Insanity Rules

In a post "Some home truths for men" James Higham on nourishing obscurity comes out in defense of the traditional relationship. He writes:

“Society’s moved on since then,” is one of the worst constructs trotted out, the idea that not trying at all is somehow modern, in keeping with our onwards and upwards path, that commitment, fidelity, genuinely trying, great tolerance and willingness to be elastic enough because you want it to work – that that is somehow old-fashioned, something your grandparents did and then you convince yourself [or let others convince you] that they weren’t happy, on the grounds that you know of strife they had in their marriages."

- Caption: Hat Tip: Mindart - 

Yes, that is an appalling construct, but it goes even further than that: the thinking class of humanity has evolved on an ethical level beyond the mere mortal of say, the onset of the Age of Aquarius. The Darwinian notion is pushed on a more physical level in television series as The X-men and Mutant X.

It is somehow suggested that reality itself has evolved. That the laws of ordinary physics somehow no longer apply. This is possible because the postmodern mind rejects objective reality. Rather, they reason from the premise that each human being lives in his own subjectively created reality: to each his own 'narrative', everyone his own Master of the Universe, the New Reality of "the smart set".

Since then we have emotive creaters of pseudo realities. This is all good and proper for companies selling cars and lipsticks, but when politicians are embarking on a conscious quest to manipulate the voters' perception, things tend to get a wee bit problematic in the real world.

Third way politicians like Tony Blair and Bill Clinton tried to manipulate the perception of voters with rhetoric and mild NLP techniques. Since then, things only gotten exponentially worse. We have witnessed the Obama campaign, in which styrofoam Ionian columns and other postmodern kitch superficially created the pseudo reality of the celebrity saint, the Obama, and the young, upcoming statesman, the Obama.

Everything in the artificial Obama reality serves as a prop. Projection is rife in the subjective world of the perceptionists. This is how they unwittingly reveal what they are doing, simply by accusing the other side of same. The omnibus Obamacare Bill wasn't the physical manifestation of the subject matter, but "a prop".

The pliable, fleeting reality of the subjective Obama universe was made audible this week when he uttered the undying words: "I'm an ardent believer in free markets". In the face of blatantly doing and saying everything that is in contrast with that, truly a chutzpah of staggering proportions! But he wasn't lying - it was merely his "truth of the moment".

As we have seen in "The O Team: Mental Babies With Razors" the postmodern, subjectivist mind is quite literally insane, not in any physical or psychological sense, but on a philosophical and mental level.

Dr Sanity illustrates the matter in her post "What a Joke", relating to the Obama budget. She quotes the authority on postmodernism, Stephen Hicks:

"(...) unmasking means interpreting or investigating to a literal meaning or fact of the matter. The process of unmasking is cognitive, guided by objective standards, with the purpose of coming to an awareness of reality. For the postmodernist, by contrast, interpretation and investigation never terminate with reality. Language connects only with more language, never with a non-linguistic reality...." 

Stephen Hicks' book "Explaining Postmodernism" is now entirely online available.

A similarly constructed reality is climate alarmism. We can see the narrative under construction as they change the labels from "global warming", to the blanket cover of "climate change". Subjectivists really believe that changing the labels, will change the reality. As I heard a journalist exclaim the other day concerning an issue that was exposed as a scam, "But they changed the name, didn't they?" In other words, that should have restored its validity.

Do not ever believe that their insane, sentimental and enfantile ravings are innocent blather. As Dr Sanity points out in yesterday's post:

God help us from their ministrations, as the moldering bodies of the millions upon millions they have destroyed with their perfectionistic techniques. 

When objective reality no longer exists, quite literally anything goes!

Updated:

Politics Daily: "Obama on Health: Stunning Arrogance or the Edmund Burke Theory of Leadership?"

