The Spiral of Hatred

In a post containing the thoughts of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff just before her trial in Austria for 'hate speech' is resuming on January 18, she accurately describes how the 'hatred' narrative works.

The Left - or more accurately, those who like to think of themselves as nice, empathic, inclusive, under-dog loving people, often are very far from it. They feel great hostility towards the opposition, who have no right in their minds to have such vile, egoistic, mean-spirited thoughts about freedom and humanity.

Projection is a psychological coping device, that deals with the ensuing cognitive dissonance by turning the opponent as by magic into a demon: the process that is leading to scapegoating and collective guilt.

Projectionists have become incapable of looking at their opponents with anything remotely smacking of objectivity or empathy. They no longer think, they simply smear and condemn. And here we have one of those infamous Leftist contradictions which are simply ignored as part of the logic (Hegel's dialectic): 'morality does not exist,' yet they morally condemn anyone, who does not agree with their narrative.

In the Western world we have things nicely under control (or so we thought): for any conceivable risk there's an insurance policy and Europeans have been lazily laying back in nanny states that cuddled their citizens from cradle to grave. What could possibly go wrong?

This has created a phantom security in which all evil seems to have evaporated. No war, pestilence or bad fortune could befall the citizen of such a country. Such circumstances have led some to the false conclusion, that evil does not exist. In this way amoralism finds its way to people's mindsets: good and evil have become fluid, subjective constructs that wither away.

To them morality is no longer a matter of objectivily right or wrong, but the median mores of any given culture. We'll have a look up close shortly how that is playing a major role in the climate of hatred.

- Projection in action -

On top of that, traditional Kantian thought has insinuated the fallacy in Western culture that reality is in some way dependent on human consciousness: thought creates reality.

Since in this philosophical ruin, one external, objective truth does not exist, we are thus a single step removed from blaming people for their opinions. Personal taste has taken the place of objective truth, but with a difference. You can't blame truth for being true, but you can blame people for having a terribly bad taste.

It is no coincidence that Leftists on both sides of the Atlantic are scolding their opponents in terms of 'bad taste', 'indecency' or 'the wrong tone'. In his recent memorial speech in Tucson after the Loughner massacre, Barack "bring a gun" Obama called for 'civility'. Persistant Conservative has listed a number of martial analogies from the President himself.

In this way those like Ayaan Hirsi Ali,  Elisabeth Sabaditsch and Geert Wilders, who warn against the insidious influence of Islam and Sharia law, have become people of bad taste. Or in the view of Leftist Islam apologists, narrow-minded xenophobes who 'hate' Muslims.

Robin of Berkeley, a recovering liberal and a psychotherapist, has written a great piece available on American Thinker about the ethical side of psychological projection; the relationship between amoralism and hatred neatly falls into place. On the process of scapegoating and collective guilt he writes:

"Collective guilt is not just a noxious premise, but it's an evil one. It presumes guilt without a shred of evidence. In this case, conservatives are incriminated for Loughner's bloodshed (even though Loughner is apparently a Karl Marx-admiring atheist.) The delusion of collective guilt shields people from taking a long hard look in the mirror, thereby witnessing their own bad behavior."

But as Ayn Rand has pointed out:

"The clearest symptom by which one can recognize [the amoralist] is his total inability to judge himself, his actions, or his work by any sort of standard."

The descent into evil becomes a vicious spiral: amorality is leading to the inability to judge one's self, which is leading to cognitive dissonance, dealt with by psychological projection (scapegoating and collective guilt), which is evil, but isn't recognized as such because of amorality, and so on, and so on. A vicious spiral is born.

Here's Robin of Berkeley. For 'Americans' read 'Western culture' ...

• American Thinker: "See No Evil"

One of the first books that made me thirst for God was, ironically, about His polar opposite. The book is Andrew Delbanco's 'The Death of Satan: How Americans Have Lost the Sense of Evil". The author describes the disastrous results of Americans rejecting the concept of evil. When Satan was alive and well, citizens practiced the Ten Commandments, atoned for their sins, and worried about eternal damnation. But today, inhabitants eschew the devil as an anachronism of days gone by.

And what has been the result of the Death of Satan? More bloodshed than ever before in the history of humankind. In the 20th century alone, hundreds of millions of people were murdered by genocidal regimes. And yet, why would banishing Satan result in a less civilized society? Because without an understanding about how good and evil work, people are stripped of Divine intelligence. (...) 

The number one rule in warfare is this: Know thy enemy, whether it's Radical Islam or evil. Yet, most Americans, with heads firmly buried in the sand, have no idea how to cope when darkness rears its ugly head.

