HOSTAGE
Reason's Matt Welch wants newspapers to just simply admit that they are frightened of Muslims:

As Radley Balko noted in yesterday's Morning Links, the Washington Post and other newspapers pulled Wiley Miller's syndicated "Non Sequitur" cartoon from their comics pages two Sundays back, because Miller pulled a familiar-to-Reason-readers "where's Waldo?" gag with the Prophet Muhammad, satirizing the new 21st century taboo on the depiction of even jokes about the fear of depicting a historical figure who really existed.

As is typical of the genre, Washington Post editors tried to play their own "where's Waldo" with the censorship process:

Style editor Ned Martel said he decided to yank it, after conferring with others, including Executive Editor Marcus W. Brauchli, because "it seemed a deliberate provocation without a clear message." He added that "the point of the joke was not immediately clear" and that readers might think that Muhammad was somewhere in the drawing.

If the Post's new standard for comics is to make jokes "immediately clear," then it might be time to kill the comics page altogether. No, Martel/Brauchli, you pulled the cartoon because your fear of Muslims outweighs your commitment to free expression, period.

Now comes L.A. Times media critic James Rainey, who, even while concluding that the cartoon should have run (the L.A. Times, to no one's surprise, suppressed it), makes sure we understand that fear was not a factor, nosiree:

That's not to agree with some commentators who have called the refusal to run the comic a cowardly retreat from radicals. I'd say the ax that fell on "Non Sequitur" had more to do expediency. Moving in a hurry, with many other decisions that seemed more pressing at the time, editors probably killed the item rather than face the possibility of a furor for a piece they honestly felt was not of high quality.

Uh-huh. This is really how these gut-checks work. A boundary-stretching case comes before you, and suddenly everyone's an art critic. (Rainey: "I didn't find the panel especially powerful or witty.")

I especially like the comment that "fear was not a factor, nosiree". These people are not only afraid of Islam, they are absolutely terrified--so terrified that they are willing to give up just about anything, including their freedom, to placate the viscious thugs who are in control of that religion now.

So, who are the real Islamophobes? Remember, a phobia is a fear; and Islamophobia is a word that means a fear of Islam.

The point being that the Islamophobes are clearly not those who publicly defy Islam's threats and attacks and who just go ahead and publicly criticise it anyway and publicly mock it anyway. Where's the "phobia" in that? No, the phobia - the fear - is being shown by those who refrain from such criticism and such mockery, because they are afraid, and are afraid even to admit that they are afraid (because that too might be interpreted as an implied criticism of the thuggishness of that which they are refraining from criticising or mocking).

Watching all the kow-towing, bowing and placating; the sucking up and constant forced inclusion into all aspects of American life (even while EXcluding and even eliminating symbols of all other religions); all the perverse pseudo-outrage at any possible slight to this poor, vilified "religion of peace"; and the constant charges of Islamophobia that erupt whenever anyone dares to suggest that putting a monument to Islam on or next to the site of the 9/11 attacks is obscene (and let me make one point here: the terrorists who flew planes into the WTC did not "just happen" to be adherents of Islam--the entire raison de'etre and motivation of these heinous murderers was religious; and to this day they are celebrated as heroes in that religious culture)one gets the impression that there is a strong unconscious psychological process at work here that is disguising an intense, primal fear.

Let's talk for a moment about Anna Freud's concept of Identification with the Aggressor.

Many parents are familiar with a wide variety of children's games in which the children pretend to be wild animals or or even imaginary viscious creatures. Maurice Sendak's famous children's book, Where the Wild Things Are is a perfect example of such games. This kind of play by children psychologically allows them to do several emotional tasks at once.

First, the play allows them an expression of instinctual energy in a setting that is generally not particularly destructive or dangerous. With parents benignly watching over the play, children can literally get away with "monstrous acts" and if they are too rambunctious, they are easily controlled (as Max's mother does in the book).

Second, and just as important, the child through this play can transform their own intense anxiety about being attacked by "monsters" into an identification with the monster. In children's games, this is a pleasurable experience, and helps to lessen the normal kinds of fears and anxieties that are a part of childhood.