Related:

- Glenn Beck: "Progressives by another name..."
- Hicks: "Scientific fraud and politics"
- PJM: "Narcissism and Denial in the Obama Administration"

- Caption: doctors (or probably actors) as props - 

Related dossiers: 

- "Postmodern Ravages"
- "Pomo Lingo"

Related articles by Zemanta

• Imploding UN Global Warming Forecasts on Front Page of Washington Post (newsbusters.org)
• Second Generation Postmodernism (teabreak.pk)

Of Potentates, the Lie and Altered States of Reality

Russian writer and Soviet dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote in 1974: "In our country the lie has become not just a moral category, but a pillar of the state." Think about that profound statement for a while!

The Berlin Wall was raised by the Soviets for a purpose: it marked the border between the real world and the altered state of reality that the Communists had created. The manuscript of his book The Gulag Archipelago had to be smuggled out. This is how the public in the West learnt what was going on. But not everyone wanted to. Some had erected their own altered states of reality.

I am reminded of Solzhenitsyn's profound statement with every encounter with Orwellian Newspeak. That is, with increasing frequency.

For novices to the phenomenon, Newspeak is politically correct language and a tool for thought control. Often a word is used in a way that it means the opposite (as in German "Democratic" Republic, "the religion of peace", "social justice" as synonymous with the freedom of property, or that ethics consists in good intention and never in bad outcome).

Subjectivism is based on a fallacy - that truth "as such", does not exist, but entirely depends on your perspective. This fallacy is the enemy of reality, fact, objectivity, wisdom, truth and ultimately, of liberty itself.

From the error a string of fallacies ensues, amongst others about the nature of language, and even of thought itself. Thought and language become ends in themselves, and are perceived to create reality, rather than understanding and describing it: a reversal of the cognition process.

There is an uncanny relationship between tyranny and the lie. All tyrants are subjectivists. Truth and reality are the given, and as such much be accepted but once malleable, this opens up entire new vistas to those who seek control.

Bullies and potentates - seeking power for themselves or for the sake of the common good - want as much control as possible; so the ability to change reality in the perception of the people is a tool they can't pass up. First they resort to coercive measures. Political correctness, relativism, incrementally shifting definitions, and Newspeak fall into the Nudge category. Later on there are other means at their disposal: punishment, violence, terror, purges, oppression, arbitrary rules and regulations, forced labor and lunatic asylums.

If the nudges are properly executed - which is true today - reality will be turned on its head, truth turned inside out, and mental and intellectual chaos result. This dis-ease is known as cognitive dissonance: the feeling that all isn't well, without being able to pinpoint the precise trouble spot. I believe it is responsible for much of the psychological trauma people experience today.

Yesterday it was reported that the cast iron sign over the gate of the Auschwitz Memorial, "Arbeit Macht Frei", was stolen but recovered, cut into three pieces. Arbeit Macht Frei (work will set you free) in relation with a death camp is a powerful symbol of the Newspeak utilized by philosophical and political psychopaths.

Leonard Peikoff in "The Ominous Parallels" makes the case that the Nazi death camps may have been controlled experiments in mass mind control: what does the absurd, something that bears no relation with known reality whatsoever, do to the human mind ... absurd, as in Vienna walzes accompanying human beings to the gas chamber?

This is why I have devised the "Arbeit Macht Frei" banner, to be used whenever there's a Newspeak alert, to remind ourselves of what is at stake when truth and reality itself are being manipulated to suit the purposes of evil.



Related:

-  The Newspeak Dictionary
- Sparknotes: "The Principle of Newspeak"
- "The Left's Default Position: Coercion" (series)
- "Postmodern Ravages" (dossier)
- "Pomo Lingo" (dossier)

The O Team: Mental Babies With Razors (Updated)

Update: just saying [/gloat]



August 20, 2009

The brilliant opinionator and blogger Michelle Malkin yesterday started a collection point for cases of the O team saying to be sorry for having misspoken: read all about it in "The Team Obama “misspoke”-o-meter". People have started to notice the habit and are trying hard to discern a pattern.

This may be a new phenomenon to the White House, but the Dutch have seen it all happen before when the relativist Liberal Democrats (D66) were part of the governing coalition. Also Pragmatists, they share the same faux, subjectivist world view with the postmodern Obamites.

