21st CENTURY REPETITION COMPULSION

While Barbara Walters is busy sucking up to Hugo Chavez, I wonder if her inquiring mind is even aware of the damage this wonderful and passionate guy is doing to Venezuela's economy? (hat tip: Instapundit)

Venezuela is knocking three zeros off the bolivar, its currency, and renaming it the "bolivar fuerte" (strong bolivar). This is an effort to cope with rising inflation. Inflation has spiked in recent months due to Mr Chavez's very expansive fiscal policy, and capital flight following recent nationalisations. Mr Chavez will also reintroduce the locha, or half-quarter, which was phased out in the 1970's. Venezuelan children may see their pocket money go less far, but at least they will be mastering decimals.

Ahhh. The wonders of socialism!

You would think that this "charming", "passionate", and "intelligent" man might have learned from the economic debacles that socialism wrought in the 20th century. You would think he could look around the world and grasp that a country's embrace of socialist and communist principles is directly proportional to its level of poverty and misery. And that even in the so-called "advanced" and "enlightened" European Union (socialism lite), life is deteriorating.

And, in spite of the disastrous and traumatic effects of socialism and communism during the last century; despite the millions of people who suffered economically, politically, and personally because of the inherent sickness of these ideologies--no matter whether they are implemented by ruthless, oppressive dictators or by delusional do-gooders ; today there appears to be a revival of sorts going on, with opportunists like Chavez leading the festivities in this part of the world. They have managed to bury the horrors that socialism and communism wrought in the last century deep down in nether reaches of their unconscious--as if they had never occurred.

I have often wondered if the political left in the 21st century hasn't been suffering from some sort of bizarre group manifestation of a pattern of behavior Freud called "the repetition compulsion". This is a psychodynamic situation where a person repeats a traumatic event or something having to do with it over and over again in an attempt to deal with it. This time, the person says to himself, it will turn out differently.

It never does.

Venezuela's economy will hardly be on the fast track to improve over time by implementing tion Chavez' glorious socialist policies. Nevertheless, the compulsion dictates that he will use the worsening economic situation to enhance his rhetoric (and incidentally consolidate his own power) against the U.S.and Bush, who have already been set up as the external fall guy to blame for Venezuela's descent into further poverty. He may even designate some group internally as the culprit (you know, a group like the "Jews" or perhaps businessmen--he has some room for creativity here)

It won't be Chavez' fault; nor will socialism or communism be faulted--especially if Chavez can successfully whip the people of Venezuela up into a frenzy of projection and paranoia.

Ahhh. The wonders of individual and group psychopathology!

CONDITIONED RESPONSES

Michael Barone at RCP:

"They always blame America first." That was Jeane Kirkpatrick, describing the "San Francisco Democrats" in 1984. But it could be said about a lot of Americans, especially highly educated Americans, today.

In their assessment of what is going on in the world, they seem to start off with a default assumption that we are in the wrong. The "we" can take different forms: the United States government, the vast mass of middle-class Americans, white people, affluent people, churchgoing people or the advanced English-speaking countries. Such people are seen as privileged and selfish, greedy and bigoted, rash and violent. If something bad happens, the default assumption is that it's their fault. They always blame America -- or the parts of America they don't like -- first.

Read it all.

This conditioned response on the part of the academics, the intellectual and Hollywood elites is a result of many years of devouring a toxic diet made up of postmodern drivel, political correctness, and multicultural relativism--all of which feeds their already over-inflated egos, while starving their brains. Like Skinner's rats, they have been conditioned to respond automatically to certain cues; and Barone is perfectly correct when he concludes his piece, by quoting one of the few people in the Democratic party who have broken out of the leftist Skinner box and "gets it":

"There is something profoundly wrong when opposition to the war in Iraq seems to inspire greater passion than opposition to Islamist extremism," Sen. Joseph Lieberman said in a speech last week. What is profoundly wrong is that too many of us are operating off the default assumption and have lost sight of who our real enemies are.

THEY'LL NEVER ADMIT IT'S GETTING BETTER

Iraqis say that life is getting better:

MOST Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to a British opinion poll published today.
The survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis found the majority optimistic despite their suffering in sectarian violence since the American-led invasion four years ago this week.

The Democrats beg to differ, of course. The left just wants the nightmare (theirs) to end. Can't you see the harm that a victory in Iraq would do for their lovely socialist cause? And wouldn't you just know that a new poll specifically designed to counter any optimism would come out at the same moment....

Vanderleun has taken the measure of these pathetic little postmodern purveyors of hopelessness and doom, and gets it exactly right (hat tip: Larwyn):

Four years in. An inch of time. Four years in and the foolish and credulous among us yearn to get out. Their feelings require it. The power of their Holy Gospel of "Imagine" compels them. Their overflowing pools of compassion for the enslavers of women, the killers of homosexuals, the beheaders of reporters, and the incinerators of men and women working quietly at their desks, rise and flood their minds until their eyes flow with crocodile tears while their mouths emit slogans made of cardboard. They believe the world is run on wishes and that they will always have three more.

Like savages shambling about some campfire where all there is to eat are a few singed tubers, they paint their faces with the tatterdemalion symbols of a summer long sent down to riot with the worms. They clasp hands and sing songs whose lyrics are ash. "We shall... over... come." Overcome what, overcome who? Overcome their own nation? Is that their dream? It is the lifelong dream of those that lead them, that much is certain.

Four years in and we see these old rotting rituals trotted out in the streets like some pagan procession of idols and shibboleths, like some furred and feathered fetish shaken against the sky by hunkering witch-doctors, to hold back the dark, to frighten off the evil spirits and graven images that trouble the sleep of the dreamers.

Four years into the most gentle war ever fought, a war fought on the cheap at every level, a war fought to avoid civilian harm rather than maximize it. Picnic on the grass at Shiloh. Walk the Western Front. Speak to the smoke of Dresden. Kneel down and peek into the ovens of Auschwitz. Sit on the stones near ground zero at Hiroshima and converse with the shadows singed into the wall. Listen to those ghost whisperers of war.

Four years in and the people of the Perfect World ramble through the avenues of Washington, stamping their feet and holding their breath, having their tantrums, and telling all who cannot avoid listening that "War is bad for children and other living things." They have flowers painted on their cheeks. For emphasis. Just in case you thought that war was good for children and other living things.

There were children and other living things on the planes that flew into the towers.

I want to excerpt the entire piece, it is so perfect. But you will have to go there and read it all.

And, since they have chosen to use John Lennon's Imagine as the holy bible for their utopia, I think it only fitting that I use as my parody template Lennon and McCartney's "Getting Better". Something the Democrats and left will never--under any circumstances and no matter what the actual facts are--will say about the situation in Iraq.

WE'LL NEVER ADMIT IT'S GETTING BETTER

It's fun to get mad at the Prez
And trash everything that he says
He's holding us down, making us frown
We'd rather love Hugo Chavez!

We'll never admit it's getting better
Here at home or in Iraq
We'll never admit it's getting better
'Til we get the White House back.

We used to be happy, you see
But now we're the knights who say NIE
Iraq got to vote
But we really hope
That no one pretends they are free.

We'll never admit it's getting better
We stand for nothing and have no plan
We simply hate to admit it's getting better
And we hate that we lost and that now he's the boss
And we'll thwart him as much as we can.

We'll never admit it's getting better
Here at home or in Iraq
We'll never admit it's getting better
'Til we get the White House back.

CARNIVAL OF THE INSANITIES

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, click on the image of Siggy on the right to 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.

Thanks for all the submissions. I try to use as many as possible! SO MANY INSANITIES! SO LITTLE TIME!!!

1. The argument against using any military action has been going on for decades. Amazing!

2. You can almost certainly lay the blame at his door. He is evil, after all. But, let's face it, not as evil as those ominous totalitarian theocrats just waiting to take over the US.

3. Some guy sent him. Then he outed her. A tale of two crimes.

4. Apologize at once to adulterers! How dare you offend those poor anti-semites! And stop insulting our civilization, for god's sake!

