Sunday, May 20, 2007

CARNIVAL OF THE INSANITIES

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

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

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

SO MANY INSANITIES AND SO LITTLE TIME!!!

1. What we must never acknowledge explicitly... It wouldn't be politically correct.

2. The Jewish Conspiracy is not what it used to be, obviously... except in Russia, where it is thriving. And, they're not the only ones bent on world domination...

3. OTOH, if they are plotting to make Muslims look bad, they don't have to do much work. How hard can that be? Muslims don't need any help in that endeavor (see #1 ).

4. Peace in our time? Yeah right. April Fool's in May more like.

5. They're just another poor victim group like at-risk children.

6. As long as there are socialists and communists in the world, the planet will never be short of idiots. Case in point. You wonder where they get their ideas from....

7. A holy book of violence and indecency?

8. Go here if you are one of those people who desire PUN-ishment. And, abandon hope all ye who enter here...

9. Powerful evidence of Bush's insanity. Uh-huh. Powerful evidence of Gore's insanity. No joke. What a horrible, destructive person this ex-President is. Perhaps it is dementia? Or just plain moral bankruptcy? Ahhh, he does provide a good laugh!

10. With enemies like this, who needs friends? Sigh.

11. Crying Wolfowitz? It takes an extraterrestrial to make complicated things simple, after the simple made them complicated.

12. What if your Daddy's a thief and your Mommy's a prostitute? What if your heroes are really the villians? No wonder your life flashes before your eyes... Meanwhile, some begin to "get it".

13. Bolton brilliantly bashes BBC Bias! Maybe they just don't have enough bandwidth at the Beeb?

14. The only good news about the 9/11 memorials? Truly pathetic. .

15. A very very happy meal.

16. A love affair for the ages....the friggin' Middle Ages.

17. Exploring the deep dark mysteries of...laundry. But it's the experience that counts!

18. A comet killed the cavemen?

19. Wholly crap.

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

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



Heard the Word of Blog?

Saturday, May 19, 2007

A RATIONAL FEAR OF ISLAM

Michael McBride says to call him an "Islamophob":

Phobia, as described by Webster... “an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation.”

Foxnews.com picked up on an Arab News story coming out of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) in Islamabad, Pakistan on Thursday that describes Islamaphobia as “the worst form of terrorism” and the OIC was asking for steps world wide to curb it.

The OIC describes Islamaphobia as the “deliberate defamation of Islam and discrimination and intolerance of Muslims.” The OIC alludes to Islamaphobia as a concern well before 9/11…“Islamophobia became a source of concern, especially after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, but the phenomenon was already there in Western societies in one form or the other…” They offer no specific examples.

I’ll be the first to acknowledge that the variety of the world’s non-Muslim countries cultures’ mix with Muslim culture like water and oil, but prior to 9/11; in spite of dozens of aircraft hijackings and the murders associated with many of them, in spite of the 1972 Olympics; in spite of the Achille Lauro (1985), in spite of the first WTC bombings (1993), in spite of the bombings of the Khobar Towers (1996), in spite of the indiscriminate killing of hundreds in the US Embassy bombings (1998), in spite of the USS Cole (2000), Muslims were able to live peacefully throughout the world without fear, harassment, nor threat of persecution.

In fact it is nearly impossible to directly associate any link between 9/11 and an increase in crimes against Muslims in the US. The best accounting I can find is here at religioustolerance.org, where the outrageous attacks on Muslims after 9/11 translates to 3 dead, one beaten, some threats made, and some property damaged.

[It] pales in comparison of the carnage that lies in the wake of motivated Muslims…twelve innocents dead in Munich, one innocent dead on the Achille Lauro and dumped into the sea, six dead and over 1000 injured in the first WTC bombing, twenty dead and 372 injured in the Khobar Towers bombings, over two hundred dead and 4000 injured in the US embassy bombings, seventeen dead in the USS Cole attack. Add in 2973 dead in the 9/11 attacks, 191 killed and 2050 injured in the Madrid bombings in 2004, Theo van Gogh murdered in the streets of Amsterdam 2004, fifty-two dead and 700 injured in the London bombings of July 2005, several killed and property damage worldwide in the aftermath of the Danish cartoon scandal of 2006. By my count that is nearly 3500 innocent people killed by those purporting to be believers in the religion “of peace.”

Sorry if I am more afraid of Muslims than I am of, let’s say, you run of the mill yokel who made some anti-Muslim remarks on 9/12. Those serving the Prophet have a much higher kill ratio than the Christians, the secularists, the atheists, the agnostics, the Jews, and the Wiccans combined.


In fact, being afraid of "the religion of peace" after the innumerable acts of violence, terror and depravity committed in the name of Allah is not exaggerated; not inexplicable; and most certainly not illogical.

What the OIC is exhibiting is a sort of meta-Islamophobia--an Islamophobicphobia, to be precise; or, as I would define it, " an exaggerated, usually inexplicable and illogical fear of mere criticism of Islam, as well as a pathological reluctance to hold it to account for the actions and behavior of its followers."

There is much written both in the Middle East and in the West about the proposition that Islam is "under siege" and that hatred of Islam is a rising concern. This has been repeated frequently particularly since the global war on terror (which actually is a global war on Islamic fanatiacism). Those who decry this reality are not only reluctant to admit that the wave of terror and irrational hatred sweeping the world is specifically associated with the religion of Islam; they simultaneously blame the victims of the terror and the objects of the irrational hatred as the one's responsible for its existence. Islam is given a free pass and the shouts of "God is Great" that precede the latest atrocity apparently have nothing to do with what is written in the Koran.

It is getting harder and harder to keep a straight face as the knee-jerk denial and sanctimonious utterings of organizations like CAIR and the OIC fill the news media on a daily basis.

Islamophobia? Anyone who by now has not realized that Islam has given carte blanche to the fanatics in its midst is either completely out of touch with reality, or living on another planet (e.g., planet Hollywood, or planet Marx).

Muslims in Europe claim they are justified in rejecting Western society for a variety of reasons:
(1) oppression;
(2) poverty;
(3) the Iraq War; and/or
(4) the institutionally "racist" culture of the West, which "forces" Muslims to accept the values of the countries they choose to imigrate to. Interestingly, Muslims seem to expect that those countries should be forced to abandon their own traditions and adopt Muslim values.

So, let me say for the record that I reject being labeled as "Islamophobic" utterly. Rather, I have a healthy, rational fear of a religion that aggressively seeks my submission or death. For most of my life, it seemed reasonable to ignore Islam.

I liked it that way.

If I had thought about Muslim values at all (and I didn't) it is likely that I would have been completely turned off to the religion, as opposed to being indifferent to it. I was mildly disgusted and appalled when examples of its rampant brutality were brought to my attention, but frankly, I never understood enough about the religion to place the responisibility for its adherents' behavior onto its teachings.

After 9/11 and becoming aware of organizations like Al Qaeda; ideologies like Wahhabism and its spread; and suddenly recognizing the Palestinian issue for the red herring it was, I could no longer permit myself to be ignorant of the core "Muslim values" they exemplified.

In an ideal world, I shouldn't even have to say it, but Islam has forced me to explicitly and loudly state that I absolutely, thoroughly and unequivocally reject Muslim values. What follows is not an exhaustive list, but let me touch on some of the highlights that form the basis of my rejection:

1. If we are going to talk about oppression, shall I begin with the ubiquitous institutionalized oppression and humiliation of women in Muslim society? Detractors claim that the Quran does not foster this attitude, but witness the devaluation of women; the sexual fear of women; the incarceration of women; the infantilization of women; the social marginalization of women, etc. etc.

2. The overt and institutionalized anti-semitism in Islam, that is frankly paranoid and of psychotic proportions.

3. The assumption of the victim role while actively victimizing other religious groups. This is the entire psychological manipulation involved in the cries of "Islamophobia !"