Their default is to find scapegoats, projecting all badness outwards. Liberals routinely scapegoat conservatives. Yet, by smearing an entire group of people, liberals become part of the evil themselves. 

Scapegoating is the quintessential feature of evil, says M. Scott Peck, in his seminal book, "People of the Lie". (...) So the Left demonizes others, which is a fascinating term in and of itself. Instead of taking a good and hard look at themselves and how the Left has unleashed and enabled the brutality, progressives tar conservatives as the demons.

The progressives do this by devilish actions: first, turning conservatives into subhumans, as the other. (...) The Left denies that evil forces exist because they deny God. Evil cannot exist without its polar opposite, the Creator. (...)

And so Leftists do what they always do: blame conservatives. They disown any responsibility for the dark times that are upon us. They exploit the Tucson tragedy, thereby creating more damage. And through it all, Leftists cling to the notion that they a are the Good Guys. (...) >>>

- Ouroboros -

Which brings us back to square one. The Left - or more accurately, those who like to think of themselves as nice, empathic, inclusive, under-dog loving people, often are very far from it. They feel great hostility towards the opposition ... (start from top).

Update

- Caroline Glick: "The Aim of Blood Libels"
- PNJ: "Schneider: Protect uncivil speech? It's only Common Sense"
- American Power: "The Lies of Bill Maher — And the Epic Struggle Between Good and Evil in the Aftermath of Tucson, 1/8/11"

Take the Survcast survey



Related

- "The Dystopia of Paradise"
- "Postmodern Ravages"
- "Pomo Lingo"

Up Yours!

This is rich! Very rich indeed!!!

After having literally suffered two entire Bush terms of this stuff; with on the one hand the Political Pathology Asylum (and by all means do scroll down the archive for a fuller and enhanced experience); and on the other the associated nut jobs and fruit cakes of the new green creed; not to mention the bankrupt Press from Hell and The One's relentless campaign during which He led us up and down a garden path littered with the scattered remains of styrofoam, faux classicistic props, and even more exotic mass suggestion fests brought to us by Voodoo Light and Hypnosis 2.0.; leaving aside for the moment the treasonous actions committed by The Unholy Alliance and the gutter practices foisted on us by the ones currently in power; This Is What We Must Endure Today by one of the Horned One's lackeys piling lie on lies ...



By now we should know better than to take the postmodern Left seriously. Facts - according to their world view, mere snippets of fleeting 'reality' - are irrelevant to them. Their quest isn't after truth either, but the creation of a string of impressions, the dissemination of memes on the perceptual level, the manipulation of gullible, immature minds on a simply grandiose scale, not seen since Corporal Hitler held sway over equally suggestible masses.

We are holding an entire dossier here of rhetorical parlor tricks, of dishonestly moving goal posts in mid-debate, of erecting and taking down straw men, and of assorted other tricks held up the pomo sleeve.

This rhetorical game of accusing opponents of senseless 'hatred' in an attempt to shut up the opposition through intimidation, is actually irresponsible in the extreme.

On the other hand it would only be symptomatic that in a gesture of psychopathological projection they're pointing the finger at the opposition (this brilliant analyst has all but made political pathology her day job). 

Well, not after eight years of compiling evidence, you're not! To a chutzpah as perpetrated by the SoroS lackey there's but one response: from Delft, up yours!

Related:

- Pat Dollard: "New York Times: Conservative Media, Right Wing Extremism Responsible For Terrorist Agenda"
- Politeia: "The War on Existence"
- Politeia: "Politics=War in Action" 

Update:

"The Left isn't build on the vigilante rhetoric of hate" ... no, it's built on:

- "The Left's Default Position: Coercion" (series)
- "A Short History of Bad Ideas (Part I): the Victims" (series)
- "The Assault of the New Storm Troopers" (file)
- "Obama's Radical Connections" (file)
- and much, much more elsewhere in these pages ...

- Filed on Articles in "The Press from Hell" - 

A Sense of Cruelty

It's official! Bush Derangement Syndrome has a new offshoot.

No, it isn't Morbid Obama Intoxication (or MOI, French for 'Little Me'), the O personality cult that has large segments of 'reality based' humanity in its grip.

The recurring theme of the current campaign appears to be 'the womb.' To that collection can now be added hysteria (click to explain), to wit Passive Aggressive Palin Hysteria, of which the acronym reads PAPH.

As the press continues to derail in the objective information department, another section - caricaturists - implode into a passive agressive displacement hole.

This vicious piece of pamphleteering is what passes for humor in the British Leftist rag The Guardian, home to unreformed Stalinists and Mao supporters.