5. A variant of BDS according to experts. Note that it's perfectly ok to insult them. Heh. The "Islamo-Chavez" threat. I like it. OTOH, some idiots seem to think that the totalitarian vision of Chavez is strangely "empowering." I believe they said the same thing when Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, and "fill in charming psychopathic dictator's name here" came to power, too.

6. First, she has to stop her own bullshit ...

7. A populist? No, he's just a douchebag. And she just re-created herself again. Both of them are definitely sleeping with money but they don't let it cloud their visions of power.

8. Even honor killings can be blamed on the Jews. Simply stupefying.

9. And there are endless new variations on honor killing! When you spend all your time in a burka, you can get very creative.

10. Dreaded articles of blasphemy. Read, then go back and re-read #2 about the totalitarian Christian theocrats.

11. Very popular pet among singles.... and here is a way to ensure excellent service when you go out to eat.

12. Reality bites...or at least frostbites....Not the best way to bring attention to global warming....the snow is deep, but their faith is strong! Only an alien can truly understand global warming.

13. If the NY Times is growing skeptical, maybe the whole panic has jumped the shark....

14. A force for evil or a force for good? You decide. Is the Pope Catholic?

15. There is an advantage to having multiple personalities--but only if they all know karate. Being popular won't help much.

16. Disposable parents? Something every kid can look forward to. Another heartwarming tale of familial dysfunction. And speaking of family dysfunction, it's hard to beat this family's insanity.

17. She fails to see the mystery in this. But the mystery of Daylight Savings time goes on and on....

18. The sanctions are up and Ahmadinejad is down!

***************************************
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?

UNITY, BUT PROBABLY NOT PEACE

The Palestinian Prime Minister, Ismael Haniya has unveiled the new "unity" government plan derived from a recent agreement made between Hamas and Fatah:

President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah and Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas agreed on the make-up of a Palestinian unity government on Wednesday and will submit it to parliament for approval on Saturday, officials said.


The cabinet deal was reached when Abbas and Haniyeh settled on an academic with little security experience for the hotly-contested post of interior minister, which oversees key security services.

"We have finished all the issues relating to the formation of the government," Haniyeh said after talks with Abbas in Gaza.

Palestinians hope the deal will end fighting between the secular Fatah and the Islamist Hamas, and ease a crippling Western aid embargo of the Palestinian Authority, though it is unclear whether either goal will be accomplished.

As Abbas and Haniyeh were meeting, nine people, including two children, were wounded in another bout of factional violence between Fatah and Hamas.

The Europeans have adopted a "wait and see" attitude and Israel is concerned--with good cause, as it turns out.

The recent agreement between rival Palestinian groups that was put together during February, 2007 in Mecca under the guidance of Saudi Arabia, had the following preconditions imposed by the West (in particular, the "Quartet" of negotiators for peace in the region: the US, EU, UN and Russia) on a Palestinian "Unity" Government. It must:
• Recognize Israel's right to exist
• Renounce violence
• Accept past Palestinian peace accords with Israel and the UN

A translation of the document is here. In reading it, there seems to be a fundamental conflict between the two parts of the Mecca agreement ( the "principle part" and the l"etter of appointment"). The "principle" part, which deals with intra-Palestinian relations, includes an explicit commitment to the agreement by both sides.

In contrast, in the "letter of appointment" for the unity government, which deals with relations with Israel, there is no direct and explicit acceptance by Hamas for the provisions of the agreement. Instead, Abbas, as the president of the PA, calls on Haniya, as the prime minister of the PA, to "act in accordance with the decisions of the Palestinian National Council, the provisions of the Basic Law, the National Accord document the resolutions adopted at Arab League summits, U.N. resolutions, the consensus of the Arab states, and prior agreements signed by the PLO with Israel."

Abbas has since declared that the organizations participating in the future national unity government will not be obligated to the government's position; only the ministers will be obligated to these positions.

In return for acceptance of this diversionary tactic, Hamas has been granted political support and sponsorship from the PLO, as a government and as a future partner in the PLO.

With the Mecca agreement, the Quartet's (US, EU, Russia and the UN) demands have been only partially met, and it is likely that Abbas and Hamas believe that the Quartet's position will soften in the future and that it will settle for this partial acceptance.

Both Mahmoud Abbas and Khaled Mash'al have kept their followers from making statements to the media that could reveal the nature and the details of the agreement between them.

Here are some translated portions of the negotiatied agreement and of the letter of appointment :
"National unity is important as a basis for steadfastness on the national level, for rising up against the occupation, for actualizing the national and legitimate goals of the Palestinian people, and for adopting the language of negotiation as the only foundation for solving the political disagreements in the Palestinian arena."
"We are committed to the spirit and to the letter [of the agreement], so that we can now turn to attaining our national goals, to freeing ourselves from the occupation, to restoring our rights, and to tackling the main issues, which are first and foremost Jerusalem, the refugees, the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the prisoners, and dealing with the fence and the settlements."

Also, these reports from various news sources are relevant:
Hani Al-Masri, senior Palestinian Information Ministry official and columnist for the PA daily Al-Ayyam, wrote: "Fatah agreed to the wording [demanded by Hamas]... that states that the agreements of the PLO, the decisions of the Arab summits, and the U.N. decisions must be 'honored.' This wording is less strong than [saying] 'commitment' to the agreements and the decisions."

Abbas has also said:
"The exaggerated and subjective interpretations of the agreement or of one of its sections could change its basic aim. There is no need to elaborate in interpretation or commentary, since the agreement is about putting together a national unity government according to an agreed-upon and well-considered formula... Neither side has conceded to the other on political content or in the area of putting together the government... We will launch an extensive political campaign to remove the siege on our people and on our government..."

Ashraf Al-Ajrami, columnist for the PA daily Al-Ayyam, was more explicit:
"We must break the siege placed upon us that is causing injustice, and this demands a flexible political language that will maintain constructive ambiguity without the need for statements that aid Israel in its war against the Mecca agreement..." (emphasis mine)

Fatah spokesmen maintain that:
"political changes have begun in the Hamas members... Hamas's political view has begun to change, and it now stands in a different place than the one in which it stood a year ago [in early 2006]."

Thus, the Mecca agreement is said to be a "step forward", because in it Hamas seemingly commits to honor agreements signed by the PLO as well as the [Saudi] peace initiative and the U.N. resolutions. This is exactly what the Hamas and Fatah Players believe the international community want to hear.

However, it seems very doubtful that it is, in fact, true; and it is far more likely that the "constructive ambiguity" of the language of the agreement only makes it appear that way for the purpose of lulling the outside world and the key players in the US, Europe, Russia and the UN into believing some fundamental change has occurred in Hamas' position.

Indeed, the main purpose of the agreement appears to be to give the impression that Hamas has finally agreed to accept the general direction of the PLO's political plans, and that these plans do not constitute an obstacle in the Palestinian relations with the international community -- particularly the resumption of international aid (money).

It is important to note that Hamas' position with regard to the Palestinian people has been deteriorating ever since they were elected to run the government. The ongoing violence between the Palestinian factions has resulted in a worsening of conditions for the already-beleaguered Palestinians and a catastrophic cutting off of funding from the International community. Hamas desperately wants the international community to view it as a reasonable participant in the Palestinian state and not as a terrorist group. But, at the same time, it is not willing to give up terrorism and violence to do that.

Instead, it has opted for "ambiguous language" to give the impression that its spots have changed.

For example, in an interview with the London daily Al-Hayat, a spokesperson for Fatah suggested that with the Mecca agreement, Hamas had in actuality recognized Israel and that Hamas need not declare its explicit and legal recognition of Israel and Fatah also need not do this. And that each faction was entitled to retain its own special ideology and platform as long as they are committed to national unity.

Such phrasing allows the Unity Government to have its cake and eat it too and gives it room for diplomatic maneuvering with the international community, while in effect not altering anything. In fact, it permits the Unity Government to suggest that the West's refusal to continue its financial support or its general unhappiness with regard to Palestinian actions is--after the Mecca Agreement--"no longer a Palestinian problem, but the West's problem."