4. The hypocritical call for tolerance, while promoting intolerance and bigotry among its own adherents.

5. The glorification of death rather than life.

6. The fostering of mindless obedience and punishment of independent thinking.

7. The poverty of ideas and rational thought among its leaders.

8. The inability to condemn unequivocally the barbaric acts done in the name of Islam.

9. The fact that you would force your religion on me, if you could.

As I said, the list is not exhaustive. There are many more reasons why I have come to my intense rejection of this particular religion. As stated in a previous post::

I DON'T CARE ABOUT ISLAM except insofar that people of that faith want to destroy me, my family, my country and my way of life. For more than 50 years of my life, Islam and I got along famously. I completely ignored it; and praise be to Allah, it completely ignored me.

After September 11th, I could continue to live in a state of denial and ignorance about the fact that Islam had come to represent all the values that are incompatible with human life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Or, I could face reality and recognize Islam as a serious threat to all I hold dear and value in the world.

No; a rational, healthy fear of Islam's barbaric medievalism and its desire to subjugate the entire human race under the yoke of its god is perfectly appropriate and continually justified by the fanatical behavior of millions of Muslims everywhere on the planet.

This is not Islamophobia; this is common sense.

Friday, May 18, 2007

MARXIST SOCIAL NETWORKING

You thought I was making things up in this article? Or this , this and this one?

Check this out:

Making Marxism relevant in this post-Soviet age of terror might seem like the mother of all struggles, but organizers of a four-day "Festival of Resistance" in Toronto are trying hard to pull it off -- and they've cast their net as widely as possible to do it.

Rather than focus on the evils of capitalism, the unlikely top billing of the opening night of the festival was devoted to a discussion about building unity between Muslims and the left; the keynote speaker was the controversial Islamic thinker Zafar Bangash, director of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought, who is in the news these days because he is in the midst of a heated battle to open a mosque in Newmarket -- not because he wants to see a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Desperate for new brothers in arms, Marxism appears to be doing some serious social networking. If this weekend's series of workshops at the festival is any indication, Marxism has a disparate cadre these days: green activists, the anti-war movement, the transgendered, members of First Nations, traditional Islam.

Inclusiveness is the buzzword here, where the members of this hodge-podge gathering can be overheard calling each other brother and sister. Participants call this membership drive "building unity," a much-repeated mantra throughout the opening night. Self-proclaimed Marxist James Clark, who helped organize the event, said that while there are disparate groups in attendance, they can all still rally around a slogan like "Out of Afghanistan and into Kyoto."

Gatherings like the one this weekend at the University of Toronto are an attempt to get the party restarted. Let's face it: Das Kapital is not selling like hotcakes anymore...

"We're looking at a new beginning," said liberal thinker Stanley Aronowitz, Distinguished Professor of sociology at the Graduate Centre of the City University of New York.

"We're no longer based on the existence of nation states. We must reinvent ourselves."

None of this sounds very Marxist, does it?

Yes, actually, it does.

Multiculturalism, political correctness, and radical environmentalism represent the foundations of an evolving epistemological, ethical and political strategy that the socialist remnants in the world are using to prevent their ideology from entering the dustbin of history and to revive their failing socilist utopian dreams.

As I noted in yesterday's post, these dogmas have been widely disseminated and absorbed at all levels of Western culture in the last two decades and particularly since the end of the Cold War.

And, what is interesting is that, even as todays Marxists and assorted collectivists encourage and enable Islam with suicidal multiculturalism and political correctness (and give them a free pass on the environmental issues); the Islamofascists aid and abet them by legitimizing the use of violence and terror. We can basically thank the political left and their ideology for the rapid, unimpeded advance of the Islamic Jihad in the last two decades.

Wretchard, in a post titled Pyrrhic Victory, looks at the relationship the these 20th century Marxist/socialist/communist remnants are happily forging with the Islamic fanatics and notes that the Islamists are multiculturalism's:
...prime foe at the same time that it is multiculturalism's prime beneficiary. This curious relationship implies that in actuality multiculturalism is playing a losing game with itself; and that the eventual outcome of Western multiculturalism advancing side by side with a confident and ascendant Islam will not be multiculturalism at all but simply a form of Islamic society. The Brussels Journal sees this absurd result and explains that multicultural theorists, having lobotomized themselves have already forgotten their lobotomies.
I have heard individuals state point blank that even if Muslims become the majority in our countries in the future, this doesn’t matter because all people are equal and all cultures are just a mix of everything else, anyway. And since religions are just fairy-tales, replacing one fairy-tale, Christianity, with another fairy-tale, Islam, won’t make a big difference. All religions basically say that the same things in different ways.

But there is another dynamic which is perhaps worth exploring. The most disturbing consequence of accepting the analysis that multiculturalism is abetting the advance of a hostile non-Western culture is that it makes one hope, almost perversely, for the whole ludicrous enterprise to come a-cropper. A kind of wishing for the worst in order to better the situation. Conservatism acquires a mirror image of the bizarre relationship between multiculturalism and Islamism, only flipped. Conservatism is Islamism's main foe at the same that it is Islamism's greatest beneficiary. An almost absurd tableau has been set up where the more the Left pushes multiculturalism, the greater the benefit to radical Islam, while simultaneously the more the Left benefits radical Islam, the greater the benefit to conservatism.


The Marxist social networking at the "Festival of Resistance" in Toronto--a gathering that brought together all the losers of the last century--would be laughable if it weren't for the fact that these losers are the suicide bombers of Western civilization.

They are completely indifferent to the fact that they are forming an alliance with something that will destroy them, along with all those hated enemies who advocate freedom, individualism, capitalism, and globalization. What does that matter as long as they can eliminate once and for all the major impediment to their ideology?

And, their essential narcississtic grandiosity encourages them to belive that the homicidal fanatics they are embracing, enabling and networking with are just another special victim group they will get points for championing.

The inability to connect with reality; the ideological blindness for the consequences of their action; the suicidal pursuit of utopia--all this is absolutely typical of Marxism.

BAD PHILOSOPHY AND ITS IMPACT ON THE WEAK-MINDED




Thursday, May 17, 2007

THE EVOLUTION OF EDUCATION INTO INDOCTRINATION

Siggy has an astonishing series of quotes in his special edition of the Wednesday Weekly Whacky Awards that everyone should read. Scroll down to the Thomas Szaz Award and read what some of our "finest" educators and psychiatrists have said over the last 50 years about education. If you can make it though to the last quote, then you will begin to realize why K-12 education has evolved into K-12 indoctrination--indoctrination into the leftist mindset.

Here are just three examples:
“…a student attains ‘higher order thinking’ when he no longer believes in right or wrong“. “A large part of what we call good teaching is a teacher´s ability to obtain affective objectives by challenging the student’s fixed beliefs. …a large part of what we call teaching is that the teacher should be able to use education to reorganize a child’s thoughts, attitudes, and feelings.” - Benjamin Bloom, psychologist and educational theorist, in “Major Categories in the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives”, p. 185, 1956

“This is the idea where we drop subject matter and we drop Carnegie Unites (grading from A-F) and we just let students find their way, keeping them in school until they manifest the politically correct attitudes. You see, one of the effects of self-esteem (Values Clarification) programs is that you are no longer obliged to tell the truth if you don’t feel like it. You don’t have to tell the truth because if the truth you have to tell is about your own failure then your self-esteem will go down and that is unthinkable.”- Dr. William Coulson, explaining Outcome Based Education (OBE)-1964

“Every child in America entering school at the age of five is insane because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our founding fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It’s up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well – by creating the international child of the future”- Dr. Chester M. Pierce, address to the Childhood International Education Seminar, 1973

Or, how about this one, from the source of the quotes cited by Siggy:
"Education should aim at destroying free will so that after pupils are thus schooled they will be incapable throughout the rest of their lives of thinking or acting otherwise than as their school masters would have wished ... The social psychologist of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at: first, that influences of the home are 'obstructive' and verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective ... It is for the future scientist to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for more than one generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen."
Bertrand Russell quoting Johann Gottlieb Fichte, the head of philosophy & psychology who influenced Hegel and others – Prussian University in Berlin, 1810


Fichte was instrumental in creating the "climate of collectivism" in philosophy (as Stephen Hicks has referred to it) that prevailed in Germany during the late 18th and throughout the 19th century. In this counter-enlightenment climate, the state was worshipped as the source of all reality and that which brought meaning to life. Hegel, building on Kant, Rosseau and Fichte, would go on to write, "It must be further understood that all the worth which the human being possesses--all the spiritual reality, he possesses only through the State."