Their skewed philosophy rests on the error that universals are but a figment of man's imagination. From this fallacy follows that concepts and essences - being universals - also do not exist.

As a result, some arbitrary attribute may be attached to - for instance man - and mistakingly serve the purpose of an essence: what to think of systems that take decisions (no parenthesis, and taken quite literally)  or an angry mob. Can someone please explain what is 'an angry mob' in the order of things? (Dutch speakers may visualize the concept 'lurf' here: it is a non-existent body part. )

- Caption: pomo concept of 'a running nose' - 

It borders baby-talk uttered by grown men in charge of the black suitcase, the red telephone, the nuclear button - in other words, the world's highest office has become the playpen of human entities with the mental makeup of infants: in effect, babies with razors.

Concepts, essences and universals are replaced by fleeting thought and linguistic constructs: fact and reality swapped for personal opinion and meaningless rhetoric.

Words having become just that (bla bla) and thought having been reduced to mere synapses, these tend to seen as ends in themselves and used as labeling devizes: changing the label is then confused with altering the 'meaning' of the (conceptless) word. (The question aside why you would want to do that in the first place ... but that's a subject for "The Left's Default Position: Coercion".)

Hence it is possible for White House spokesman Robert Gibbs - a man who has gone in six months time from "unquestioned authority" to "perplexingly arrogant and thin-skinned" - to state that he had 'misspoken' in calling Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Iran’s 'elected leader'.

Mind you, he doesn't say that the statement was factually wrong or morally wanting. He means that he's sorry for having used a label which - to some people at least - was not in the best of tastes. Or perhaps he should have used another 'tone' - another favorite in the subjectivist tool kit, absent objective standards.

Whereas "elected leader" is the meaningless epithet attached to A/jad on Tuesday, on Wednesday it has become "the Iranian people who will decide". Ethics again aside, in the real world neither is factually true, but it sounds good, doesn't it?

Another instance of Gibbs' subjectivism is provided on the blog of Patriot In Exile, in "Robert Gibbs is a freaking idiot":

"So, I was listening to my talk radio and heard an audio that I just could not believe. Robert Gibbs was asked about Obama’s campaign pledge about not raising taxes on those making less than $250k/yr. Remember him saying that?

Well, when Gibbs was asked about this pledge by a reporter, Gibbs told the reporter that he can’t comment on any “hypotheticals”. WHAT?!?!? Hypotheticals?"

... yes ... in the skewed world of the pomo toddlers everything is just that - arbitrary, fleeting, hypothetical, meaningless yada yada in the service of expediency - their expediency of course (hence the double standards). Those with a concept of objectivity have a word for it ... lying. As it happens, Postmodernists don't lie: they just have a skewed perspective on reality! Welcome to the pomo Presidency!|

Update:

As a general rule it works the other way around as well. If Conservatives or Reps call them half-baked fascists, they think they've just been called ugly names. The observation is in fact based on objective, philosophical extrapolation - but since they literally have no concept, what remains is arbitrary labeling.

Tell them an objective truth - for example that the O Team are traitors to their own election pledges - and you'll get a subjective mouthful of why you would say that, none of which repudiates the accusation ... you know the drill, a litany of psychological projection which comes in rather handy, because they'll inadvertently reveal what they're up to: racists!, swastika toting fascists!, "in the pay of lobbyists and special interests", astroturfers!, or "an angry mob". The ensuing cognitive dissonance keeps the entire process in a perpetuum mobile, causing a sigh that 'indeed, panta rei!'

- Files on Articles in "Postmodern Ravages"-

US Radio "Mille Collines"

Conservatives and Republicans made the best of it, and refered to it by its funny name coined by Charles Krauthammer: BDS, or Bush Derangement Syndrome. 

It wasn't the only form of political madness around, not by a long chalk. But it mostly amounted to variations on a single theme. 