- Caption: Guardian humor - Hat tip: EurSoc -

What is hard to fathom is the lack of introspection sufferers display. Weren't they gripped by delusion, the thought might have occurred, "Why am I - for the past eight years or so - consumed with hatred for persons I do not even know personally? Is this normal, am I healthy?" But, no.

Dr Sanity in one of her brilliant posts, titled "Not all humor is created equal" psycho-analyzes this form of humorless humor, which she says is actually symptomatic of psychopathology.

"There are important differences between mature humor and displacement or it's cousin, passive aggression. The latter are also psychological defense mechanisms, but less mature ones (neurotic), that are not quite as effective in bringing 'pleasure to others.'"

She recalls the behavior of comedian Stephen Colbert when he mocked President Bush during the 2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner. She quotes at length comedian and commentator Richard Cohen who had this to say about Colbert's performance:

"(...) Colbert was not just a failure as a comedian but rude. Rude is not the same as brash. It is not the same as brassy. It is not the same as gutsy or thinking outside the box. Rudeness means taking advantage of the other person's sense of decorum or tradition or civility that keeps that other person from striking back or, worse, rising in a huff and leaving. The other night, that person was George W. Bush."

The doctor continues:

"Humor is an extraordinarily mature and healthy psychological defense. It is the overt expression of ideas and feelings (especially those that are unpleasant to focus on or too terrible to talk about) in a creative manner that gives pleasure to others. (...) Read the entire piece (Cohen's), which accurately deliniates the significant differences between humor and displacement. True humor offers a catharsis for more than just the person using it; and while displacement may be funny to some, it is the childish/adolescent version of humor that is more like disguised cruelty. (...)

It was very revealing precisely because it revealed something about Colbert and any of those who found it hilarious--it revealed immaturity and intolerance. To be precise, it was just another attempt at displacement, the underlying psychological motivation of Bush Derangement Syndrome. The purpose of this kind of "humor" is to hurt. It makes very few feel pleasure except at the pain of someone else. Mostly, this kind of humor is found in children and adolescents. The "ha-ha!" shout of the character Nelson, who makes fun of everyone's pain; while blissfully unaware of his own family's psychopathology in The Simpsons is an example; or one of the three stooges beating up on another. (...)

While displacement may be a bit psychologically healthier than actually physically hitting the President over the head with a baseball bat, it is hard to see how those on the "caring and compassionate" left--so sensitized to others people's feelings-- are not exactly aware of how insensitive and loutish it was to attack someone who cannot respond. They rationalize their own behavior by making Bush a monster. This is only projection (an even more primitive psychological defense), however. (...)

Such rudeness in the name of humor is actually painful to witness (i.e., not funny) because when someone resorts to it, they are unintentionally revealing their own deepest--and darkest--soul. (...) the more immature psychological defenses--such as displacement or passive aggression-- can produce a warped type of humor that is decidedly inferior and far less effective at discharging aggression and anger in socially acceptable ways that give pleasure to everyone. Not all humor is created equal when it comes to being healthy and psychologically mature. >>>

In philosophical terms the ratio goes: "Anyone who threatens our high sense of ethics - our Common Will - is only worthy of being sacrificed to it."

- Filed on Articles in "The Political Pathology Pile" -

Thought for the Relative of Mind

Here's the quote of the day (actually dating back two days) -

After having just completed an unprecedented slur campaign in which nothing was considered off limits, the postmodern candidate tells CNN in a fit of projection by which he inadvertently discloses his own tactics, that "'nough is 'nough--no more lies and fake outrage!" He doesn't specify whom he is addressing but it is inferred he means his rivals, otherwise known as 'the menagery.'

Because of the basic fallacy in their philosophy Pomos are incapable of successfully integrating a single train of thought, unable as they are to distinguish between cause and effect, fact from
opinion, reality from wishes. They are mental drifters. Truth, lies, spin, framing and re-framing, everything blurs into a impenetrable mental fog of random snippets of ideas and fragments of thought - all equally flexible and stretchable - to be used, abused, denied or evaded as is expedient to the self-interest of the moment.

Postmodernism plays dementia to liberalism's mental disorder. If thought creates reality as they claim, it stands to reason that something unpleasant evaded or denied, makes it go away. This psychological phenomenon, coupled with the mechanism of projection, is a permanent fixture in the subjectivist inner world. We just witnessed eight years of BDS. If McCain-Palin wins the presidential race, prepare for another epidemic.

- Chart: cognative dissonance -

Man survives by brain power. In anthropological terms, hunting as well as homesteading takes not just physical prowess, but requires planning and cooperation based on ratio. A botched plan can easily claim lives. Unfocused reason leads to anxiety because survival hangs in the balance. Reality becomes threatening, a cause for more evasion, denial and anxiety. Emotion is elevated above truth. And so the irrational vicious cycle continues.