Hegel's heirs went on to divide into left- and right-wing camps. The charge of the left was led by leftists like Karl Marx, who transformed Hegel's "dialectic of Spirit" into an economic and social system that depended on godless dialectic of "oppressors vs oppressed." The right-wing Hegelians tended to stress the omnipotence of the state and were less willing to abandon a deity. For more than a 100 years, the two camps have been battling it out, each trying to impose their utopian vision onto the human species.

Both Hegelian offshoots summarily dispensed with free will and human freedom; and between them, they brought forth the philosophical abomination that we now call "postmodernism".

The 20th century was the battleground where the two totalitarian branches of the collectivist philosophers vied for spiritual and physical control over humanity. The amount of death, destruction and misery they ushered in is perhaps unprecedented in human history.

By the mid-20th century, the right-wing, or nationalist, Hegelians, or national socialists (Nazis) had been defeated by an alliance of the left-wing Hegelians and those who stood for human freedom and democracy. By the end of the century, the social systems favored by the Hegelians of the left had been exposed to the world for the lie and deception it was.

But, in this new century, both utopian systems have been given new life by recruited a potent new ally in their attempts to control the minds of men. That ally is postmodern philosophy and rhetoric.

Neither can hope to remain viable in a world where human thought is free; therefore, the goal for the last several decades has been nothing less than to undermine mankind's perception of reality itself. They have been most successful in this goal at all levels of education--elementary, high school and college.

If you can convince children that objective reality is an illusion; that A does not equal A; that black is white; and that good is bad; if you can make them accept that everything is subjective and relative; then you have successfully breathed new life into doctrines that by all objective measures and standards led to the death and misery of millions of people. Through the careful manipulation of language, everything can be distorted, without the messy need to resort to facts, logic, or reason.

For the children of postmodernism, what matters is not truth or falsity--only the effectiveness of the language used. Lies, distortions, ad hominem attacks; attempts to silence opposing views--all are strategies that are perfectly satisfactory if they achieve the desired effect--i.e., furthering the collectivist agenda. Ideas and reason make way for reification of feelings; and freedom is replaced by thought control and preservation of "self-esteem" at all costs.

The postmodern assault as it is used by the new totalitarians of the 21st century is a four-pronged attack to undermine
- Objective reality
- Reason and the rational debate of ideas
- Individual freedom and freedom of thought and speech
- Progress and capitalism

The strategies used are:
- The distortion of language and meaning to undermine the individual's perception of reality;
- The use of direct or threatened physical violence to suppress speech and individual freedom;
- Politically "correct" thought control and cultural relativism to undermine reason and rational debate;
- The promotion of environmental hysteria to undermine progress, industrialization and capitalism

These activities represent the most serious assault on reality, reason, and individual freedom since the defeat of the Hegelian twins in the last century.

Radical Islamic ideology is itself an unexpected combination of several toxic threads of Hegelian thought that have merged in the last 30 years. One thread of this meme is Islam itself--a purportedly "peaceful" religion that is actually historically based on military conquest and coercion of belief through jihad-- entwined with the remnants of the left- and right-wing totalitarian ideologies of the last century.

Thus we see how that 18th century philosophical climate of collectivism is still playing itself out several hundred years later. But the battleground in our time has returned to the battlefield of the mind, where strenuous efforts are being made by the remnants of both to claim the minds of the next generation.

Even 5-year olds and younger children are not too young for collectivist propaganda to be inculcated. Destroy free will; inoculate them with political correctness; treat the "insanity" of their attachment to parents, the Judeo-Christian tradition; or their country--i.e., all traditional Western values that brought civilization, individual freedom and economic progress; achieve a "higher order" of thought by showing them there is no right or wrong; good or evil.

After that, what will be left? The tyranny of the Collective; or the State or of Allah.

Today's political left likes to think they are so different from those Hegelian "fascists" of the 20th century. They appear to have a serious mental block, particularly when they speak so disparagingly of the National Socialist Party (better known as the "Nazis") who were simply one faction of Hegelians (socialists) who happened to be ascendent over the other faction (communists) vying for power at the time. Clearly they are victims of their own educational nihilism; and by lobotomizing themselves they have failed to recognize that there is no essential philosophical difference between the collectivist left and the collectivist right. Both are vying for absolute power as they preach the gospel of moral relativism and postmodernism.

In "The Dictatorship of the Do-Gooders and Soul Murder" I commented about a post of Betsy Newmark's that links to an article demonstrating how the "social justice" advocates of today's collectivists have taken over our K-12 education system and are determinedly undermining American values with their politically correct, multicultural and anti-capitalist curriculum. I wrote:
Make no mistake about it, what those teachers are doing is indoctrinating their students minds into an unquestioning obedience to the collective.

While our popular culture refrains sensitively from prtraying Islamofascists as villians in movies out of political correctness (yet another aspect of socialism's quest for "social justice"); it does not hesitate to make businessmen evil and malignant oppressors of the innocent. Individualism, the pursuit of profit, and private property is always bad and everyone must bow to the will of the collective. Islam (the name even means "submit"), even in all its terrorist varieties, does very well by this perverted moral standard.

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

This is child abuse, pure and simple. It is indoctrination. It is the willful manipulation of young minds which cannot never be allowed to develop even the capability of thinking for themselves. And these perverts call it "social justice."

In fact there is nothing that is "just" about it. It represents the worse kind of oppression with the goal of enslaving the human mind. And enslavement is exactly what is required to establish their socialist utopia, since it refuses to acknowledge the reality of human nature.

Socialist ideologues like those teachers know that in a free market of ideas, their pathetic system-- which has only brought human misery, slavery and death to those who have embraced--cannot function in a real world. Thus they must "stack the deck" and take absolute control over the thinking of the utopia's future citizens.

On some level they even understand that the very foundation of capitalism is human freedom in its most classical, liberal tradition. And that frightens them to death.

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

Children propagandized by dogmatic tyrants like the ones above have had not only their capacity to think for themselves abrogated; they have had their capacity to make moral choices taken from them.

The moral case for capitalism is not taught in our schools, nor is it argued much in our culture. In fact it has been more or less universally accepted by the intellectual elites that systems such as communism and socialism are "morally superior" to capitalism (hence more "socially just")--even though in practice such systems have led to the death and enslavement of millions, and to those unlucky enough not to die from them, they have led to the most horrible shrinking and wasting of the human soul.

The truth is that neither socialism nor communism nor any kind of religious fundamentalism is compatible with morality at all.

If one's actions are coerced by the state or religion, or both; if human activity is indoctrinated, legislated, regulated and ordained down to the last minute detail--particularly to the degree we see in other countries of the world (e.g., Cuba, China, most Middle Eastern countries, North Korea, and now in Venezuela--then how can it possibly be argued that one's actions are moral? Human behavior under such systems is not voluntarily chosen, but actively coerced.

Morality, though, must always be a matter of choice, not mandate.

One cannot hold a person responsible for actions that are coerced or forced from him. Morality can only exist when freedom of action exists; and thus moral actions in any field of human endeavor require freedom.

Conduct may only be thought of as moral or immoral when it is freely chosen by the individual. It is only then that the moral significance of the action can be assessed. It is only when we are free to act that we can exercise moral judgement.


Taking the mind of a child and feeding it exclusively on your ideological pablum is not only the most cruel and abusive of behaviors; it also ensures that such a mind becomes cognitively stunted and morally impaired (much like the minds of the teachers who so proudly perform such oppressive acts).