Thus we can see the origins of what has become known as the "Stockholm Syndrome" or Anna Freud's concept of "identification with the aggressor."

By taking on some characteristic of a thing which causes extreme anxiety, a child is using that identification (or introjection as it is sometimes called) as a means of reducing his or her anxiety by morphing from the passive role to the active role. With psychological identification, instead of being the object of a threat, you become the one making the threat.

In children this is considered a normal part of the development of the "superego" as children learn to master their anxiety. In fact, this capability of identification with another is essential for normal psychological development and when it is not brought about by excessively traumatic events in a child's life (i.e.,during the safety of play) the child can develop normally. The healthy result of this process is an introjection and assimilation of others leading to normal human relationships and empathy and understanding of other people.

When there is abuse or trauma in the picture, this normal process which otherwise allows a child to develop mastery over his or her fears, will sometimes become extremely exaggerated and dysfunctional; resulting in psychological displacement (a neurotic alternative) or even outright projection and full-blown paranoia (psychotic alternatives).

Here is a quote from a released hostage in Iraq:

"I was treated very respectfully and courteously apart from the fact that I was detained against my will and threatened with beheading," Sands told The Associated Press on Saturday. "I was not beaten, starved or treated badly."

Note that this was said of the people who threatened to behead the hostage in question.

In fact, it is not too uncommon for some people in such a hostage situation, particularly where they fear for their lives, to fully and completely identify with the side that is threatening them.

There is an episode of Firefly (interestingly titled "Bushwacked") where the sole survivor of a Reaver attack is rescued by the crew, but he has been the witness to such horrors that he literally transforms himself into a Reaver in order to cope with the trauma. Reavers are what is left of a human being when all civilizing mental processes are stripped from their minds; only the primitive and animalistic part of the human remains. Thus they are capable of any atrocity.

If you have read some of my posts on psychological defense mechanisms (here ), you will realize that "identification with the aggressor" involves the use of a particularly primitive defense called "projection", where one's own unacceptable feelings or behaviors are placed on another individual or group. Thus it is not at all uncommon for those who are sadistically traumatized to become sadistic themselves and carry on the trauma and to project their feelings of helplessness and trauma onto others as they create more victims. This mechanism explains why some abused children go on to become abusers themselves when they are adults. It also explains why someone of Jewish heritage would admire a Hitler and hide their ancestry; or why people in general might find themselves supporting and defending people who despise them or even might want to kill them.

Identification with the aggressor is only considered normal when it is innocuous --as in children's play.

When it occurs in adults in real life situations, it can literally transform those who unconsciously use it into the very monsters they fear the most, as they cope with their severe anxiety, dread, and terror.

I do not contend that coping in a healthy manner to traumatic circumstances is an easy thing to do. In fact, maintaining psychological health under those circumstances may be very difficult. One must do what one must to survive and get out of the deadly situation. Personally, I would say anything (even lying, if necessary) and do anything--right up to the point where it would betray my own fundamental values, without which I am not myself anyway) in order to survive.

But it is after the trauma; after the attack; that the hardest and most painful part of coping psychologically presents itself. And to survive psychologically will require not a little insight, self-awareness, and honesty; possibly shame and/or guilt; and most of all, using one's rational faculty to help understand all that has transpired both externally and internally. In this way, one may permit one's self to tap into the terrible feelings of fear and humiliation and to deal with them --instead of repressing them, and letting them deal with you and thus, unconsciously control you and distort the reality of what happened to you and what may still be threatening you.

An example of this is the case of the hostage above, who clearly dealt with his fear by identifying with his captors and projecting some of his own normality onto them-- as in, "they were so respectful and courteous to me"....

Yes, they were. As "respectful and courteous" as anyone could be when they are threatening to cut off your head. In the same way that Islam is only a misunderstood religion of peace--as "peaceful" as any religion could possibly be that intends to dominate the world, kill all those 'infidels' who will not submit to their ideology; and install sharia law to eliminate political, economic and social freedom from the face of the earth.

