Investigating political madness

These are two sets of comments on the post at Instapundit on Maybe Their Mental Health Wasn’t That Good Before the Election, previously discussed here. The first set are actually four different comments made by “Gagdad Bob” which I have strung together.

The deeper structure of human nature hasn’t changed since the arrival of liberalism. Liberalism is a new way to be mentally ill, but not the illness as such. It is similar to how fear of aliens is a way to be paranoid. Paranoia has always existed, but the objects of paranoia change.

Being that I am a clinical psychologist who has seen countless liberals, I would say the majority have been just ignorant or of low intelligence. No need to reach for a complex explanation. The more activist kind — the true believers — are another story. For them, liberalism can be anything from a substitute religion to a massive defense mechanism to covert sociopathy. There’s no one-size-fits-all explanation.

I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt that they think they are doing good, but in fact are sadists. It reminds me of why Homer Simpson wanted to become a police officer: “because it combines my desire to help people with my desire to hurt them.”

If liberalism didn’t exist, the unconscious would invent it as an ideal way to embody and express so much pain and conflict. In so many ways it’s the perfect vehicle for a host of irrational psychological, spiritual, and existential issues, which is why it is so difficult to eradicate. It is immune to reason, the same way an illness is. (And yes, it is important to distinguish between the cynics at the top, the true believers in between, and the passive & manipulated masses below.)

This then is a comment put up by AndrewZ along similar lines.

Identity politics creates mental illness because it makes people paranoid. It teaches them to see other people not as individuals but as representatives of a category. The categories are organised into an elaborate hierarchy of victimhood and oppression and all social interactions are treated as an expression of the power relationships between the groups.

A person who has internalised this way of thinking will start to see everyone who belongs to one of the designated oppressor groups as a threat and will feel acutely uncomfortable in their presence. They will feel that they are surrounded by enemies who are just waiting for an opportunity to do something terrible to them. Since they have been trained to interpret everything they see and hear in terms of power relationships they will see threatening messages everywhere, and their heightened self-consciousness will make it seem as though it’s all aimed at them personally.

The SJWs are so full of rage and so ready to lash out because they really do think that they are under constant attack. They need to scream and shout to relieve the unbearable psychological pressure of living in a state of permanent siege. That’s also why many leftist writers have such a breathless, frantic style full of hyperbole and wild accusations. It’s the desperate strung-out voice of the paranoiac, surrounded by phantom menaces that nobody else can see.

To somebody in that state of mind, it would be impossible to conceive of a rich white male Republican – the apex predator of oppression – wanting to do anything other than establish a brutal tyranny. So naturally they go into a state of panic when such a person is elected President.

For me, it is all just a phenomenon which is beyond my understanding. That it is real and out there, of this I have no doubt. But it does make things much more difficult, and to me, these people really do seem deranged.

Sentimentality and politics

The greatest enemy for getting anything done in politics is sentimentality, an exaggerated concern for propriety. The left in politics have for many years made suckers of the right by pretending to care about things that the right really do care about but which are mere levers to anyone on the left. That Mrs Clinton can have made an issue about some locker-room tape of a decade ago while still married to Mr Clinton is only possible because Republicans actually care about such things while no Democrat ever really does. But they do pretend. I also think of our own piling on of Bronwyn Bishop over a helicopter ride by both sides but when Tony Burke was found to have done even worse, the story lasted a day or so and then died.

So Hillary said that she would accept the result of the election. But that was before and now there is mileage to be made in not accepting the result so off she goes. This being an election year in which anything can happen, I am not reassured that there is no basis for such a challenge or that it cannot succeed. It also depends on what success is, and actually becoming president is only one possible outcome. Weakening Trump’s authority to act is another. And there are no doubt others.

That the Democrat political constituency is from a different planet has been evident for a long time, but this story from The Washington Post has really confirmed it: I haven’t slept in my room since the election. I discussed it yesterday – under Socialism is a cult – but thought then that it might be satirical. Nothing of the sort. I asked myself whether he was just very funny or was insane. Turns out he’s not a satirist, but you really must read it all to appreciate the raw material of left politics in the US. This is how it begins:

Since the election, I haven’t slept in my dorm room once. I’ve slept on couches, futons, floors and unoccupied beds in my friends’ homes. At first, it came from a need to be with people who supported me and understood how scary this political moment is for young people who grew up under the liberal auspices of an Obama presidency and came of age politically in a time marked by progressive movements such as that of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). But after I went home for clean clothes to find an anti-gay hate message written on my door, right next to a set of stickers spelling out “Vote 4 Hillary,” my couch-surfing took on new urgency. I was no longer searching for comfort from my peers — I was trying to preserve a sense of safety.