Analysis after analysis and diagnosis after diagnosis tried to make sense of the phenomenon, which with hindsight, was nothing more than ordinary 'community organizing', or the art of agitation, provocation, intimidation and subversion. 

Yes, it could be diagnosed as projection and cognitive dissonance, but only on the part of the hapless followers. The campaign against Conservative talk radio hosts is a clear example of that.

But the instigators themselves are led by cold, political calculation. David Horowitz has recently put up a series of posts on the Alinsky strategy (links assembled in "The Postmodern War on Reality").

It should never have been tolerated. Enduring it, condoning it, is in fact trivializing it. Satire and ridicule can be deadly as political tools, but it takes quite a dramatic craftsman to apply it in the precise dosis and in effective proportions.

Some forms of demagogy have such serious consequences that there's only one way to deal with them: to call them by their proper names and expose them to the best disinfectant available: sunlight. That should have been done with the senseless, irresponsible ratcheting up of hatred that was poured out over the world and the two Bush administrations.

It was the American equivalent of Rwandan RTV "Libre des Milles Collines". RTLM completed its dirty work in one single year's time, whereas BDS lasted a full eight years (and counting). Will it remain without consequence, ya think?

Hatred is a terrible thing. If it is within the bounds of reason and is the result of something done to you, the best way to deal with it is to pray hard for the strength to forgive. Hatred and the wish for vengence have a nasty habit of turning against you.

If it is the result of a purposely irrational campaign of agitation - a simplified version of a Sorelian myth - it must be exposed for what it is to render it harmless. As it was, BDS induced hatred nestled in the hearts and souls of millions of people where it festers to this very day.

As Glenn Beck points out in the following footage, tolerating the ratcheting up of hatred has been doing the fight on the terms of the radical demagogues. Please help save civilization (really) and take time out for an hour or so, to sit down at ease and watch ...

... Glenn Beck explaining it, and laying out a plan how to fight it (link to entire Friday episode) - Hat Tip: Patriots Network - (N.B. All five Glenn Beck Specials live now... They will stay on the site until after the 9/12 March. The site will be down sometime this weekend. My hosting service is moving us to a different server.)

Let me explain again how the pomo agitation works. In large part it consists of their particular approach to linguistics, and how they apply it in order to make you comply with their ideology (yes, they're little pocket Hitlers).



For indepth understanding study this file on "Pomo Lingo" (note: it was originally titled "Neo Communism and Cultural Marxism" and is dated 27th December 2007 - well before Obama and his team of radicals ever came on the scene - this has been in the works for a very long time - you can watch the prehistory of political correctness here on a PJTV video).

Pomo name calling is all about intimidation - in fact there's nothing to be afraid of since it is precisely that ... tossing labels around. As Glenn said: "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me". Read in "The O Team: Babies With Razors" how come there's literally no concept behind the hot air and empty rhetoric.

Related:

- The offical site of "The 9-12 Project"
- The unofficial 9-12 Project Fan site
- Press Release by Bond Action, a black group coming out in support of Glenn Beck's exposure of racism

- Filed in Articles in "The Pomo Presidency" - 

Rabid Racists!

This is getting an area of specific significance with the Postmodern Left. An avalanche of rabid racism is heading our way ...

As a matter of course the pomo linguists have taken a subject close to their own hearts (which we know to be a great many) and proceeded to craftily reconstruct the definition to almost unrecognizable proportions -

Almost that is, because they keep forgetting that language is not an end, but a tool to convey an objective meaning! You can change the labels, but that doesn't - as by magic - change the content of the bottle.

The traditional approach to racism can be summed up in the words of the Republican Dr Martin Luther King Jr. when he said that he dreamed of a day when "my four children will live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character". So far, so good.

The Left - in their advocacy of affirmative action (or the active redistribution of power) - have simply reversed the roles of victim and perpetrator. But that would still be racism, wouldn't it? Reverse racism!

So in order to make the fallacy stick, they added the previso that colored people are incapable of racism "because they have no power" (ask the current occupier of the White House). In this subjectivist book, only the white skinned portion of humanity is capable of racism.

