woman, to the point where she is prevented from owning her own face. [Her face] is the property of the man, and she must not uncover it. Of what modernization in women's issues can these countries speak, when the men of this world pass a law permitting the stoning of the woman [for violating religious convention], because she [harmed] man's honor? Has he any honor in the world of today?" (emphasis mine)

This is an important observation and cuts to the heart of the issue of women's rights in Arab and Islamic countries. I realize that I write fairly frequently about this issue (see here, here, here for example--and that is only in the last month!). That is because I think that it is one of the most important issues of our times, and must be addressed aggressively if we want to get to the psychological roots of terrorism and and end its dominance in those cultures.