In other words, the Unity Government can say they gave the West what it wanted, without actually giving it what it wants. The beauty of "ambiguous language" at work!

One very interesting point is that Hamas also apparently agreed to accept "the Arab legitimacy." This is a new term, which refers to the decisions of the Arab summits, including the 2002 Beirut summit at which the Saudi peace initiative was ratified. Up until now, Hamas had not agreed to accept this initiative. But note that it sets Saudi Arabia and the "Arab" summits above the Iranians who are in competition with the Saudis for influence and control over the region.

Hamas spokesman Isma'il Radwan said:
"The agreement with Fatah on the national unity government, which includes an undertaking to honor prior agreements signed by the PLO, does not mean recognizing Israel. The positions of the Hamas movement are permanent and known - no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity... The government is not required to recognize Israel. The PLO recognized [it], but that is its own business. Hamas will join the PLO on the basis of new standards based on reshaping the PLO and non-recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation."
"Hamas remains steadfast in its principles, and has not retreated. Hamas will not recognize Israel, will not abandon the resistance, and will not relinquish its principles."

Khalid Mashal, the Hamas leader states:
"Hamas is adopting a new political language. The Mecca agreement is a new political language [spoken by] Hamas, and honoring the agreements is [also] a new language, because there is a national need and we must speak a language appropriate to the time, and in the framework of an outlook that is shared by all factions. Nevertheless, each faction will retain its own political belief."

The Mecca Agreement serves to--in the words of a Palestinian Legislative Council member and writer for a Hamas publication: "Secures the Internal Front So We Can Address the Zionist Front" (translated from a Hamas report)

Publically, Khaled Mash'al is quoted (in a London newspaper in English): "The Agreement Gives an Opportunity for Significant Achievements - And When They Are Attained, It Will Be an Important Step on the Way to Achieving Peace In the Region"

Let me predict that the "new" improved unity government of the Palestinians represents no significant change in either Hamas' or Fatah's policies toward Israel or peace in the region, except insofar as they have agreed for the time being to cease hostilities between each other and focus instead on Israel.

It is simply more of the same dancing by the key Palestinian players in Hamas (Mashal and Haniya) and Fatah (Abbas)--all of whom have demonstrated repeatedly that they are not particularly invested in a Palestinian state as much as they are invested in Jihad and the destruction of Israel. Abbas, being the most acceptable to the international community is the "face" of this new agreement, and his main efforts have been to obscure the reality of its nothingness for the purpose of getting financial support flowing again from the EU and the US.

Besides Hamas, who hopes to get its stream of funding back so it can return once again to terror, the big winners of the Agreement may actually be Saudi Arabia, who are anxious to override the growing influence of Iran on events in Palestine.

We will have to wait and see if this new peace fantasy manages to connect with the real world and is a "first step" toward peace in any way, shape or form. The international community has an overabundance of wishful thinking, when it comes to the Palestinians; and unfortunately, their hopes have always been badly misplaced.

I suspect that this time it will not be much different.

UPDATE: From the news this morning:

Palestinian leaders struck discordant notes on how to deal with Israel on Saturday as parliament met to usher in a unity government intended to halt factional fighting and ease a crippling Western aid embargo.

President Mahmoud Abbas stressed the search for peace, while Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of the Islamist Hamas movement said the new coalition government upheld the right to "all forms" of resistance against Israel.

Israel again ruled out dealing with the new government, citing Hamas's refusal to accept demands, set by a Quartet of foreign peace mediators a year ago, that it forswear violence, recognize the Jewish state, and accept past interim peace deals.

"We're not going to work with this government," said Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's spokeswoman Miri Eisin.

"This government does not recognize our existence, it does not recognize the treaties, and most important, does not in any way renounce terror," she declared, seizing on Haniyeh's remarks about resistance.

But with international impatience mounting over the diplomatic impasse, Fatah-Hamas violence and deepening Palestinian poverty, there have been signs of Western flexibility on talking to non-Hamas members of the new cabinet.

And so, onced again the West will very likely be "flexible" and give into the beasts who make up the Palestinian leadership (and who are the true descendents of Arafat); nothing will change; and the death and destruction will continue so that all can be happy in their respective delusions.

A CRITIQUE OF PURE BULLSHIT

This article by Jonathan Rosenblum writing in the Jerusalem Post the other day got me to thinking about philosophy:

Inveterate Bush haters are as derisive of the president's religiosity as they are of his supposed stupidity. Indeed the former is often cited as proof of the latter. A lengthy New York Times Magazine hatchet job prior to the 2004 election portrayed Bush as convinced that he had a direct line from God - a conviction that rendered him oblivious to both reason and all empirical evidence.

The president's refusal to pull out of Iraq, his failure to sign the Kyoto Protocols and his use of religious terminology - e.g. the "axis of evil" - are said to betoken the rigid mind-set of a religious zealot.

That critique of Bush's faith-based anti-empiricism is nonsense. I don't know one religious person who believes that God speaks to her directly, or that one need only open the Bible to determine whether the Iraqi insurgency is primarily led by al-Qaida or by ex-Ba'athists.

If all that is needed in Iraq is greater attention to facts, let the Democrats in Congress - many of whom are stumped about whether Iran is a Sunni or Shi'ite country or whether there is any difference between the two - show the way rather than just pass non-binding resolutions to appease their voters. That many crucial "facts" remain unknown has nothing to do with Bush's lack of interest. The intelligence community itself remains sharply divided about who is leading the insurgency in Iraq.

Democrats charge that the administration cooked prewar intelligence about Saddam's WMDs, even though CIA director George Tenet called the conclusion a "slam dunk" - a view shared by every Western intelligence service and the Clinton administration. And in the same breath, they are scandalized that undersecretary of defense Douglas Feith sought alternative analyses of the data on a possible Saddam-al-Qaida connection, in the face of the CIA's conclusion that secular Ba'athists and Islamists could never join forces. (And Hitler and Stalin could never have agreed to divide Poland.) President Bush, according to his critics, is being anti-empirical whether he accepts the CIA's conclusions or questions them.

Talk of an axis of evil deeply offends those whose default inclination is to assume that all men are basically rational economic actors seeking to increase material goods and pleasures. In describing radical Islam as "evil," however, Bush means that radical Islam constitutes a belief system irreconcilable with that of the West and its adherents seek to destroy the West. That seems like a fair description of reality.

One of the major controversies of our time boils down to these questions: how do we know reality and how do we know what is true?

Empiricism is a theory which holds that the origin of all knowledge is the experience of our senses. The term also refers to the method of observation and experiment used in the natural sciences. Often, empiricism is contrasted with rationalism, a theory which holds that the mind may apprehend some truths directly, without requiring the medium of the senses.

The dispute between rationalism and empiricism takes places within epistemology, the branch of philosophy devoted to studying the nature, sources and limits of knowledge. And one of the important questions in epistemology is, "What does it mean to "know" something as opposed to merely having an opinion?" As you can see, this is not only a question that plagues the blogsphere and all political discourse; it is an issue that has been at the core of Western philosophy since before Socrates.

Until it is answered, all other questions become unsolvable.

Rationalism and empiricism are not conflicting philosophical concepts, so much as they are complementary ones. For example in some areas of mathematics, rationalism is clearly the method used to obtain knowledge and ideas about the universe; while in the physical sciences, empiricism generally rules.

G.W. Leibniz in New Essays on Human Understanding makes the following excellent argument to illustrate this (page 150 -151):

"The senses, although they are necessary for all our actual knowledge, are not sufficient to give us the whole of it, since the senses never give anything but instances, that is to say particular or individual truths. Now all the instances which confirm a general truth, however numerous they may be, are not sufficient to establish the universal necessity of this same truth, for it does not follow that what happened before will happen in the same way again. . . From which it appears that necessary truths, such as we find in pure mathematics, and particularly in arithmetic and geometry, must have principles whose proof does not depend on instances, nor consequently on the testimony of the senses, although without the senses it would never have occurred to us to think of them…"

Whatever the conflicts and disagreements philosophically between empiricism and rationalism they are actually complementary mental processes; and it seems reasonable to conclude that optimally gathering knowledge of the real world requires the use of both capabilities. On a primal level, our senses give us direct information about reality; and our brain is then capable of using rational deductive and inductive processes as a meta-process to evaluate that information further.