All totalitarian/collectivist idealogues will casually and deliberately use and brainwash children. Whether it is Fidel and his communist indoctrination in Cuban schools or the mirror image of the Palestinian's using a Mickey Mouse look-alike to make little children comfortable with the idea of murdering Jews. Both are not above the atrocious behavior of hiding behind children and using them as their shields; parents thourougly schooled in the collectivist propaganda will happily send their children to blow themselves up for Allah and celebrate when they are successful; and all of them know full well that decent people are repulsed at the idea of retaliating against innocents. But the collectivist--both right and left--could care less about the harm their despicable behavior does to the souls of the children who are used or brainwashed in such a manner. For them the individual, whether a child or adult, has no meaning except insofar as they can advance the ideology. Their total worth is only equivalent to their willingness to be fodder for the good the "cause."

Modern-day educators, psychologists, and assorted self-esteem gurus, multiculturalists, and PC policemen are the natural-born heirs of Kant, Fichte, Hegel and many others who have refined and advanced the postmodern irrationality. They are the ones who are in charge of educating your children into the accepted dogmas that now are espoused by the left in this country.of political correctness and multicultural religion. They are the people who are determined to have George W. Bush impeached--or declared clinically mentally ill; they are determined to undermine American values; to portray Republicans and conservatives as absolute evil. By this behavior they signal how desperately afraid they are that there are still many individuals and pockets of people who are willing to think outside of the ideological box they have created and who have not been fully lobotomized by their educational system.

Only those whose brains have been damaged by a defective educational system to begin with could adhere on the one hand to a philosophy advocating moral relativism and subjectivism with unapologetic dogmatic absolutism.

What is outrageous is that anyone--anyone who is capable of thinking anyway--could take these postmodern, brain-damaged collectivists seriously.

Progressing from education to indoctrination, postmodernism has ushered in an age of educational nihilism that seeks to destroy the minds of the next generation of Americans. The good news is that the biggest impediment to their grandiose plans is that they earlier suceeded in destroying their own minds on the bullshit they now force-feed the children of today.

And, no matter how they feel about it, reality, truth and reason must eventually prevail.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

MORE DISPLACEMENT, LESS REALITY

As a psychiatrist, I can't help but notice that there's an unbelievable amount of psychological displacement being used right now (see here and here for more discussion) to cope with the painful realities of our day.

Displacement is one of the primary psychological maneuvers that covers-up or disguises blatant self-deception and self-delusion. It is, for example, behind most of the more vicious attacks on President Bush for anything he does; and for anything he doesn't do. He is behind every evil like some modern-day Moriarity, a criminal and godlike genius who is simultaneously a moron and incompetent. We are not talking about a mere dislike of the President; nor is this simply "politics as usual". Rather, it is an unreasoning and implacable, visceral hatred of George W. Bush for the sin of existing. This hatred is so intense that it is stunning to any rational observer; and its manifestations have been justly made into a diagnosis of "Bush Derangement Syndrome". Clinically, the symptoms of this syndrome are as disabling and as dysfunctional as any other post-traumatic stress disorder.

Displacement is the separation of an emotion from its real object and its redirection toward someone or something that is less offensive or threatening in order to avoid having to deal directly with what is frightening or threatening. It is a very useful type of psychological denial which distorts and obscures reality.

You suspect that this type of denial is at work when an individual expresses an emotion toward someone or something (e.g., anger or fear) that is way out of proportion to the reality of the situation. Ordinary dislike is transformed into a visceral, implacable hatred; anxiety morphs into hysteria; and ordinary frustration at being thwarted in one's desires becomes rabid, impassioned rage.

The purpose of displacement is to avoid having to cope with an unpalatable reality in order to maintain a belief, a world view, or even one's sense of self. By using displacement, an individual is able to still experience his or her anger or fear; but since it is now directed at a less threatening target than the real one, the individual is able to feel better. Thus, the individual can delude themselves into thinking they are doing something about what threatens them, when in reality, they are blind to it ("fiddling while Rome burns" so to speak). Conveniently, the individual using displacement (or any other form of denial) does not have to take responsibility for the consequences of his/her emotion and can also externalize any blame or consequence on the object of their emotional displacement. They simultaneously feel safe AND virtuous, even though neither emotion is justified--at least, not for long.

From BDS, whose sufferers claim that Bush is more evil than Bin Laden (a bit of intellectual idiocy from the moral relativists of the left!); to the insane belief that a Christian theocracy is imminently going to be imposed on the U.S. by the BushHitler, when radical Islamic fanatics are actively trying to do exactly that; to the latest jaw-dropping assertions we should be diverting resources to combat global warming because it is far more of a national security threat than Islamofascist terrorism--these are examples of the wonderful world that you too can live in if you are willing to subscribe to a creative interpretation (i.e. denial) of reality.




and while we're on the subject :

THE SANITY SQUAD: Conspiracies Theories and Shalom in the Home

Once again, for the benefit of all intelligent and discerning listeners; as well as for the annoyance of the the reality-challenged community, The Sanity Squad Podcast has been posted at Pajamas Media Politics Central ! This week we have have invited Rabbi Shmuley Boteach as our special guest.

Rabbi Boteach is the host of The Learning Channel's award-winning show “Shalom in the Home” and has been called "America's Rabbi". He has a list of accomplishments a mile long and joins the Squad in this week’s podcast to discuss the breakdown of family life, the need to make judgements about right and wrong, and when to hate our enemies. His take on popular culture is not to be missed and is like a breath of fresh air .

The Squad also discusses the origin and maintenance of various conspiracy theories; and how they serve to help people avoid an unpleasant or unacceptable reality.

Come listen to Neo-neocon, Siggy, Shrinkwrapped and I dissect and analyze the politically insanity of our times with special guest Rabbi Shmuley Boteach!

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


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

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

THE UNADORNED, NAKED LEFT IN ALL ITS GLORY

You just couldn't find a better collection of everything that the left stands for these days and how they stereotype those who disagree with them by using the same-old tired marxist rhetoric. Andy Singer has collected all their dogma in one astute cartoon (though I don't think he meant it to be interpreted that way) :



Let's recap the key points that are in this lovely psychological projection above, with its overt paranoid fantasies about Republicans, shall we? We can safely conclude that if this is really what the left thinks are the basic constituents of the Republican party then, going from left to right...

  • The left enthusiastically supports and shills for all the wonderful socialist/collectivist dictators who abrogate personal freedoms and persecute dissidents, and send their country's economies into the toilet; all of which lead to incalculable human misery and despair--i.e., thugs like Fidel Castro; Hugo Chavez; Evo Morales; Mahmoud Ahmadinajad; Kim Jung Il etc. etc.
  • They believe that anyone who opposes illegal immigration must be a Nazi (do they even realize that a "nazi" is a socialist, I wonder??) ; and furthermore, that only whites oppose illegal immigration and, while they are in favor of "multiculturalism" and "diversity"; and firmly believe that all cultures and people are equally good-- the one exception to this moral relativism is Western culture (and their predominantly white male members) which is uniquely evil and is absolutely responsible for all the evil in the world;
  • They are rabidly anti-business in the true Marxist sense; because anyone who goes into business is determined to exploit those weaker than themselves and oppress them by paying them wages and allowing them to earn a living (therefore, it is necessary to supress any positive economic news which might make people begin to think about how wealth is created; and that poverty and misery have a cure--and that it is not by following their ideology)
  • They are the ones who believe that birth control, abortion and gays are the only important social issues; the litmus test of ideological purity; and if you don't agree with their position on these subjects then you are a bigoted religious fanatic;
  • They are fiercely anti-capitalist (see "anti-business" bullet) because in their view, capitalism "exploits the poor" even though it magically creates wealth that improves the lot of all people--"magically" because the left can't understand that wealthy originate from free minds and free markets;
  • They are "principled" anti-semites, because it is clear to them that all Jews who are not on the left, or who support Israel are "ultrazionist" monsters who exploit the poor Palestinian peoples (see multicultural bullet) ;
  • They must really despise the fact that the Saudis have been funding Jimmy Carter for decades-NOT. But this particularly onerous contradictory discourse is exactly the sort of everyday hypocrisy thatflows naturally from the mouthpieces of the left on a regular basis;
  • They really really hate the military and those who enter military service and disguise this hatred (as they have done since the 1950's) as some sort of principled opposition to business and capitalism (see previous bullets); and, no matter what the military does, or in which direction they change--it's wrong. But, don't forget that the left supports the troops; the little guys, not the officers ; except of course when they portray even the little guys as evil, torturing "oppressors";
  • And last but not least; they really really hate anyone who dares to abandon the whole marxist world view where you can only be a "victim" or an "oppressor";and, thinking for themselves, begin to realize that they are not being oppressed by the capitalist system, take responsibility for their own life and success--thus leaving the ranks of "oppressed victims" that are essential to keep the left's house of cards standing.