The only way out for the postmodern subjectivist is reaching zombie status through the use of Prozac or other emotional flat-liners. Alternatively a quest could be undertaken to withdraw within the confines of the skull: New Ageism offers countless paths towards becoming master of your own personal universe.

Since integrating thought is a conscious decision - this being the seat of volition, free will - evasion is the vice that underlies all other vices. This state of affairs is profoundly destructive. In Objectivist terms: in epistemology it invalidates a mental process; in ethics it is the essence of evil.

Ultimately evasion, denial and projection stem from the notion that only Leftism is capable of walking the moral high-ground; righteousness is on their side. Confusing what is (reality) with what ought to be (the ideal), the Left are the party of nice people; they intensely hate the 'unethical' people, the Rightists, the nasty ones!

This contradiction (nice people do not hate) goes unnoticed, and combined with the Pragmatism that 'our ultra ethical end justifies any means--dead bodies case need - mind, all for our own good' leads to permanent cognitive dissonance (see chart) and rational inconsistency. The more they hate, the more the psychological defense mechanism of projection asserts itself. The opponent becomes the one who is 'hateful.'

A further inner conflict consists in contradictions stemming from Pragmatism, which is solely guided by the expedient and so combines the irreconcilable: social and cultural relativism with political absolutism; rejection of preconceptions while being committedly biased; absolutely rejecting value judgments while passing them if politically correct; being led by one set of moral rules while lumbering the opponents with another (the Dialectics). Roger Kimball worded it rather poetically as follows in a recent posting on PJM titled "The Palin Portfolio, Phase Two: Damage Control: or, The Clash of Civilizations comes home":

“Harvard,” I noted in the post mentioned above, and the “progressive” consensus it represents is sophisticated about everything except its own naïveté. It champions cultural relativism–absolutely. It is suspicious when someone shows up peddling “the truth,” especially about moral matters; but it embraces its perspective on the world as inarguable. According to the gospel of “Harvard,” all right-thinking (i.e., left-leaning) people agree with the various positions set forth in the catechism of liberalism. To champion the various dogmas set forth in that catechism, says “Harvard,” is simply to exhibit one’s contact with reality. To dissent from them is to exhibit one’s ignorance, bad faith, or malevolence.

This is the ground zero of hypocrisy, dishonesty and double standards, truth and reality being relative to expedience. At some point they're bound to blow a fuse: that moment is nigh.

- Filed on Articles in "The Dystopia of Paradise" -

The Shock-waves of Reality

The revolution devours its own children. Such has often been the conclusion. It can be witnessed after the latter part of the French Revolution, called the Reign of Terror, when Lockean Libertarian theory made place for Rousseauian radicalism; it is also described in this post in Marginalia.

Just as shocking as the revelation by Soviet defector Bezmenev (video link), that upon realization of the revolution its instigators would be the first to be 'lined up against the wall' for being too idealistic to be ever expected to put up with the excesses of Socialism once established, just as Shocked ... Shocked are the multicultis upon the realization - what realists have known for a long time: that Islam isn't a happy-go-lucky, relaxed, laid-back kind of open-ended religion for the seeker of postmodern 'spirituality':

Elsevier: "School outing: Mosque calls infidels 'dogs'"

A trip by group 7 of an Amsterdam public primary school to a mosque has ended dramatically. During the tour the President of the mosque embarked on a tirade about infidels, whom he described as "dogs". Within 'the framework of spiritual movements' the multicultural school organizes trips to all kinds of religious institutions; the Executive Board finds it important that students understand the background and contexts of various beliefs.

In a letter to parents the school has let it be known to regret the incident: "We are shocked by the remarks of the mosque President! It is unacceptabel because we try to instill in our children respect for the freedom of choice, where religion is concerned.

No one at the school today is available for comment. "The Executive Board is expected to be in session the entire day," a spokesman told Elsevier.nl. >>>

These are the people who are usually quick off the mark to address the defenders of freedom - like Wilders - as extreme Rightists, Fascists and neo Nazis. After yesterday's Court verdict about "Fitna" in which Wilders is absolved of 'hate crimes', this Soviet strategy has now collapsed.

The question may be justified on which planet these multicultis have lived for the past ten to twenty years or so? When reality finally breaks through the carefully nurtured layers of delusion, the effect can be traumatic indeed. Do not be surpised if, given time these people turn into the most fierce opponents of Islamism yet (not to mention the school children).

- Filed on Articles in "The Political Pathology Page" -