However you cut it, it seems clear that OUR MINDS are the source of our knowledge of the world, and while a given mind might be corrupted by a variety of factors, and its reliability may be suspect at times; our mind is the best tool we have for understanding and evaluating reality.

Certain very popular ideologies today subscribe to the notion that the human mind is incapable of knowing the real world because there is no world out there that exists separately from our senses. In other words, everything that exists is all in our heads.

And, furthermore, what's in your head is no better than what's in my head.

When you think about it, that's a rather an amazing assertion, particularly since it is inherently contradictory. Those who fervently believe this BS are Cretans--or rather, they suffer from a variation of the famous Cretan Paradox. "What is in your head is no better than what is in my head" is a statement of absolutes which presupposes that the "my head" person is correct --i.e., what's in his head about this issue is the absolute truth--that what he "thinks" is no better or worse than what you think.

But, what if what's in your head tells you differently--i.e., what if you think you think better than him? Personally, I get a bad headache just thinking about the mental contortions necessary to formulate this theory in the first place.

In fact, almost all applications of postmodern philosophy (for that is what this crazy theory is called)--from art criticism to politics; and psychology from philosophy and rhetoric to science--result in a pervasive blurring and distortion of reality, rather than in its understanding.

If you are still with me, let us consider a rather astonishing attempt to further undermine reality and our ability to perceive it, reported by Melanie Phillips (hat tip: G.Hanner and Ray). Phillips is discussing comments made by Professor Mike Hulme, from the school of environmental sciences at the University of East Anglia and the founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research — a key figure in the promulgation of climate change theory. Phillips says:

What an admission! Let’s read that one again. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking. Of course not. The facts don’t support it. It’s not true. So, says Hulme, let’s abolish the need to establish the facts and the truth and impose the theory on the basis of — what’s that again — ‘values and beliefs’. In other words, climate change science has got to be anti-science. It’s got to be anti-truth. It’s got to be nothing more than an ideology.

Post-modernism long ago deconstructed truth. Now in similar vein, ‘post-normal’ science deconstructs scientific empiricism and rationalism and detaches science from truth. In other words, where science fails to support an ideology, the absolute and overriding imperative of putting that ideology into practice means that science has to suspend its very essence as a truth-seeking activity and instead perpetrate lies. That is the inescapable implication of Hulme’s position.

A blatant rejection of reason and truth by a leading scientist is, to say the least, incredibly ironic. Back when the entire premises underlying postmodern philosophical BS were first beginning to make their way up the idea food chain, its proponents had a simple objective: to preserve faith and religion, which they believed was under siege from reason and logic.

The epistemological basis for postmodernism has its origins in this desire. Philosopher Stephen Hicks notes:

By the late 1700s religious thinkers had a choice—accept evidence and logic as the ultimate court of appeal and thereby reject their deeply-cherished religious ideals—or stick by their ideals and attack the whole idea that evidence and logic matter. “I had to deny knowledge,” wrote Kant in the Preface to the first Critique, “in order to make room for faith.” “Faith,” wrote Kierkegaard in Fear and trembling, “requires the crucifixion of reason”; so he proceeded to crucify reason and glorify the irrational.

Thus Kant and others in the 18th and 19th centuries paved the way for the more recent postmodern attacks on reason, logic and reality itself. Postmodernism is merely the latest incarnation of the Kantian rejection of reason in order to “make room for faith”. The irony is that in today's postmodern world, it is the supposed champions of reason and logic--scientists--and those that like to call themselves "the reality-based"community" who have wholly embraced religion and faith as primary, though it is an entirely secularized religion and perfectly godless.

Have you ever wondered why the political left is so relentlessly hostile to Christianity and Judaism? The answer is simple—they are in competition with these religions for the hearts of the people. The ideology of the left has evolved into a religion that is essentially even more fundamental (and certainly more fanatical) than either Christianity or Judaism--both of which had their more toxic elements blunted by the rationality of the Enlightenment. Interestingly, the left regularly makes common cause with a third religion, sharing with Islam a fundamentally postmodern view of both metaphysics and epistemology.

In the ensuing 300 years since Kant critiqued pure reason, religion--i.e., Christianity and Judaism-- have more or less come to an uneasy compromise with those who recognize the importance of reason, logic, and reality in the real world. This is almost certainly the psychological foundation of the Western concept of "the separation of church and state"; which is a very bold strategy designed to keep the fundamental conflict at bay and allow the independent development of both these spheres of human experience unimpeded by the other (sort of like "don't ask, don't tell").

The left refuses to accept such constraints on their religion, and have embraced postmodern rhetoric and politics with religious fervor in order to save their own sacred beliefs about socialism. This time instead of rescuing faith from reason and logic, they have managed to rescue science from it so they can make science whatever they want it to be.

It is immensely interesting to observe how the left's topsy-turvy thinking about this conundrum works: realistically, rationally, and logically the left finds itself unable to criticize the excesses of Islam in any way, shape or form--without exposing for even the most dim-witted to see, the fatal flaws and contradictions in their own religion--which disavows reality, reason, and logic.

Kant and his successors have never been able to explain away the formidible contradictions inherent in a philosophy that celebrates the irrational and the unreal at the expense of reason and reality; yet somehow expects to bring peace, harmony, productivity and progress to human living.

From all perspectives, postmodernism is pure bullshit.

UPDATE: More on "post-normal science" from Jules Crittendon; Maggie's Farm and The Belmont Club

LOOKING FOR HUMOR IN ALL THE WRONG PLACES ?

My nomination this week for the whackjob most likely never ever ever to use a healthy psychological defense mechanism--like HUMOR, for example--was the anonymous commenter on this post:

Just to make sure everyone understands, these are supposed mental health professionals who apparently think it's a hoot to give out "Weekly Whackjob Awards".

Look around all you like, but I doubt you'll find a shred of credibility here...

FYI, Dr. Sanity,

I am forwarding this information to everyone at UM I can find who matters. Screw you and your bullshit. It's time for people other than your little group of fans to catch on to your lies.
anonymous

Too bad for anonymous, but we happy little band of mental health professionals are far too unserious to let such idiocy go by without mocking it unmercifully (after all, "anonymous" is not our patient and we can say what we want about him and his pathetic attempts to limit our free speech rights).

And yet, even without the help of the courageously "speaking truth to power" Mr. anonymous quoted above, Siggy has managed to find some amazing examples of seriously ridiculous insanity that far surpass even the histrionic capability of my anonymous commenter.

Have you been looking for some humor in a bland, humorless world that seems to be dominated by the do-gooder-PC-free -speech nazis? Well, stop looking in all the wrong places!

Proceed immediately to the Weekly Wednesday Whacky Awards; do not stop, do not pass GO; Click on the image of Siggy Unplugged to the right, and prepare yourself for some serious insanity!

THE SANITY SQUAD: THE OSLO SYNDROME AND DELUSIONS OF DIPLOMATIC GRANDEUR

This week on the latest podcast of The Sanity Squad , posted at Pajamas Media, we are pleased to have special guest, Dr. Kenneth Levin, a Harvard psychiatrist and author of The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People Under Siege. (Click on the link to the left to get more information about the book or order it).

In the book, Dr. Levin discusses how in the 1990s, Israel believed that it had found a "partner for peace" in Yasser Arafat, even as he made speech after speech calling for the annihilation of Israel.