    Does all this sound vaguely familiar to you? It should. It is the same old Marxist/socialist/communist bullshit we've been innundated with for decades by the proponents of that pathetic ideology who simply won't go away and leave the human race alone. These people are so out of touch with reality they will cling to their socialist fantasies even if it kills us.

    Which it certainly is doing.

    This perversion of intelligent thought--which has resulted in more human death and misery; more suffering and oppression; more subjugation and destruction of individual freedom; and more poverty and hopelessness than is even remotely conceivable under the auspices of it's arch-enemy, capitalism--remains like a lingering malignancy that hides in the bloodstream and plagues the human species long after its necrotizing tumors have been surgically excised. This cancer of socialism drains away all the vital energy that makes us human, and perverts all the goodness of which humans are capable.

    It feeds on envy and greed and all those aspects of human nature that civilization works to control. Yes, capitalism needs those aspects of human nature to function, too. But capitalism allows the transformation of all those same negative human traits into something positive for each individual as well as for all of humanity; while socialism institutionalizes and encourages the acting out of all that is destructive in human nature.

    Capitalism uses human nature to advance civilization--which benefits all of us.

    What we see in this snapshot of the unadorned, naked left is human nature unencumbered by civilization, progress, or even reality.

    Why do you think they insist on calling themselves the "progressive", "reality-based" community?


  • REALITY BEGINS TO DAWN

    Geez. What a shocker.

    Do you suppose they mean those awful things they have been saying for the last six years or more? That they really aren't for "peace" and "democracy"??? Amazing!

    [cue Twilight Zone theme]

    THE GLASS IS ALWAYS HALF FULL

    ShrinkWrapped has a recent post on optimism and pessimism which discusses the reasons to be optimistic and/or pessimistic on a number of issues.

    This made me start to think about my own perspective on a number of issues, including the Iraq war and the war on terror.

    People often accuse me of being overly optimistic about life; and they have also predicted that I will suffer intense disillusion because of it someday. I readily agree to the first assertion, but have yet to suffer the dire consequences they anticipate for me in the second.

    I suppose this outlook--besides being a significant part of my psychological makeup--is also one of the foundations of my political outlook. It represents one side of the classic case of "the glass is half empty vs. the glass is half full" conundrum.

    Depending on how you look at it; and on your psychological perspective, the world can be a glass "half full" or "half empty. Those who are hopeful/optimistic see it one way (half full); those who are defeatist/pessimistic see it the other (half empty). [Note: those who don't bother to look at all, are generally in some sort of denial or inhabit a fantasy world of their own.] Often, the optimist and the pessimist are looking at exactly the same thing, but their psyches interpret what they see in somewhat different fashions.

    Since optimism and pessimism are primarily psychological, are there any reasons for an individual to cultivate one perspective over the other?

    It turns out thatIt turns out that there are data that support optimism and hope as having a positive impact on individual health, mortality, and coping; as well as predicting positive outcomes in a variety of situations.

    Optimism is positively and highly correlated with mastery and self-esteem. It is negatively correlated with anxiety and neuroticism. The correlations appear to be higher for women than for men.

    Various tests that measure optimism are strongly correlated with reported use of particular coping strategies such as emotional regulation strategies (sublimation, humor, and anticipation) and strongly negatively correlated with avoidant coping strategies (such as fantasy, acting-out, repression, projection, hypochondriasis and passive-aggression).

    Optimism was also found in some studies to improve health and lead to substantially better illness outcomes and longevity; while pessimism was found to predispose to illness and to increase mortality. As one researcher commented, "It confirmed our common-sense belief. It tells us that mind and body are linked and that attitude has an impact on the final outcome — death."

    There is likely a strong biological component to both optimism and pessimism. There are pros and cons to both styles. Optimism taken to expremes can represent a denial of reality and unacceptable pain. Pessimism taken to extremes leads to depression and self-fulfilling prophecy because it focuses only on the negative and see catastrophes everywhere. Further, pessimism and its partner hopelessness, can sap the will and prevent the individual from taking those steps necessary to achieve success, and thus ensures failure.

    I would submit that genuine optimists are not in psychological denial. They see the situation for what it is, yet are also able to mobilize the energy and effort necessary to be able to push through, persevere and complete a task despite setbacks. A healthy dose of optimism can be uplifting and hopeful.

    Achieving a balance of being realistic and hopeful can be a challenge. A perfect example of unhealthy optimism is the gambler who always believes that his risks will result in winning. It is easy to see that this is more than optimistic; it is delusional, because the individual denies the reality of statistics and chance inherent in gambling and can grossly overestimate his/her odds of winning.

    The huge advantage of the optimist becomes clear when it enables an individual to face reality in all its unpleasant aspects unflinchingly and take it on. The optimist will work to identify strategies that have a potential for success and be much more likely to implement them. The optimist, because he or she is focused on success, will be quicker to abandon a failing strategy and substitute one with a greater chance of working.

    While being optimistic does not guarantee success since it is only a psychological state; if success is possible, the optimist will have a great chance of finding it.

    Pessimists on the other hand, are very good at looking at reality and acknowledging the unpleasantness; but their problem is that reality makes them flinch, and they give up searching for solutions much earlier than the optimist would.

    Failure becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy for the pessimist, who in his heart believes that it is the only possible outcome anyway. They can accuse the optimist of living in a "fantasyland", but that accusation can just as easily be applied to them, since "failure" can become a fantasy as readily as "success" can.

    Iraq is a case in point.

    The ultimate determination of failure or success in Iraq will have to wait for other key events to unfold in that country. But amazing things have happened there already--events that the pessimists never dreamed would be possible in their wildest nightmares. The actions of the Iraqi people themselves standing upproudly with their purple fingers for a future as a free and democratic country could not have been imagined prior to 2003. These are the same people who continue to face, day after day, the reality of an enemy determined to kill them rather than let them be free and democratic. This reality did not prevented them from doing what they had to do in order to bring the blessings of Liberty to themselves and their posterity. While it is likely that many--especially in the most violent areas like Baghdad--are discouraged and continue to suffer from the mindless killing, most have not given up. They understand that the terrorists will never accept an optimistic vision that includes freedom and self-determination in Iraq.

    Their agenda includes only oppression and death, Allah be praised. One could say that they are optimistic about that particular insanity--and they have reason to be because they understand how to manipulate the defeatests in this country.

    The pessimists and defeatists (better known as Democrats) would have us pack up and go home without completing the job; abandoning the Iraqis and the future that they are now able to see clearly. The lunatic fringe of pessimists are perfectly willing to embrace failure because they care little about bringing freedom to that part of the world and cannot grasp how doing so will benefit their little quest to remake America into their socialist utopia. The Democrats are only narcissistically concerned with how to regain power and live in the White House again.

    Both understand is that if they can embarasses Bush and makes him look bad; and if they make sure that the death in war of any soldier is hysterically exploited to mean "doom, doom, doom" then it will to make their "real enemy" (and that enemy is not connected with the terrorists we fight). They manage to do this and optimistically spin their behavior as "supporting the troops", even as they take the valor and sacrifices those troops make for this country and transform them into just another victim group the Democrats can champion.