The free people of the world are being held hostage by the so-called 'religion of peace'. Indeed, many in the most free and prosperous nations are suffering from a Terrorist-induced Stockholm Syndrome. The intense fear generated by this violent, angry and dysfunctional religion/culture and its adherents has begun to erode the committment of many (especially those of the "progressive" label) to all the basic human freedoms that humanity has worked so hard to achieve. Even human progress itself is threatened by this persistent phobia ; this horror whenever anyone stands up to the bullies of Islam.

So now, who are the ones for whom the dreaded label of "Islamophobia" really applies?


[Political cartoons by Lisa Benson}
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 4:15 PM |

 
GOOD AND EVIL
Here is a story of human good; human endurance and human ingenuity. Just reading about it brought tears to my eyes and a sense of pride in the capacity for good that exists in us.

By contrast, here is David Pryce-Jones writing about the malevolent President of Iran:

...[T]o enlarge the quest for regional power into a clash of civilizations between so-called “Crusaders” and Islam serves no useful purpose; it is simply false, as well as counter-productive because it warns his enemies that they have no way of becoming friends. He’s able to combine belief that the Hidden Imam of the Shias is on the point of reappearing with a conspiracy theory about 9/11. Bin Laden and other Muslims take the greatest pride in it, but the Iranian president tells everyone that the United States actually destroyed its own monuments. This is on a par with his nonsense about the Nazi Holocaust, which he thinks never took place — but meanwhile he’s going to wipe Israel off the map.

Human good and human evil. As humans, we are confronted with both on a daily basis...and every single day that goes by, each and every one of us must choose which side we will support on that day. It must be a conscious and deliberate choice, because evil depends on our tuning out the rational mind and allowing it to pursue its ends.

If we are to stand for that which is good in humanity--and in ourselves, we must renew our vows every day; and take heart and pride in the little victories, like the one taking place in Chile right now. As one of the miners said when he emerged from hell: “I’ve been near God, but I’ve also been near the devil. God won.”
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:15 AM |

 
DYSFUNCTIONAL DEMOCRATS IN DENIAL
Remember the Clinton Administration bigwigs yukking it up and posing like "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" monkeys? They were in profound denial about the threat of radical Islam and refused to take it seriously.



At least Clinton and his cohorts didn't run the American economy into the ground.

Flash forward now to Obama and his merry minions. Not only are they continuing the Democratic denial about the external threats to this country; but they have upped the ante and are also completely clueless about the incredible damage they are doing to the American economy with their quasi-socialist agenda:

[From Diogenes Sarcastica via Doug Ross]



Laugh it up, bozos.

The one thing that these dysfunctional Democrats in denial definitely tend to take extremely seriously is their poll numbers.

Unfortunately for this country, it is the only reality they care about.

UPDATE: I'm going to be taking a trip to the coast for some R&R; and will be back blogging later in the week. I'm sure all the insanity will still be there when I return!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:48 AM |

 
NAZI-EQUIVALENTS AND LOW RENT CLOWNS
Wretchard, in writing on Paul Kengor's article in National Review about Obama's mentor, Frank Davis, reminds us of the reality of communism:

Both the true believers and the apostates understand all too well that Communists aren’t just funny people but Nazi-equivalents who knew how to win. They were more clever, better spoken than Hitler’s crude spokesmen, but they were every bit as cunning and ruthless as the minions of the Third Reich. Communism owns most of the major genocides of the 20th century. By comparison to Stalin — Frank Davis Marshall’s idol — Hitler was a low rent clown.

This truth of this apparently hasn't stripped most leftist intellectuals (including the current President) from their admiration of committed communists or of communism itself. Witness the plethora of communist and socialist groups that converged on the National Mall recently to support Obama and stand in unified opposition to those awful, "racist" teapartiers. And, need I mention that the evil, universally condemned and shunned "NAZI" designation was the fond abbreviation of the National SOCIALIST party in Germany? Yet today, NAZI=EVIL and COMMUNIST=OK (or even "GOOD")

Wretchard's point is that, through an interesting psychological circumstance, communism has essentially become mainstream in the U.S.