The United States of the 21st century likewise believes that it can negotiate with Islamic totalitarians post-9/11. This is all part of the psychological dynamics of people who feel under siege and who desperately hope that negotiation and appeasement will finally bring about a cessation of hostilities. Unfortunately, this hope is at best wishful thinking; at worse a serious delusion. It is far more likely to bring about an escalation of hostilities and violence, rather than peace. In an earlier interview Levin was asked why people under siege often end up internalizing the hatred against themselves and delude themselves about the malicious intentions of their enemies? He replies:

They do so because they are eager to feel some control over a painful situation which is, in reality, out of their control. Chronically abused children - more specifically those subjected to parental abuse - typically blame themselves for their victimization because to do so supports a fantasy that if they reform, if they become "good," their parents will treat them differently. To look at their predicament more realistically would force them to accept their helplessness to change their terrible circumstances, and children, and adults as well, prefer to fend off acknowledging such bitter realities.
Similarly, within populations under chronic siege - whether minorities marginalized, demeaned and attacked by surrounding societies or small nations besieged by their neighbors - some will invariably seek either to avert their gaze from the severity of the threat or rationalize the threat and blame themselves or others within their community for the danger. Their doing so reflects wishful thinking that if only they would reform sufficiently the danger would be alleviated.

Israel has, at best, a capacity to respond effectively to attacks by its neighbors; it does not have the capacity to end the Arab siege, to force peace upon the Arabs. Peace, if and when it comes, will do so on the Arabs' timetable, not Israel's. Unfortunately, all the evidence indicates the Arab world is not about to choose genuine peace with Israel in the foreseeable future. This lack of control over a painful situation led many Israelis to embrace delusions of control; delusions that the right concessions could not help but win peace from the Arabs.

Join Shrinkwrapped, Neo-neocon, Siggy and me as we engage in a lively discussion of the psychdynamics of appeasement and the delusions of diplomatic grandeur that grip the West as they refuse to take into account the essential nature of Islamofascism.

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 at the right is drawn by Eric Allie, whose collection of political cartoons can be found here and here).

THE PARABLE OF THE SNAKE

Pajamas Media is reporting that the US is in disarmament discussions with elements of Al-Sadr's Mahdi Army in Iraq:

The U.S. is in serious discussions with commanders of the Mahdi Army to lay down their arms, an intelligence officer directly involved in Iraq operations told Pajamas Media Tuesday....

The Mahdi Army, a predominantly Shia Muslim force led by Moqter al-Sadr, has terrorized Sunnis into fleeing certain Baghdad neighborhoods and has been linked to Iran. Al-Sadr has disappeared from the Iraqi capital and is widely believed to have holed up in Iran. Al-Sadr’s family and senior officers are believed, by elements of American intelligence in Iraq, to have left with him.

With al-Sadr’s paymasters gone many mid-level commanders are unpaid. And so are the fighters under them. (In the Mahdi Army, commanders are responsible for the financial well-being of the men under their command.) Some have resorted to extortion, robbery and violent crimes. They are desperate for money. And they are also being hunted by U.S. and Iraqi soldiers throughout Iraq.

This has created a unique opportunity for American and allied troops, intelligence sources say.

Through intermediaries — known in spook-speak as “assets” — a handful of Mahdi Army leaders have approached allied forces and begun negotiating.

This brings to mind The Parable of the Snake which I now relate:

Once upon a time there was a serpent who was badly injured in a fight with another animal. It managed to slither away to safety but would have surely died if a benevolent man had not seen it suffering by the side of the road. The goodly man carefully wrapped the snake up and took it to his house, where he bestowed the kindest and gentlest care on the snake until it was healed and could return to the wild. Just as the man was releasing the serpent back into the grass, the ungrateful snake turned and bit him on the hand.

"What did you do that for?" cried the man, who knew that the bite of this particular snake was usually fatal. "Didn't I take care of you when no one else would?"

The snake shrugged (no small feat for a snake!) and replied to the benevolent--and now doomed-- man, "What did you expect? You knew I was a snake when you picked me up."

We certainly know without any question that they are snakes.

Time will tell if the moral of the tale is applicable.

IF YOU THINK WALTER REED IS BAD....

...just wait until you vote in the people who hope to have the government take over ALL health care. Walter Reed, after all, is only one example of what we would get when the government is in charge of all our health care needs. Yet some people seem to think that the solution is more government. Somewhat counterintuitive, to say the least.



Whatever you do, don't get sick.

If you would like a glimpse of the daily horrors of socialized medicine and a national health care service, then you need to read this. Here is a brief excerpt in the day of a NHS doctor in Britain:

Third patient in is Mary, one of the local speech therapists. She is approaching retirement. I sent her husband into hospital three weeks ago in rip-roaring heart failure. He was on CCU for three days but now is on the far flung corner of Dixon, one of the medical wards. He is partially sighted due to an old stroke, and is hard of hearing. The nursing care is appalling. He has developed pressures sores on his sacrum and heels and, oddly, a suppurating area above both ears which Mary thinks is due to the oxygen mask he uses being too tight. He is losing weight because he cannot really manage to feed himself. Mary was in each day over the weekend. Uneaten food from Saturday was still on his bedside table on Sunday. Mary went to the nursing station at the end of the ward. The nurses were all eating take-away Pizza. Deep Pan pizza from Pizza Hut. Mary remembers that particularly. Mary thinks her husband is dying. She is not sure which consultant he is under, and has not been able to find a doctor to talk to. The nurses over the weekend do not speak English. She tried to tell them that her husband is partially sighted but they do not understand. They show here the nursing assessment. Under “visual problems” it says "none". Mary is in tears and asks what she should do. I suggest she phones the Chief Executive and makes a formal complaint.

I do not suppose that Pizza Hut pizzas carry harmful bacteria, but should they be on an acute medical ward?

This is only one of several cases the good doctor must deal with on his daily rounds. Read about all of them. Caution--very graphic picture of some of the results of the caring NHS system is included.

You may remember that in Canada--another country that has socialized medicine, the Supreme Court recently issued an opinion saying, in effect, that Canada's vaunted public health-care system produces intolerable inequality.

Or, if you still have questions about socialized medicine and how it works, you might check out this post about the illness of the soul that is Cuba's health care system.

Try to remember these stories when Hillary decides on an opportune moment to bring back up her socialized health care plans for this country; or when the next compassionate and caring Democratic presidential hopeful proposes a similar system to "eliminate the injustices" of American medicine.

The three socialized systems cited above are the cream of the crop when it comes to government controlled medical care. Clearly, your best bet is not to get sick.

FUNNY GIRL

The daughter of a good friend of mine is a student at UM and is one of the finalists in a national comedy contest sponsored by American Eagle. I invite you to go to the link here and vote for her. She is in Region 3 and her name is Julia Young (the only woman who made it to the finals !) You can watch the comedy routines of all the college finalists at the link, as well as hers.

But she is definitely the funniest IMHO!

THE MORALLY VACUOUS LEFT AND ITS NEO-MARXIST AGENDA

Thomas Sowell makes an excellent point this morning about the way the leftist media "support the troops":

The front cover of Newsweek's March 5th issue featured a woman with amputated legs and a sweatshirt that said "ARMY" across the front. Inside, there were pages and pages of other pictures of badly wounded and disfigured military veterans, in a long article that began under the big headline: "Forgotten Heroes."

The utter hypocrisy of all this can be seen in the word "heroes." There have been many acts of heroism among our troops in Iraq -- but those heroes didn't make the front cover of Newsweek.

One man fell on a grenade to protect his buddies, smothering the fatal blast with his body, so that those around him might live when he died. But that never made the front cover of Newsweek. It was barely mentioned anywhere in the liberal media.

They are not interested in heroes. They are interested in depicting victims -- in the military as in civilian society...

After generations of dumbed-down education in our schools, perhaps it is inevitable that there would be large numbers of people who have no way of separating rhetoric from reality.

The reality is that many of those in the media and in politics who are constantly talking about "supporting our troops" or "honoring our troops" have for years been in the forefront of those criticizing or undermining the military, long before the Iraq war.

Ah...victimhood. Now this is a meme the MSM can really get behind! Particularly when they aren't recycling the one about the US military being murderous, raping oppressors.