    The way of the optimist is to persevere and keep the eyes on the prize (an Iraqi Democracy in the Middle East). Failure to achieve our strategic goals may in fact result from our efforts, but it is most certainly not a given. And there is ample evidence after two major democratic votes in the face of threatened terrorism, that the Iraqi people are predominantly optimistic about their chances. This optimism is also present in the military personnel who work every day with the Iraqi people. They can see the positive impact of their efforts, and thus their optimism is reinforced. There is no question that the country has a long way to go to become a true democracy--but even in Kurdistan where progress has been phenomenol, it has taken over a decade to achieve the kind of stability they have created there.

    It might be cynically argued that the Democrats' and left's overwhelmingly pessismistic vision and hopelessnes regarding both Iraq and the war on Islamofascism in general, is based on their optimism that taking the low road and undermining President Bush and his Administration will bring them back to power in American politics.

    I remain optimistic that this will not be the case.

    Monday, May 14, 2007

    THE MASK SLIPS

    You know, I have always been fascinated by what motivates people to do vile and despicable things. It is part of the reason I became a psychiatrist--to try and understand that dark side of human nature (ok...also to try and understand my own dark side, if I'm completely honest).

    The evil within men's souls (and women's, of course) hides behind many different masks. We all want to see ourselves as exemplifying the things we consider good; and, of course, we want others to see us that way, too. But the uncomfortable reality is that our darker self is always right there lurking beside our idealized image of ourselves.

    How you deal with that dark side and its manifestations in the real world is a task far more important and than all the good intentions in the universe. I suspect this is why the Greek philosopher and sage Thales first admonished his fellow humans to, "Know thyself"; and the call was picked up independently in both the East and West by such luminaries Lao Tzu, Socrates, Alexander Pope, and Sigmund Freud.

    It is not an easy business to know yourself. In fact, it is often quite disconcerting and sometimes very painful to look in the mirror of insight; and to acknowledge the dark side that can casually slip in to contaminate--and ultimately sabotage-- all the excellent intentions of the good side.


    Insight is a wonderful 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, as it was for Susan. Only by being aware of these kind of hidden truths and inner motivations can a person gain control over them and correct the behavior that they generate.But insight can also sometimes be devastating


    In fact, the real problem of not knowing one's self, and trying to avoid devastating self-awareness, is that the dark side is perfectly content to let the light side believe that goodness and light are running the show. The dark side is actually an expert at finding creative and disguised ways to express its destructiveness.

    I am, of course, speaking about the unconscious mind, where the darkness can almost always be found in each of us. The last thing that our dark selves wants is for its unconscious processes to be made conscious through the development of insight and self-awareness; precisely because that is the only way to alter the self-destructive path that an individual or a group may sometimes be on.

    Sometimes they can convince themselves that because their behavior has some good intention or idealized fantasy behind it, it doesn't matter that it results in exactly the opposite result from the fantasy in the real world. That is how that dark side works--behind the mirror; hiding behind the mask of goodness.

    The political left has turned this psychological mechanism into a true art form.

    Betsy has a perfect example (via Thomas Sowell) of how, in the name of racial equality, some people feel justified in engaging in the most perverse racism:


    The very people who claim to live for the day when no one will pay attention to race are themselves constantly paying attention to race and making sure that no one can forget it. They'd prefer that black authors lose customers because people wouldn't think to look in the African American section for a child development book than that they turn a blind eye to what might be in the best commercial interests of the author.

    This is yet another example of how intentions have become more important than outcome; and how--as long as you claim good intentions--you can pretty much get away with anything.

    Another way of putting it is that it exempliefes how emotions and the need to feel good about one's self is more important to some people than reality.

    This is the same psychological maneuver that allows people to claim they are champions of free speech, as they diligently work to silence anyone with views that differ from their own.

    It permits some male religious fanatics to believe that by subjuging women and making them invisible, they are virtuously protecting society from the evils of women's sexuality; when what the society really suffers from is the evils of their own perverted sexuality. They delude themselves--and sometimes the women--into believing such nonsense so that they can maintain the illusion of being honorable men.

    Sorry, guys. Know thyself. Your behavior only demonstrates for any outside observer that you are frightened little boys; sexually inadequate and completely unable to control your own sexual impulses, and needing to blame your own animal behavior on the opposite sex. In other words, dears, you are nothing but savages who are unable to live in a civilized world.

    Savages protect their fragile self by subjugating those who are perceived as weaker. They then rationalize that they are superior to those so subjugated. In fact, this is the only way he can maximize his "honor"--the name of the particular mask this type of savage hides behind.

    In Arab/Islamic culture (and other shame cultures), women are one of the primary instruments of achieving "honor". Hence the bizarre and distorted attitude that the culture has toward women and the exaggerated means by which "honor" must be maintained. So strong is the cultural pressure, even women buy into the delusion.

    In a culture where avoidance of shame is a primary function, it is much harder to know thyself. Everyone else's success can only excacerbate one's own failures and humiliations. In other types of cultures (e.g., a guilt culture),when one feels shame, huge efforts are made to correct and improve behavior. But in the Arab world, pride can be regained not by excelling or achieving;or by making amends; but only by destroying that which is more successful. Only then will the humiliation no longer exist.

    No matter the cost to the society, culture, individual or community, destruction is preferable to achievement; and being perceived as honorable and virtuous is far more important than actually being honorable and virtuous.

    Likewise, in today's leftist culture, being perceived as "good" is much more important than actually doing good; hence the emphasis on show and rhetoric. The endless marches and protests and such. Participating in these useless activities has little to do with bringing peace, brotherhood or social justice into the world. But, as I have noted before, it serves the primary purpose of making participants feel good and virtuous about themselves. And that is the only thing that matters to these uninsightful, pathetic do-gooders.

    They are almost always completely unable to see how their behavior facilitates and encourages exactly the opposite of their stated intentions:

  • instead of achieving peace; they make it possible for the destoyers and murderers of the world ot operate freely and with complete impunity; permitting them to get away even with genocide without having to suffer any consequences; as they appease and rationalize murderous behavior.

  • instead of achieving brotherhood; they have gone over the top to emphasize the differences between people; and pit group against group with identity politics and multicultural dogma;

  • instead of generating tolerance and love, they facilitate a perverse intolerance and hatred; spewing it forth with unbelievable venom toward those who don't happen to agree with them;

  • instead of bringing about social justice; they end up actively supporting, justifying and protecting the most despicaable dictators and thugs the world has ever known.

  • instead of truly championing the oppressed--the poor, the discriminated against, the victimized-- they have become invested in making them their "pet victims "and nourishing and promoting their victimhood for all eternity. They don't care about developing or supporting programs that empower their pets, they are only concerned feeling good about themselves and promoting their agenda. Note how any who escape from their victimhood scam and actually begin to think for themselves are branded "traitors" to their eternally oppressed race or gender or whatever.

  • Know thyself. They are completely unable to appreciate how much evil their behavior rationalizes and encourages; nor do they have the slightest interest in how the consequences of their behavior are exactly the opposite of the very principles they claim to believe.

    "But, we meant well!" is the operating slogan of pretty much all these hapless do-gooders and utopian reformers as they hack out a path in the world that is littered with the miserable lives and bodies of those who are unfortunate enough to have them as champions.

    Just ask Hugo Chavez' people in a year or two when Venezuela's standard of living declines even further and their freedoms shrink beyond imagining. The only way a Chavez, or a Castro, or a Ahmadinejad; or groups like Hamas and Al Qaeda can maintain their control over others is if they succeed in externalizing the blame for all their own pathology; and then indoctrinating the next generation into the same psychological blindness and hate. that brought them to their present dyfunctional state.

    Utopian dreams always morph with very little effort into totalitarian dreams. Without the courage to look in the mirror of insight, the idiots will always return :

    Throughout the 20th century, Latin America’s populist leaders waved Marxist banners, railed against foreign imperialists, and promised to deliver their people from poverty. One after another, their ideologically driven policies proved to be sluggish and shortsighted. Their failures led to a temporary retreat of the strongman. But now, a new generation of self-styled revolutionaries is trying to revive the misguided methods of their predecessors.