Like all egomaniacal subjectivists the Left believe that everyone has accepted their perverted logic ... eh, 'narrative'. This enables Joan Walsh to write an article on Salon accusing Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh of racism and projection as they fear that they - as white men - will end up "on the bottom of the pile" as they would be, in the new and improved definition.

But Messrs Beck and Limbaugh's traditional approach to race relations means the very opposite. Non-discrimination means discarding melanine content altogether and judging a person by his actions, be he white, black, or purple, precisely as Dr King prescribed. And that is exactly what Beck and Limbaugh have been doing: criticising Barack Obama's radical policies and race baiting. (Shockingly, in an early interview we can hear Barry Obama throwing his own grandmother under the bus in quite overtly racist terms!)

The Left continue to practice reverse racism, declaring - whatever the 'messiah' does - is sacrosanct precisely because of the color of his skin. The entire evil edifice of multiculturalism is based on this racist notion. (Remember Sotomayor and the wisdom that is inherent in Latinas? Or was that attained through a specific experience of the group to which she belongs?).

What enables racism is group thought, or the logic of collectives. This is why it is next to impossible to maintain for believers in indiividualism, with its corollaries free market capitalism, limited Government and democratic values. Racism is nothing but a very primitive form of collectivism.

We now have a President holding the highest office, who has been elevated above critique and the normal control mechanisms of the democratic governmental system. The opposition is nudged into silence by hurling projections of racism at them, or by other politically correct means at the Democrats' disposal.

One work in progress is the Left's new, deconstructed role of the press in an open, democratic society. In the traditional approach the media's raison d'être was scrutinizing and bringing to attention the actions of those in power, as Limbaugh and Beck are engaged in. As far as the MSM is concerned, that role has now shifted to cheerleading.

We have already seen during the campaign that the Obama cronies are not above going after critics either on legalistic or moralistic grounds. This situation is not just a democracy unworthy, it is downright dangerous!

Related:

- ABC News/Political Punch: "The Significance of President Obama Praising Lula's "Good Looks""
- Politeia: "Why Multiculturalism is Racist and Evil"
- Breitbart TV/The B Cast: "Should Glenn Beck Have Called Obama a Racist?"
- Capitalism Magazine: "The Destruction of Martin Luther King's Dream of a Colorblind Society" by Onkar Ghate of the Ayn Rand Center




- Filed on Articles in "Rabid Racism" - 

Welcome to Pomo Lingo: Alert John McCain

- fibs and lies - gross exaggeration and hyperbole - posturing - fake hatred and hysterics (rage! rage! rage!) - genuine hatred and hysterics (rage! rage! rage!) - disinformation - emotional blackmail - incitement to violence - sentimental whining - false analogy and equivalence - (reversed) sophistry - in your face tactics and ad hominem attacks - para-exegese (deliberate misinterpretation or overexplanation) - massive imprecision - manipulation - proud irrationality - unremitting and deliberate confusion of terms - tactical mixing of facts and opinion - equivocation - inverse morality - false analogy -
_____________________________________

It's about time to revisit the wonderful world of Pomo Lingo! A new awareness campaign is indicated, because the Republican candidates happen to be the latest unsuspecting victims of its vicious intricacies.

Perhaps we should clarify once more that "the Democratic Party has been hijacked by fanatics. It can no longer claim the heritage of Truman, JFK, Barbara Jordan, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Scoop Jackson, Zell Miller. Instead, the party has been overrun by parasites and subversives (...)". That would be, what are loosely termed Postmodernists, an amalgam of Kant/Hegel followers who are all in possession of the same collectivist and subjective mindsets. They liked to refer to reason as "the whore of the Enlightenment". Go figure.

In a recent post we explained that one Pomo way of shutting up an opponent is the racial slur, or any other expression of political correctness: it imposes self-censorship.