If that doesn't bother you, it should. If it doesn't bother you that someone who was an active propagandist for Stalin's USSR was a key influence in forming the character of the current President of the U.S., then you need to get out of your self-induced stupor and wake up.

Let me digress for just a moment about religion, because contrary to PC dictates, not all religion is equally good or equally bad.

Whatever you may think of religion, the Judeo-Christian tradition has, for millenia, provided and continues to provide to those who believe in God a moral compass--an ethical foundation that is now rooted in a committment to a rational metaphysics and epistemology that states that reality exists and human beings are able to percive it.

The philosophical premises which attempt to deconstruct this tradition are only a few centuries old, but already they have managed to generate more human misery, suffering, and death from the various utopian ideologies which they caused to be unleashed on the human population than in all the centuries before. It is argued, that this catastrophe is a direct result of the "death of God"--or, as I would put it, the deconstruction of the divine--in human affairs.

You see, communists not only don't believe in a god (except, of course, for their own ideology), they have also abandoned the rational metaphysics and epistemology that is required for an ethics that prioritizes human life as the basis for what is good.

In an existence where objective reality doesn't exist; and where the human mind is disconnected from it, anything goes. This is postmodernism its ultimate manifestation. And it is from the darkness of this manifestation that communism, socialism and fascism--and their 21st century iterations: radical Islam and radical environmentalism (see here for a more complete discussion of this)-- have erupted into history--all of them variations on the same totalitarian theme in the the postmodern philosophical songbook.

"Good" communists, and the "low rent clown" socialists all thrive in an environment of economic and political oppression. They facilitate poverty and human misery. And they have inevitably led to the death of millions, all rationalized as for the good of the collective.

As for the Islamists, far from being an example of a "good" religion are the living, breathing examples of everything that "bad" religion could possibly be--in essence, they are an "anti-religion" religion in the same way that radical environmentalism has become the left's secular religion.

Mark Steyn in a post titled "The earth is your fuhrer" makes the connection and demonstrates the logical extreme of today's enviromental-fascists, whose ethical "Ideal" is a physical planet, quite indifferent to human suffering; and whom they worship as Gaia/God in much the same way their primitive ancestors worshipped the sun or moon. And like those primitive ancestors, today's environmentalists are even now planning the sacrifices necessary to placate the whim of those destructive gods:

... Bigshot eco-panjandrum lays down the law:

Hillman, senior fellow emeritus at the Policy Studies Institute, says carbon rationing is the only way to ensure that the world avoids the worst effects of climate change. And he says that the problems caused by burning fossil fuels are so serious that governments might have to implement rationing against the will of the people.

"When the chips are down I think democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life, the end of life on it," he says. "This has got to be imposed on people whether they like it or not." (emphasis Steyn)

When religion is rooted in human freedom, as it is in the Judeo-Christian tradition, then it is able to enhance human life and give meaning and purpose to that life. When it is perverted and used for secular political ends--as in the case of radical Islam or radical environmentalism, i.e., those who want to impose or mandate some social policy or another on others--then it inevitably leads to oppression and cheapens or devalues human life.

So, it is essential that today, as the U.S. and much of the world begin once again to flirt with these toxic ideologies (i.e., the "NAZI-equivalent" communists and their "low rent clown" compatriot socialists) to remember all the millions of victims who suffered in these Marxist-inspired "utopias." Especially since the memory of communism's virulence seems to be fading away in our new, improved postmodern political world.

From Reason TV:



and, as a companion to the above, here is Reagan's Berlin speech:



It is well past time for American voters to once and for all stop giving a free past to and (even electing politicians who have embraced the toxic ideology of either communism or socialism. In case you haven't figured it out yet, the adherents of these ideologies--like those of radical Islam and radical environmentalism-- are intent on destroying everything America stands for.

UPDATE: While I was writing this last night, I noticed this relevant tidbit from Ron Radosh via The Corner:

The late Italian Communist and Marxist intellectual Antonio Gramsci was correct. Before any major social change can take place — such as the revolution he favored — those who seek it have to wage a fight for what he called cultural hegemony, via a war of position in which the intellectual and cultural issues that will decide the nation’s future are adopted by the people who desire a new path.