    Ten years ago, Colombian writer Plinio Apuleyo Mendoza, Cuban writer Carlos Alberto Montaner, and I wrote Guide to the Perfect Latin American Idiot, a book criticizing opinion and political leaders who clung to ill-conceived political myths despite evidence to the contrary. The “Idiot” species, we suggested, bore responsibility for Latin America’s underdevelopment. Its beliefs—revolution, economic nationalism, hatred of the United States, faith in the government as an agent of social justice, a passion for strongman rule over the rule of law—derived, in our opinion, from an inferiority complex....

    The Idiot’s worldview, in turn, finds an echo among distinguished intellectuals in Europe and the United States. These pontificators assuage their troubled consciences by espousing exotic causes in developing nations. Their opinions attract fans among First-World youngsters for whom globalization phobia provides the perfect opportunity to find spiritual satisfaction in the populist jeremiad of the Latin American Idiot against the wicked West.

    There’s nothing original about First-World intellectuals’ projecting their utopias onto Latin America. Christopher Columbus stumbled on the shores of the Americas at a time when Renaissance utopian ideas were in vogue; from the very beginning, conquistadors described the lands as nothing short of paradisiacal. The myth of the Good Savage—the idea that the natives of the New World embodied a pristine goodness untarnished by the evils of civilization—impregnated the European mind.

    Vargas Llosa refers to what brings out the "idiot" as an inferiority complex. But more than that, it is an inferiority complex that hides behind a mask of superiority and moral righteousness.

    Know thyself.

    When you think about it, the psyches of those who live in such cognitive dissonance has developed a most clever way to disguise the fundamental sense of inferiority; and to hide from the reality of their own racism or sexism. The mask hides all those inadequacies and keeps them from discovering--let alone learning how to control--their own dark side. This is the pathoogy that allows them to unconcernedly act out their darkest and most contemptible wishes and drives in reality, while patting themselves on the back for being so virtuous and good. Brilliant!

    That's how you can transform a perfidious concept like "affirmative action" (meant to "level the playing field", but in actuality it has only facilitated and encouraged racial stereotyping and promoted all-around mediocrity) which glorifies and transforms racial quotas into one of the essential "goodness" of leftist dogma! That is how discriminating on the basis of race --the definition of racism--became one of the mantras of all the mindless leftist droids.

    So what does it mean to a psychiatrist when a person (or group) say they stand for one thing, but their individual and collective behavior demonstrate exactly the opposite?

    In psychoanalytic theory, a reaction formation is a neurotic psychological defense mechanism in which anxiety-producing or unacceptable emotions are replaced by their direct opposites. A projection is the much more primitive precursor of this type of defense (discussed here , here and here. Both defenses are deployed when the dark side of the self is kept out of consciousness; and they work behind the scenes to obliterate and obscure an awareness of one's real motivations and feelings. Under the mask provided by these defenses, the consequences of one's emotions or behavior are able to be ignored or dismissed, and the individual or group is able to convince themselves that the darkness within is actually external.

    I notice in this Wikipedia article about reaction formation, the author very kindly produced three examples of individuals or types that engage in the neurotic behavior of reaction formation. All three examples are typical of the heart and soul of modern leftist thought: the homophobic behavior of rednecks; the hypocritical behavior of Republicans( Mark Foley is mentioned) and those on the religious right who secretly are into pornography while publically expressing anti-porn views. Indeed, all three individual examples are good ones of the pathology in question.

    What makes me laugh is how this Wikipedia exposition is itself a perfect example of a reaction formation (at best) or a projection (at worse). I suspect (but obviously don't know for sure) that the author is of the leftist political persuasion; because it is clearly desperately important for him or her to demonstrate how the members of the political right engage in this kind of pathological behavior. The hypocrites who are so religious, yet engage in secret pornographic entertainment; the homophobic rednecks who fear their own homosexual thoughts and lash out at gays--these are his/her examples.

    But let me explain the difference between those individual examples and what I am talking about. Reaction formation is a well-used human psychological defense mechanism. It represents a strategy employed by dysfunctional individuals of both the left and right politics, who will not willingly look in the mirror of insight. The human condition has plenty of these neurotically impaired people. The damage that such individuals do to their own lives and to the lives of their loved ones is often very great.

    However, consider this defense mechanism when an entire group, culture or religion uses it regularly--and even manages to institutionalize it as a group imperative. The ripple effects are not localized to the immediate vicinity of their loved ones or co-workers. Its impact is wide-spread; and when amplified by the MSM, mass hysteria is generated and the large-scale emotional dysregulation goes well beyond damaging a few people; to negatively impacting large groups or nations of people.

    Just like paranoia and projection (which are more psychotic than neurotic defenses) large groups can take up the banner of psychological dysfunction and actively encourage members to act mentally unbalanced for the sake of the group.

    This kind of group or cultural dysfunction has somewhat more severe repercussions, as you might imagine, because group psychopathology can lead to misery on a large-scale and unbelievable atrocities that are sanctioned by the group.

    There is no dysfunction like group dysfunction, I always say, to really screw up the entire world; and at this moment in time, the political left, along with all its allies here and abroad, win the Worldwide Group Psychopathology Award hands down. As their failures become more pronounced, the level of hysteria rises: the conspiracy theories escalate; and the reaction formation is ratcheted up even further. They will never willingly look in the mirror or explore their own inner darkness to try and understand how they have become the very evil they once claimed they stood against.

    But the mask is slipping....

    Sunday, May 13, 2007

    ARE WE BEHIND THE CURVE ?

    CARNIVAL OF THE INSANITIES

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

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

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

    SO MANY INSANITIES AND SO LITTLE TIME!!!


    1. There should definitely be a Committee for the Propogation of Just Desserts...

    2. You dirty rat! It's Howdy Jihad Time! With your host "Resistance" Mickey brought to you by the peace-loving Palestinians and their elected officials.! I guess if Tom and Jerry can be "subliminal Zionist propaganda", then Mickey can be completely anti-civilization.

    3. Behold the selflessness! The solution to their indoctrinated hate? Build a better mousetrap... because you can't count on Jack.

    4. But Mohammed did it...that makes it ok, right? Perhaps it is even in the Koran ? Will there ever be an Arab Khrushchev?

    5. yeah yeah yeah....it's always intensifiying, isn't it? If this is their goal, here's the manual.

    6. A timely graduation address; Making someone think is considered harassment in today's academic world, where free inquiry is studiously discouraged (and punished).

    7. It was a very good day indeed.

    8. Too tired to be President? There's your run-of-the-mill, classic BDS and then there is BDS-by-proxy....I mean, the guy doesn't even care about white people! EVERYTHING is all his fault!

    9. Absolutely scandalous! I think she needs to leave for the Grey Havens immediately - before the One Ring completely destroys her.

    10. Follow-up on their assumptions? What? Are you nuts? That way they might discover they were wrong. Hey, the left is finally thinking [somewhat] logically! Just listening to the two shows should allow even the "reality-based" community to figure it out....but maybe not.

    11. Moveon.org ? Great name. And a great posterboy for them! The moronity never ends! Who would have ever guessed that multipurpose butane lighters were flammable???

    12. Incredibly good taste and politically correct sensitivity --by today's leftist standards anyway.

    13. Confused penguins and confused French Fries !

    14. Sarkozy the villian! Even Belgium's stock rises. The Agony and the Ecstasy.

    15. There's a dark side to fuel efficiency? Junk email is more damaging to my environment at the moment! Time to deploy French troops? But where, precisely?

    16. Sobering stories... some addictions are definitely more interesting than others.

    17. Some would say that a mother's job (or a grandmother's) is all about embarassing her children

    18. Mother's Day gifts...for Dad! Take me to your Mothership! Sometimes Ex-husbands aren't so bad.... HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY!

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

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


    Heard the Word of Blog?

    Saturday, May 12, 2007

    SCIENCE IS UNDER ATTACK--BUT FROM WHOM?