A striking example from the campaign trail is the mindboggling chutzpah of Gov. David Paterson, referring to the McCain-Palin ticket as "vampires" and "blood suckers," while a day or so later accusing them of racism. Paterson has devised a delightful Postmodern thing no one has ever heard of: satirizing the profession of community organizing is "racist code"! Who would have thought ...

It's Subjectivism in action: two parties, two standards: he - Paterson - is allowed to violate any standard of polite human interaction, while at the same time building a trumped up case against his opponents. See it if you will, as the redistribution of speech rights.

It's very clever, and it works like positive discrimination: the more victimhood, the more speech rights (in tone, decibels, duration, weight and offensiveness). Paterson is very justified in his action because he - as a Democrat - is speaking in the name of all victimhood.

John McCain - like the gentleman that he is - unawares of the booby traps set by Pomo lingo, has already fallen in line. Very effective, is Pomo lingo.

You could say that in a way, Postmodernists are beyond caring if they're making sense or not, let alone if they're fit for polite society. Of course they aren't consistent, which would call for one set of rules for everyone: their rage is entirely justified and healthy blowing off steam, whereas John McCain is a raging, certifiable geriatric (code word: erratic).

The expediency of Pragmatism says: so what - the end justifies the means - our end is so 'ethical', that unethical tactics are allowed.

Looking and hearing Pomos in action one often thinks of National Socialist ideologue Joseph Goebbels, who said that if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. Think of the myths surrounding the Iraq war! Postmodernists - sharing with the National Socialists the anti-reason roots of Kantian and Hegelian thought, often practice that same sort of audacity (dare I use that word, or would that qualify as 'code for fascists'?).

For all of the above reasons, debates with Pomos are not very well possible. For one thing, since they reject there's any objective truth to arrive at in the first place, there's no one party who is right and another who is in the wrong. Logically speaking, this would include themselves, but then we come to more expediency - 'we don't do unevolved logic.'

But more than anything else - and here the irrational plot thickens to even more frightening proportions - they aren't after truth, AND their gut feeling tells they are right ... anyway, they're after winning, one way of another, pitting sheer Will against reason (!).

So key are: irrationality, subjectivity, will and expediency, end justifies the means mentality, we are right, whatever ...

Another mistake is to expect precision of terms. Definitions are pliable and totally depend on the person's point of view at a given moment in time.

From the campaign trail: the indignation about the fake accusation that Barack Obama is a "terrorist."

Two things are happening here: para-exegesis and fake rage. The para-exegesis is the deliberate misinterpretation of the accusation. No one - except perhaps a hapless pundit giving way to prolonged provocation - has accused Obama of being a terrorist. The real morality behind the problem of hobnobbing with Ayers is the lack of judgment, promoting Sandinista type school councils (LSCs), making the Presidency vulnerable to blackmail, and showing a pattern of associating with the enemies of the land, a trait bordering treasonous behavior.

It takes some getting used to recognizing and rebutting Pomo lingo. If we have the choice, it is best not to 'debate' them at all. They cannot be persuaded of any opinion other than their own and, frustration through lack of objectivity mounting, will only result in shouting matches and ad hominem attacks on their part, and bewildered confusion on the other (which is precisely what was intended).

However since we must, given the nature of democratic process, would suggest finding a way to deal with their utter dishonesty, and formulate a proper answer to their Declaration of Total Culture War - they would.

More examples of Pomo lingo and Pomo 'logic' in notes to this post:

"What follows are more examples of Postmodern 'logic' excerpted from a post by author Victor Davis Hanson. He laments the lack of objectivity and poses the rhetorical question: why are the Democrats, while far viler and meaner, given much more moral ley way than the Republicans (...) >>>

Update:

... this entire thing of 'nasty McC and his mad followers' has all the hallmarks of a classic agitator set-up ... I'll tell ya, the media are either in the tank or exceedingly stupid (and no one would ever believe that) ... American Thinker: "Sabotaging GOP rallies", here in original: WSJ: "The Angry Right-Some disturbing--and embarrassing--behavior by McCain supporters" (...)

- Filed on Articles in "The Pomo White House" and "Postmodern Ravage"