When he was a Marxist, the great historian Eugene D. Genovese, now a rock-ribbed conservative, wrote against what he called the “cult of perpetual adolescence,” in which would-be revolutionaries rebelled against society for its own sake, and did not want to “face the necessity of waging a long, hard struggle to reshape our national culture as well as our national politics.” That is what is meant by waging the war over culture — and just as Tea Party members and other conservatives have now adopted Alinsky’s tactics as a rule-book for organizing, so must conservatives adopt Gramsci’s insight and wage a war over cultural issues before they can be successful in changing our country’s politics.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:45 AM |

 
SOMETIMES FACT TRUMPS SATIRE
Three dozen fall ill at Obama rally....

This is exactly why I don't ever listen anymore to the man.



[Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell ]
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:00 PM |

 
RED HERRINGS AND OTHER TECHNIQUES FOR DENYING REALITY
In "Strategies for Dealing With Denia"l( Part I, Part II, and Part III), I discussed some of the common rhetorical ploys used when someone is attempting to deny or avoid reality. As that post explains,
"The difference between fallacies and rhetorical ploys is understood most eaily as a difference in the function of the language being employed....politicians, advertisers and newspaper columnists tend to be experts when it come to using rhetorical ploys. Rhetorical ploys typically make a more or less direct appeal to feeling and emotion rather than to reason, which is the domin of argument. Fallacies, on the other hand, are simply defective attempts at arguments....They may fool us into thinking they are not defective, but they are still presented as attempts at argument. Of course, manny writers and speakers will use a mixture of rhetorical ploys, fallacies, and genuine arguments when attempting to persuade us of the truth of their claim."

the most common rhetorical ploys are:

-Appeals to FEELINGS : this type of ploy is very common and the user tries to appeal to specific feelings or desires. For example, you may be enticed to believe what is said because of the passion with which it is said (rather than analyzing the content); or because it stimulates compassion, pity, guilt, fear or any number of other feelings.

Eliciting fear is also known as using "scare tactics", and should be distinguished from genuine warnings for which there is a good reason to act and/or experience the emotion.

Additionally, when one appeals to feelings; emphasis may be placed on the novelty of the idea; or popularity ("everyone thinks this!") or the sexiness or cuteness etc.; all of which can easily distract from a rational analysis of the idea or product.

-Direct attack is simply the unapologetic assertion that something is true or not true without any evidence presented.

-Buzzwords are the use of emotion-laden terms that subtly influence the listener but which offer no information about the truth of what is being said.

-Scare quotes are used to mock the opposition (I use them myself at times!) by calling into question a particular concept (e.g., terrorism vs "terrorism").

-Smokescreen is diverting attention from the topic of discussion by introducing a new topic.

-Equivocation is deliberately making ambiguous statements in order to mislead.

In the days leading up to November 2, you are going to be seeing a lot of all of these techniques. Pay attention to see who is using them because those will be the people who are not running on their record; or avoiding real issues; or, avoiding reality itself.

Thomas Sowell demonstrates for us one recent example of the "red herring" technique:

In an election year, this is the time for an “October surprise” — some sensational, and usually irrelevant, revelation to distract the voters from serious issues. This year, there are October surprises from coast to coast. There are a lot of incumbents who don’t want to discuss serious issues — especially their own track records.

This year, the October surprise that is getting the biggest play in the media is the revelation that California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman once employed a housekeeper — at $23 an hour — who turned out to be an illegal immigrant. It is great political theater, with activist lawyer Gloria Allred putting her arm protectively around the unhappy-looking woman.

But why anyone should be unhappy at getting $23 an hour for housekeeping is by no means clear. Maybe she is unhappy because Meg Whitman fired her when she learned that the housekeeper was an illegal immigrant, despite false documents that indicated she was legal when she was hired.