Almost all of the rhetoric against the Iraq war has focused dramatically on the toll it has taken on our military. This is seen in the daily death counts; the portentous talking heads seriously intoning about the latest explosions and such. How horrible and tragic it all is.

But as Sowell notes, parading casualties in front of the public is not the same thing as "honoring our troops." Honoring them means that we talk about the good things they have done; their achievements. But on those realities, the MSM is almost completely silent. Simply "pointing out that someone is dismembered or disfigured" is not "honoring" them.

Honoring them is recognizing their sacrifice by placing it in perspective. No one in the MSM, for example, has ever acknowledged that those who join the military and put their lives on the line for their country do so voluntarily and that they see it as a profession; with professional risks that they are willing to take. Instead, they focus on the one or two who deeply regret having made the choice to serve and now want to break their committments and walk away from it all. Such morally vacillating individuals are celebrated for "coming to their senses" and heroically "speaking truth to power". That they made a choice and that the honorable thing would be to live with the consequences of that choice is never discussed. It is considered a "travesty" that they have consequences--like a court martial--at all.

Almost everything that is reported is designed to demonstrate what an awful war the poor victimized soldiers have to fight in. And how inconsiderate and uncaring the evil Bush Administration is toward their plight.

You may have noticed that, for the most part, there are only two templates that exist for journalism on the U.S. military: Either, (1) they are the poor helpless victims of an oppressive military system and the current political administration which horribly abuses them; OR, (2) they are the brutal, savage, sadistic psychopaths that enjoy inflicting death and misery and who are encouraged to do so by the oppressive military system and the current political administration.

Do you also notice something familiar about these two templates? They just happen to dovetail nicely with the same old, tired marxist view of the world; where a person is either one of the "oppressed" victims or one of the brutal "oppressors".

Apparently that is the only world view taught in journalism schools these days. And, further, the journalist wannabees are encouraged to bring their perspective (they call it "social justice" in the nether realms of neo-marxism) into every article and story as part of the journalist's role of being an advocate for the socialist way.

Caught up in the marxist agenda of their postmodern rhetoric--with which they hope to "make the world a better place"--the graduates of these journalism schools march in lockstep with the other "oppressed" people of the world, including the poor victimized terrorists and all the helpless and persecuted dictators and tyrants who also only want to make the world a better place (with them in charge, of course).

But if you speak to the vast majority of military personnel; or read the blogs and letters they write home about their experiences, they will give you a perspected that does not depend on the marxist dialectic template; and which also presents a more realistic and honest portrayal of events.

In their own writings you can clearly see the honor they bring to their mission; and the everyday valor and courage they live as they serve their country.

The important point is this: the grim costs of any war or conflict--which include the damaged lives and bodies of the soldiers depicted in the latest round of MSM handwringing over Walter Reed, as well as the death of every soldier in Iraq and anywhere--must always be placed in the context of how much peace and security have their sacrifice, given voluntarily and with honor, brought to the country and people they willingly serve?

The inescapable truth is that there has not been another 9/11 to date on our soil. This reality was an unimaginable one after that horrific day in our history. No one thought that we would be spared for the next 5 years. Yet that is exactly what has happened; and the only conclusion that can be drawn is that it is the bold (and occasionally flawed) actions of our military--in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with other efforts by this administration, that have made us safe during this time. And, other areas of the world (e.g. Europe-- whose countries are in full appeasement mode) have not been.

James Lewis remarked at American Thinker in a recent editorial about the utter moral vacuity of the left and its media partners:

The greatest disappointment since 9/11/01 has been the total moral vacuity of the Left—a complete and utter nullity—both here and in Europe. Today, five years later, psychological denial still rules the day, and the few Democrats who raise their heads above the screaming mob are chased out, like Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller.

One-third of American voters are still being suckered by the left-wing media, who live in some sort of Toon-Town where you can Have your Cake and Eat it Too, where Lunches are Free and Health Care is Too, and where there are no ideological killer movements in this world, and to achieve World Peace you just have to point your finger at the “Warmongers” and scream really loud. The Left is now populated by “mewling, puking infants,” as William Shakespeare put it, utterly lacking an understanding of the world as it is.

Sowell concludes with this:

People's opinions can differ on troop deployment, even if -- like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- they have never deployed troops in their lives and have no military experience whatsoever.

But if anyone in Congress is serious about stopping the war, they can simply cut off the money -- and take responsibility for the consequences that follow.

Instead, they want to have it both ways, passing a non-binding resolution whose only effect is to embolden our enemies and undermine the morale of our troops that they keep saying they are "supporting."

If you can extricate yourself from the postmodern neo-marxist rhetoric for just a brief moment, you might reflect that the greatest way to honor the members of our military is to give them the status of real human beings with free will--and not automatons of a ridiculous marxist dialectic, i.e., they are neither oppressors nor are they oppressed--who have chosen to fight for this country; and who want only to complete the mission they have been given with honor and integrity. They are willing to cope with the consequences of their choices and they do so on a daily basis.

And in this postmodern day and age, that accomplishment is truly, remarkably heroic.

A REAL DISADVANTAGE

Somehow, this reminds me of this post about a young female patient with hysterical blindness:



I concluded that post with the following point, which is still valid:

Somehow, she had to develop the necessary maturity to cope with the new reality of her world--to "see" it for what it was. And somewhere along that difficult psychological path, her vision returned.

I sincerely hope that the Democrats are able to negotiate that same path.

Since I wrote the post, I have observed very little progress in understanding or insight for either the Democrats or the political left in general. But, unlike the frog in the cartoon above, whose blindness is confined to only one side; the Democrats are unhappily at an even more severe disadvantage. They can be blindsided from all directions; and their blindness is of a strickly voluntary nature.

Reality, when it finally comes swooping down out of the sky, is definitely going to be very painful.

THINK OF THE CHILDREN !

Cliff May at The Corner muses about the fate of Scooter Libby:

Bill Clinton lied to a grand jury. As a result, he did not lose his job, did not go to jail and soon thereafter became a multi-millionaire, lionized and celebrated in his party and around the world.

If that’s the fate in store for Libby, by all means, bring it on.

One more point: Valerie Plame is getting $2.5 million for “her story.” How much did New York publishers and Hollywood producers pay for the stories of Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick?

May doesn't get into the hypocrisy of many of the Clinton pardons. Many of which were incredibly controversial; with Clinton even pardoning his half-brother Roger for his drug charges.

Tell me how appropriate that is for a President.

The self-righteousness of the left makes any normal person want to puke.

So, I'm begging them (and Nancy Pelosi): Think of the message you are sending to the children!



(Eric Allie's cartoons can be found here)

CARNIVAL OF THE INSANITIES

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, click on the image of Siggy on the right to 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.

Thanks for all the submissions. I try to use as many as possible! SO MANY INSANITIES! SO LITTLE TIME!!!

1. So unbelievably stupid , even a caveman wouldn't do it ! (political incorrectness intended; sorry Geico).

2. The wonderfulness of socialism . But they can still consider themselves morally superior, I guess.

3. Islamic cross-dressing. It's a multipurpose garment! Kharnival of the Insanities Iranities!

4. Those omnipotent Elders of Zion have struck again! Meanwhile the peace-loving Palestinians use all their energy to create....explosives.

5. Houston, we have a problem! But they may be too busy emailing each other to address it? Fired! ...perhaps because of her expertise with diapers, she can get a job with this organization? (I'll bet you didn't know that it wasn't safe2P, did you?)

6. But, but, but... what about diversity? And is McDreamy is just another McOpportunist....?

7. DEPOTUS? Pelospolitik? Now she's into ritual sacrifice!

8. Shocked! Shocked! An undercover DNC operative? Makes perfect paranoid sense! Comic irony of rare clarity?

9. What some people will do to get the black vote! Or the Jewish vote. Or any vote really...it may not help your career, but you might get some votes from it. The Emperor's new clothes comes to mind.