    Yuval Levin has a fascinating post up at The Corner that I found particularly thought provoking. It is about Science and the left:

    ...the left actually has a much more complicated set of problems with science that are explored far more rarely than those of the right. Scientific advance, for instance, is the great engine behind capitalism, and is in that respect responsible for much that the left has disliked about the west since the 18th century. Much of what progressives oppose is precisely progress. Science, extended beyond its appropriate bounds, is also the chief contemporary threat to our continued allegiance to the principle of human equality, which has been at the heart of the liberal worldview. Put simply, science seems to demonstrate we are not equal—this after all is the problem many on the left had with The Bell Curve. Of course, it only seems that way if you take a very peculiar view of what the principle of equality actually is. We are equal not in our natural capacities—obviously we are not all equally strong, or smart, or tall, or healthy—but in our standing as human beings in relation to something higher than ourselves. But the left is no longer well equipped to offer that defense of equality, since it requires all manner of premises they have given up.

    The assertion that I hear repeatedly in the academic setting is that science is "under attack" from the religious right. Yet what I actually observe time and again is that it is the secular left that is intent on suppressing ideas and research that aren't ideologically pure.

    I witnessed this same phenomenon in the Soviet Union, during my visits there while doing research at NASA. The secular Soviets continually ridiculed religion, yet in their own scientific writings, the first couple of paragraphs were given to praising and humoring the secular god of Communism.

    "GLORY TO SOVIET SCIENCE" huge banners would proclaim, on the outside of Soviet research institutions. And "WORKERS OF THE USSR APPLAUD THE ADVANCES OF SOVIET SCIENCE." Woe be it to any scientist that was interested in testing an hypothesis that might in any way reflect badly on "official" state-sponsored communist ideology (a perfect example is the Lysenko theories in biology which held glorious Soviet biology back for decades).

    One thing you can say about the religious right is that their desire to teach "intelligent design" (a theory I do not think has sufficient evidence to be included in children's science textbooks) basically represents a rather desperate desire to have their religious views respected in a system that has deliberately and with malice aforethought been excluding them for years. even as other "religions" views are substituted. As examples, consider that even the word "Christmas" is prohibited in schools these days for fear of offending some sensitive leftist's feelings; but these same leftists are eager to make sure kids learn all about Islam (we don't want them to become Islamophobic, do we?), or that the religion of the left-- multiculturalism-- is integrated into the curriculum without so much as a by-your-leave.

    We are also subjected to grown women (or should I say "indoctrinated feminists"?) who presume to call themselves "scientists" swooning when a University President suggests the possibility that factors other than sexism--i.e., biological considerations-- might be at work in explaining disparities between women and men in academia. That University president was forced out of his position for daring to have such ideas and expressing them in a spirit of open-mindedness.

    I guess some ideas are far too threatening to be freely discussedand debated.

    So, which of the above two scenarios has had the most chilling effect on free speech in this country? The debate about intelligent design? Or the lack of one about the biological differences between males and females? I submit that the latter, which had serious repercussions on that particular University President and effectively warned anyone who might want to explore theories other than sexism that they would be appropriately persecuted.

    Meanwhile, no one who advocates intelligent design theory or creationism has ever advocated (that I am aware) that evolution theory be struck from the curriculum and not be allowed in public discourse or debate. All they ask is that their ideas be included in the debate.

    Interestingly, on their own (i.e., without the state or religion literally forcing them into people's minds and enshrining them as scientific dogma) crackpot ideas do not hurt science. In fact, a few of them even eventually turn out to have some merit when pursued. And a few that were considered "crackpot" in their day ( like the earth not being the center of the solar system, for example) have turned out to stand the test of time and reality.

    What hurts science is when only certain ideas are allowed; or when there is a band of elites who determine what is "crackpot" and what isn't. And, when thinking or exploring certain ideas are considered not "politically correct."

    I happen to think that intelligent design is a "crackpot idea" for various reasons, but I don't see the harm of pursuing it to its scientific conclusion. Let anyone who wants to, come up with a way of testing it or studying it. Have institutes that support research on it. If there is any merit in the theory, it will come out. After all, there are some pretty bizarre theories out there in astrophysics that don't have much evidence and have not discovered adequate ways to be tested--but I really hate that anyone's ideas to be banned from discussion and refutation.

    Even in the Soviet Union, if Lysenko's theories had not been enshrined by the communist state, then science could have moved on--as it tends to do--and taken the interesting parts of Lysenko's thoughts and either disproved or amended them. In other words, Lysenko's ideas were not a threat to science until they became recognized by the politburo as being the one and only "politically correct" answer to all biological questions.

    In the religious right's case, we have a group who has some ideas and who wants to be heard (so what if I think they verge on the "crackpot" side of things--I am not omnipotent. Something valuable might come out of research and study in this area) . In the secular left's case, we have a group that is intent on silencing all opposing viewpoints. They believe implicitly that they are omnipotent and know which ideas are worthwhile and which ones are not.

    A while back, Virginia Postrel tackled this same question in a column titled "Criminalizing Science":
    At a business conference this summer in Toronto Richard Florida, author of The Rise of the Creative Class, told the Canadians again and again how wonderful they are--how open to new ideas, how tolerant, how diverse and therefore how potentially creative. Unlike the U.S., which is afflicted by divisiveness and the religious right, Canada is a model country. That was his story, at any rate.

    A few hours later I picked up a newspaper and got a different view. On the op-ed page a scientist was pleading for Canada to repeal its law against cloning human embryos for research. In tolerant, open-minded, diverse and creative Canada therapeutic cloning--defined as creating an in vitro embryo with the same chromosomes as any other individual--is a crime punishable by ten years in prison.

    In the divisive, religiously addled U.S. a similar measure has failed repeatedly to become federal law. (Some states ban therapeutic cloning.)

    U.S. scientists and their supporters tend to assume biomedical research is threatened by know-nothings on religious crusades. But as the Canadian law illustrates, the long-term threat to genetic research comes less from the religious right than from the secular left. Canada's law forbids all sorts of genetic manipulations, many of them currently theoretical. It's a crime, for instance, to alter inheritable genes.

    And the law has provisions the fabled religious right never even talks about. It's a crime to pay a surrogate mother or to make or accept payment for arranging a surrogate. It's a crime to pay egg or sperm donors anything more than "receipted expenses," like taxi fares. Since eggs are used not just in fertility treatments but in research, this prohibition stifles both.

    Meanwhile, in backward, intolerant America objections to embryonic stem-cell research and therapeutic cloning are less politically persuasive than they were a few years ago. With the support of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Congress is close to a veto-proof majority to expand federal subsidies for embryonic stem-cell research. Many conservative leaders are uncomfortable opposing potentially lifesaving research.

    And a few scientists are beginning to explore ideas for producing embryonic stem cells while respecting religious scruples. It might someday be possible to clone embryonic stem cells without creating and destroying otherwise viable embryos.

    That's not an argument for banning embryonic research. But it's a promising route toward a nonpolitical solution to the dispute. As long as religious conservatives object to a specific procedure--destroying embryos--rather than to genetic research or life extension in general, it's possible to treat their concerns as a technical problem.

    You can't say the same for the antibiotech left. In liberal Canada, in fact, the law defines cloning expansively. Future procedures that might avoid religious objections would still be illegal. The goal is to stop certain research altogether.

    The politicization of science is what really threatens science. Making "global warming" the absolute dogma of political policy is just as dangerous to free scientific inquiry--if not more so--than merely objecting because of one's religious beliefs to a specific technical procedure used in science.

    Just as Lysenkoism was made official state-sponsored biology by the communists, who saw in it a chance to use science to force people to accept their ideology, today's leftists desire their popular scientific theories to be declared official state dogma. Once that goal is accomplished, then they do not ever again have to refute or deal with any pesky ideas or theories that are not compatible with their ideological agenda.

    Now, ask yourself, which postition presents the real threat to free scientific inquiry?

    Political opportunists will always try to appropriate science to advance their ideological agendas; but, believe it or not, as long as ideas are able to be freely expressed and investigated, real science will always be able to move beyond the political and filter the bad hypotheses from the good--with or without the opportunists' assistance; and even without state support or sanction!