What is Meg Whitman supposed to be guilty of? Not being able to tell false documents from real ones? Is that what voters are supposed to use to determine who to vote for as governor of California? A far more important question is whether voters can tell false issues from real ones.(emphasis mine)

It is easy to be tough and ruthless with political adversaries in the US political battlefield. The kind of threat political adversaries pose is hardly life-threatening (though in other, less civilized nations it may well be). Political bullies (like the Obamas or Clintons) feel perfectly safe in viciously attacking and denigrating those who oppose them. And, when it happens occasionally that a political adversary unexpectedly shoots back and won't go away, the bully easily falls back on the "victim" role and whines about "vast right-wing conspiracies" , "racism", "hate" and the like.

This is not the kind of person who can face real threats in the real world very effectively because this is not the kind of person who can effectively deal with threats they do not perceive as personal--why should they care much about any other kind, unless the polls indicate they should?

The best leaders are not obsessed with themselves; with polls; or with accumulating power by pandering to all sides. Those leaders may, in truth, have many other personal flaws--but not particularly of the dangerously narcissistic variety. Whatever those flaws (and we all possess them), they are characterologically able to be more concerned about dealing with external reality; rather than in preserving a distorted and fragile internal one. Avenging petty slights and insults is not a high priority to a psychologically healthy person. Those healthy individuals are far more likely to direct their psychological energy toward dealing with real-world geopolitical threats that endanger both their country and the people they have the responsibility to protect; rather than using that country or the power of their office to counter threats to their endangered self and act on their grandiose fantasies about themselves.

The latter is the same psychological pathology that is rampant among dictators and dictator wannabes of all stripes. Their concern about others in their group/nation is purely of the “l’état c’est moi” variety. Look at Saddam's behavioral legacy. Observe the recent behaviors of Ahmadinejad or Chavez or Kim Jong Il -- or any of the other despots and thugs that somehow claw their way up to the top of the food chain in their respective countries.

That the needs of the nation, or the people they serve, might be different from their own; or that doing the right thing is often different from doing the popular thing, are foreign and dangerous concepts. The only reality they know--or care about--is the one inside themselves.

So the next time you see politicians of the political left, center or right use any of these kinds of rhetorical ploys on an opponent, you will have evidence that they are avoiding dealing with the real and important issues they will have to face if elected.

And if you vote for them anyway, then you only have yourself to blame for what follows.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:42 AM |

 
FREEDOM NEVER CRIES
Mark Krikorian asserts that the government is becoming more and more intrusive into everyday lives:

The federal government bans the incandescent light bulb. It bans street signs that have all capital letters and mandates what font they need to be in. Now, Congress has seen fit to focus its august attention on the volume of TV commercials.

The problem is not that these things create unnecessary costs or destroy jobs, which they do, or that lawmakers have more important things to do, which is also true. Rather, the federal government has no business doing any of these things.

He then quotes Tocqueville, who sums up the consequences of this government intrusion:

The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

If you think of socialism and communism as a sort of political and economic cancer that weakens and eventually kills its host; then the process described above by Toqueville is more like a tapeworm that has infected the body politic. Randal Hoven talks about this tapeworm in terms of taxation:

A successful parasite must keep its host alive, finding the point where it can maximize its intake without killing off its source of sustenance. So, too, with governments taxing their citizenry. With taxation, governments can reach the point where higher rates produce less revenue.

An academic study found that a tax increase of just 1% of GDP causes a recession and then a permanent loss of 1.84% of GDP compared to what it would have been without the tax increase. The results of this study have some really broad and interesting implications.

The punchline is that this study was done by Christina and David Romer. You might remember Christina as President Obama's first chair of his Council of Economic Advisers. David, her husband, is on the recession dating committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), the outfit that everyone relies on to say when recessions start and stop. (The date of this study's release was June 2010. Ms. Romer announced her resignation from Obama's administration in August 2010.)

In short, in this mutated and progressively "improved" form of socialism, the goal is definitely not to outright kill the unwitting host, but to keep the humiliations and intrusions into the everyday life seemingly so small and so minute so as to put off as long as possible the day of reckoning. Perhaps 'progressives' figure that way no one will notice what they are doing until it is too late and their agenda is fully realized.

By then, freedom in this country will have all but disappeared; and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness will only be a distant memory. Only then will many wake up: I never cherished freedon...freedom never cries.


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:34 AM |