10. You can never get enough of what you don't need to make you happy....

11. Do you need eroticism, fantasy and subtlety? Boomers prefer chocolate so when will the ads begin to exploit that reality?

12. Green sports? An inconvenient--but very profitable--truth... there's peer reviewed research, and then there's this secret basement lab ! Son of a Birch!

13. Yet another "number one cause" of global warming! And this is the weather story that's NOT topping the news. Maybe global warming is caused by cold weather?

14. If only we could put people in a "steel tube of truth"...it would save everyone a lot of trouble.

15. He must have been going to a sale. This guy was also seriously confused and took a number of wrong turns.

16. Tolerance through humor. With Israelis like these, who needs Arabs? With patriots like this, who needs enemies?

17. A fixed rule never to listen to music by living composers seems like a good idea

18. Scholastic insanity? Democratic insanity, or clever reverse psychology?

19. She's doing it "for the children", I assume?

20. Laugh, and the world laughs with you! Really.

***************************************
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?

THE POSTMODERN NARCISSISTIC DILEMMA AND THE PRISM OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

Wretchard captures the essence of what bothers me most about today's sensibility toward the past. In the post, he discusses a movie review of "300", which is about the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C. The review includes the following presumably serious statement by the reviewer:

One of the few war movies I've seen in the past two decades that doesn't include at least some nod in the direction of antiwar sentiment, 300 is a mythic ode to righteous bellicosity.

Wretchard then goes on to comment:

I have no idea whether 300 is a good movie, but Steven's review is an entertaining example of how all events, including those which happened nearly 500 years BC, must be judged according to prisms of contemporary political correctness. Miller had to remember, for example, "that we're in the middle of an actual war". Did he not realize his duty to denounce it? But what if Miller had made a movie about the fight against Hitler? Would it have been necessary to remind the audience that Hitler was a nonsmoking, animal-loving, vegetarian artist? Or had he remade Zulu to include some white faces among Prince Dabulamanzi's impis?

The most interesting thing about those who habitually denounce ethnocentricity and cultural blindness is that they are not without such sentiments themselves, the difference being that their cultural point of view is rooted in the mid-20th century, rather than say, ancient Lacedaemonia.

Once upon a time intellectuals who sought to understand the modern world looked to the giants of intellectual thought from humanity's past. In the wisdom of their writings we would be able to find the words and meanings relevant to analyzing the events of today. But now, it is as if history has been turned upside down. We no longer look to the past to understand ourselves and our journey--instead we use our present feelings and our modern understandings and prejudices to reinterpret and deconstruct the past.

Is it any wonder that we are horribly confused and disoriented, not knowing who we are or where we are going? Is it any wonder that today's events do not seem to have any rhyme or reason? Modern philosophical assumptions distort and/or obscure any appreciation of our own past. Where once we strove to understand the thinkers and events of the past by placing them within their own context and culture; it is now common practice to judge them by contemporary standards and inclinations.

That this rather perversely condescending and ultimately nihilistic tendency is a direct result of the essential narcissism of our times there is no doubt. Only a narcissist of the most pathological sort could or would haughtily dismiss Plato or Aristotle as merely primitive Greeks; or reject the writings of a Thomas Jefferson or John Adams because they were white male slaveholders. Only a self-absorbed postmodernist who believes he has all the answers to not only current problems, but that his superior and perfect intellect has nothing to gain by considering the admittedly imperfect thinkers and ideas of the past.

The dilemma of the postmodern narcissist is thus an unqualified belief in his or her own righteousness and moral obligation to judge the past; that is simultaneously combined with an aggressive ignorance about it.

Their behavior begs the question, how can we possibly understand our present selves--we who represent the sum of more than 5000 years of civilization--if we dismiss all that has gone before us and made us who we are?

When the very philosophical foundations that have made it possible for us to live and thrive in this modern world are abandoned because they were conceived and acted on by imperfect human beings (unlike today's "intellectuals" whose perfection is apparent to all), then what is left but the pointless and pervasive nihilism currently promulgated via postmodern political rhetoric?

The nihilism has been concealed within the doctrines of political correctness and multiculturalism, both of which cleverly assert their own absolute and inviolate truth, even as they advocate the most blatant relativism and subjectivity.

One of the most critical tasks that must be accomplished in order to unravel reason, truth and reality from human experience is a reinterpretation of the past . By deconstructing the ideas, events, and thinkers of the past; forcing them into our own postmodern procrustean template, we have essentially cut ourselves adrift from history and removed our philosophy from any anchor in the real world.

Somewhere in the last fifty years or so, the entire field of philosophy has been completely hijacked by its most narcissistically-inclined branch--politics. Metaphysics, epistemology, and even ethics, are all now subservient to politics. Normally there is a heirarchical relationship between all the branches; with the base being metaphysics, the study and the nature of existence. Epistemology is dependent on and closely related to metaphysics, and it is the study of how we know reality and existence; while ethics, the study of how humans should act, is dependent on epistemology. Politics--or how humans should interact in society--should be dependent on ethics. Yet in our postmodern world we have turned it all upside down. We are told how we should properly interact and it has become the ethical standard of behavior. Having set up this relativistic ethical standard; postmodern intellectuals can now question both how we know reality and even insist that it does not exist separately and independenly from our senses.

The entire purpose of this vast philosophical inversion is give the advocates and followers of totalitarian collectivism--particularly socialism and communism--a carte blanche to rewrite the history of the last century that clearly and undeniably demonstrated their ideology's intellectual and moral bankruptcy. It also permits the deconstruction of reality and truth necessary to undermine and distort the history of humanity's struggle for individual freedom.

The resulting relativistic rhetoric that emanates from postmodern philosophy has obscured and hidden the actual events of the past (they must be recreated in movies that conform to the dogma of today); ridiculed the actors and thinkers of the past simply because they were not "modern"; casually dismissed or undermined man's cognitive faculty--the essential tool for perceiving the world; altered the very meaning of words; and inverted any and all criteria by which we are able to make moral judgements.

This philosophical disintegration is celebrated by postmodernists as "freeing" ourselves from the tyranny of the past; but it is really a calculated attempt to radically dissociate our thinking from any of those unpleasant and inconvenient dictates of an "oppressive" reality that is always threatening to undermine the narcissistic belief that we are the center of the universe; and place limits on our unbridled sense of moral superiority.

Victor Davis Hanson wrote recently:

Our current crisis is not yet a catastrophe, but a real loss of confidence of the spirit. The hard-won effort of the Western Enlightenment of some 2,500 years that, along with Judeo-Christian benevolence, is the foundation of our material progress, common decency, and scientific excellence, is at risk in this new millennium.

But our newest foes of Reason are not the enraged Athenian democrats who tried and executed Socrates. And they are not the Christian zealots of the medieval church who persecuted philosophers of heliocentricity. Nor are they Nazis who burned books and turned Western science against its own to murder millions en masse.

No, the culprits are now more often us. In the most affluent, and leisured age in the history of Western civilization--never more powerful in its military reach, never more prosperous in our material bounty--we have become complacent, and then scared of the most recent face of barbarism from the primordial extremists of the Middle East.

We have so embraced multiculturalism and political correctness that we no longer have the intellectual tools to fight--or even face--the barbarism.

And let me conclude with a quote from Douglas Murray (page 218), and as you read it, think of the postmodern movie reviewer from the beginning of this piece:

Cultures which have forgotten about war, or believe it is a thing of the past, can neither imagine, nor imagine the need for, conflict. Portions of America are as attracted to such dreams as their European cousins....Though they cannot imagine the apocalypse, only a generation brought up on self-esteem would draw from that the conclusion that the apocalypse cannot therefore happen.

The postmodern narcissistic dilemma we face is that the politically correct prism through which we perceive and interpret the world around us, is entirely dysfunctional and useless; but it sure makes us feel good, doesn't it?

DEFENSIVE MANEUVERS

There is evidence that the Surge is working, as I noted in the two posts prior to this one. In fact, there is some interesting evidence coming out of Baghdad, and discussed at Iraq the Model and The Belmont Club , that suggests the Surge has created a "frenzy of political activity in Iraq."

Wretchard concludes from this activity the following:

I believe the Nancy Pelosi approach of threatening to weaken America on the ground in order to achieve changes in Iraqi politics is the wrong one. My intuition is that the precise opposite should be attempted -- that strengthening the position on the ground is likely to effect reform.

The truth is that Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha and the other Democratic leaders are completely uninterested in whether or not the Surge might work, primarily because they are wholly committed to American failure in Iraq.

Failure in Iraq means success for them, and a failure for President Bush and Republicans.

As I commented in the post just prior to this one: The Democrats are far more interested in "directly challenging President Bush" than they are in directly challenging the real enemies of civilization or the United States.

Let us, for a moment suppose that this behavior is not deliberately malignant and self-serving; and that it arises not from an incredible stupidity or naivete. This is a really big assumption, of course, and I have no doubt that there are those in the ranks of the Democrats and the left who fit both of those descriptions. But let us take them at their word for the moment--that they really and truly believe they have the best interests of the country at heart; that they are the real patriots; that they are acting to protect American civil liberties from egregious destruction; and that they "support the troops."

What we are witnessing then, in their indifference to any actual facts about the matter; or their casual lack of concern about the consequences of their thoughtless behavior and frenzied oppositional activity--is a psychological defensive maneuver that is probably the most common psycological response to the worldwide threat of Islamofascism since 9/11. This response is a very specific kind of psychological denial; and it is called displacement.

As I have mentioned before, it is the same defense that is at the root of Bush Derangement Syndrome ; and before someone tells me that a reasonable person can dislike President Bush and not be exhibiting a psychological defense, let me say that I perfectly agree with you.

Many people intensely disliked President Clinton for a variety of reasons--even prior to the Lewinsky scandal--but there was never the intense rage and unbelievable vitriol directed at him that President Bush has had to endure during his entire term of office. Disliking a President is perfectly normal and a part of political life in this country. But those kind of feelings should normally lead to a decision not to vote for him or the party that supports him; not to the constant, pervasive, and highly inappropriate behavior we observe every day by those who have gone so far over the top of normal political expression, that they have landed in an alternate universe.

The kind of inappropriate and nearly psychotic paranoid behavior that I am talking about is the same psychological dynamic that lies behind the dramatic increase in anti-semitism and general anti-American sentiment in this country and worldwide--even among those who are relatively normal and sane individuals otherwise.

You can think of psychological displacement as a process somewhat analogous to how an attenuated virus is used to immunize someone to prevent the catastrophic consequences of an otherwise life-threatening illness. Except that in medicine, the attenuated virus actually does prevent the real virus from causing damage. Displacement of the sort I am talking about is a method of temporarily attenuating a psychological threat--but the real threat is not halted in its advance; nor does it go away when attention is deflected away from it.

But the person using displacement believes he or she is now safe.

That is the reason that displacement is an attractive alternative to dealing with reality-- because it can work in the short term for the individual or group who uses it.

Psychotherapy itself revolves around, and works because of the temporary displacement of the patient's psychopathology onto the therapist. This is referred to as "transference." As an example, let's say, that the patient has a conflict with his father. For all intents and purposes, the therapist becomes the "psychological father" and the therapeutic relationship then plays out the drama in a less threatening, and more manageable setting.

The entire purpose of displacement is to gain control over a conflict that otherwise feels out of control.

By focusing on something you have some control over, the psyche is much less threatened. After all, you can always fire your therapist; you can express your animosity unreservedly; and there will not be the consequences if that emotion were directed toward the real object of emotional conflict.

You can even pretend, that if it weren't for the therapist, everything in your life would be perfect.

Displacement can be thought of as an slightly more mature type of psychological projection. In projection, the individual remains oblivious to the fact that he owns and is responsible for the emotions that he imagines are in the person or group into which he is projecting. In other words, ownership of the idea and/or affect is banished from the self.

In displacement, the idea or emotion is merely deflected from one object to another, less threatening one; but the ownership of the negative emotion or idea (e.g. animosity, anger) is retained--and is then often raised to a virtue. [For proof of this in BDS, note the righteous fervor of the sufferers who further delude themselves into thinking that their hatred and unparalleled animosity is "patriotic" and for the "good" of the nation as a whole.]

A common example of displacement that can be witnessed every day, is the person who is angry at a loved one, but settles for kicking the dog. The anger is evident in the action and is still owned by the person experiencing it.

At its most primitive, anti-semitism is a form of psychological projection (just as all racism is).

We see this infantile defense used repeatedly in the Arab/Islamic world. They seem unable to appreciate the irony of their labelling of Islam as a "religion of peace", for example, and dismiss the barbarism done in the name of Islam as misunderstandings or the actions of only "a few." In other words, they dismiss their own aggression in toto; asserting that it is the Jews who are always the aggressors; that it is the Jews who are out to destroy them; and that they are the poor, helpless victims of the Jews. By distancing themselves from their own aggression and projecting it onto Israel and the Jews; they have retained their honor as the peace-loving people they assert themselves to be.

It is essential to the success of the defense that they portray themselves as the victims and be seen as the victims in the eyes of the world. Even when their own behavior is responsible for the deaths of innocents, it is rationalized away and ultimately also blamed on the Jews.

Displacement, like projection, is an effective method for psychologically avoiding reality and facing one's own inner demons. It is a step above projection in being a less primitive and somewhat more mature method of coping; and is considered simply neurotic.

While projection can often appear to be completely uncoupled from reality, displacement has the advantage of allowing someone filled with unpleasant emotions to have an acceptable object onto which to express those emotions. Note that in projection, the individual completely denies that he or she even possesses-- or is capable of possessing-- the unacceptable emotions; it is the "other" who possesses them, and wants to inflict them on you.

Historically, the Jews have been the offical scapegoat (object of displacement) for many societies. If only the Jews were gone, then all would be well. The world would be perfect.

We see something similar in much of the rhetoric of today's left and their political mouthpieces in the Democratic Party. If only Bush were gone, they insist, everything would be perfect! None of these awful things--like 9/11, for example-- would have happened and the U.S. could go back to the idyllic days of the Clintonian utopia.

Likewise, if only the world put a halt once an for all to Israeli aggression, then the Middle East would be at peace.

When it comes to anti-semitism, you are witnessing possibly the clearest possible case of "blaming the victim" that you are ever likely to see. It is far too threatening to blame the real aggressor in the Middle East; the real source of hatred and genocidal intent; the real entity that is incapable of being rationally dealt with or deterred.

This real aggressor repeatedly states its intentions clearly and unambiguously. Yet, for some curious reason, those in the West to whom it is stated refuse to believe them! Their words are dismissed, and the actions that logically derive from their words are minimized or ignored.

In a perverse way, this defensive maneuver on the part of the West is understandable. No truly rational person is able to deal easily with persons or culures that glory in suicidal victimhood to a degree unparalleled in human history; and who scream "god is great"-- even as he blows you and himself up in a nihilistic frenzy.

To say the least, this sort of behavior is truly and incredibly frightening and completely inexplicable for the modern human to psychologically metabolize. Thus, it is only natural that it's unacceptable reality must be defended against and prevented from being digested and analyzed.
The dynamic and logic of displacement goes a long way to explaining the remarkable and sometimes lunatic appeasement of Islamofascist aggression and violence by so many individuals and governments and around the world, even as they trash the US (and particularly Bush) and Israel.

Denial and displacement give you the illusion that you are in control of the situation and that the solution is simple.

The only problem is that reality doesn't go away simply because you have found a way to satisfactorily (and temporarily) deflect it; nor does hiding the unpalatable truth from yourself make that truth disappear.

No matter what defensive maneuver is chosen, eventually the individual, group, or society must face reality, or they will face the consequences--which may well be catastrophic.

Pelosi, Murtha and the others may very well and truly believe what they say they believe. But by making the enemy President Bush, and focusing all their energy on fighting him, they do their country and the principles they claim to represent great--and possibly irreparable--harm.