More to the point even is to read the comments on the article which is at the Washington Post so it’s not some hicksville readership. That there is widespread understanding and sympathy with this lad’s psychodrama does make me wonder about how mad the world may really be.

The only bit of flotsam I still cling to is that perhaps Trump is normal and the people he will bring into government are also normal. But first there are the recounts and then, who knows, the entire mess might yet end up being decided in Congress. That is, if the death threats to the members of the Electoral College don’t turn enough votes to Hillary first.

AND FURTHERMORE: This is Helen Smith discussing the mental problems of the left in an article on Maybe Their Mental Health Wasn’t That Good Before the Election found at Instapundit. She quotes from an article in The Economist titled, America’s election has led to a boomlet for therapists.

Around the country therapists say anxious conversations about politics have become inevitable. “I’ve never had an election like this,” says Joe Kort, a psychotherapist in Michigan. Some of his clients are apparently showing signs of post-traumatic stress. Many have decided to skip the usual turkey meal if it means avoiding a confrontation with a gloating uncle. Awkwardly, avoidance is not an option for some of his trickiest customers: married couples who pulled levers for rival candidates. “I have clients who say ‘I don’t know if I can stay married to someone who would vote for a misogynist, a xenophobe’. I try to get them to stop trying to change each other’s minds, to just hear each other.”

The problem, though, is that many of these therapists are as loony as their clients:

Therapists often pride themselves on their neutrality, but demography tells another story. Most are concentrated in left-leaning cities on the coasts, and more than two-thirds are women. Many will privately allow that they too have been grieving since the election. “Trump is unleashing the worse angels of our nature,” says William Doherty, a psychologist at the University of Minnesota. His manifesto against the rise of the bullying tactics of “Trumpism” has collected over 3,500 signatures from fellow therapists.

What a double dose these people must have endured with the almost simultaneous death of Castro. The dissonance in their lives must be at fantastic levels. You might want to laugh at such people – truly hard to find room for sympathy – but they are doing so much to ruin the world that it is impossible to do other than to wish many more years of suffering on them as they have to live through a generation of sound government, with hopefully the first eight led by Donald Trump.

Socialism is a cult

Socialism is a cult rather than a series of rational beliefs. With the evidence of failure available at every turn, to hang on to the beliefs a typical socialist must hold about the world under socialism requires a form of distortion in one’s belief system that is so disorienting but nevertheless so intensely held that it is near impossible to change the minds of anyone holding such delusions. Looking at the sadness on the left after the death of Castro is a phenomenon that suggests serious detachment from reality. Like with global warming, there are no facts that matter. This is Scott Adams (i.e. Dilbert) picked up at Instapundit: ‘A Lesson in Cognitive Dissonance”.

Imagine you are one of the anti-Trump folks who believe we just elected a racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semitic, science-denying dictator. Let’s say that’s the movie playing in your mind. That’s some scary stuff.

Now imagine watching the news as Trump reveals in slow-motion that he’s flexible and pragmatic on just about everything. . . .

As Trump continues to demonstrate that he was never the incompetent monster his critics believed him to be, the critics will face an identity crisis. They either have to accept that they understand almost nothing about how the world works – because they got everything wrong about Trump – or they need to double-down on their current hallucination. Most of his critics will double-down. That’s how normal brains work.

And that brings us to our current situation. As Trump continues to defy all predictions from his critics, the critics need to maintain their self-images as the smart ones who saw this new Hitler coming. And that means you will see hallucinations like you have never seen. It will be epic.

The reason this will be so fun to watch is that we rarely get to see a situation in which the facts so vigorously violate a hallucination. Before Trump won the presidency everyone was free to imagine the future they expected. But as Trump continues to do one reasonable thing after another, his critics have a tough choice. They can either…

1. Reinterpret their self-images from wise to clueless.
or…
2. Generate an even stronger hallucination. (Cognitive dissonance.)

If Trump’s critics take the second option – and most of them will – it means you will see a lot of pretzel-logic of the type that is necessary hold onto the illusion that Trump is still a monster despite continuing evidence to the contrary.

And so onto the recounts. Socialists are liars whose only interest among those who lead such movements is power. Whether it is Venezuela, Cuba or the United States, they have nothing to offer other than illusion and sanctimony. No one, other than their leaders, has ever benefited from a socialist in government.

Let me also add this which I assume is satire except that is is from The Washington Post: I haven’t slept in my room since the election and it is posted under the heading, “Opinions”. It begins, but read it all since it is so well done:

Since the election, I haven’t slept in my dorm room once. I’ve slept on couches, futons, floors and unoccupied beds in my friends’ homes. At first, it came from a need to be with people who supported me and understood how scary this political moment is for young people who grew up under the liberal auspices of an Obama presidency and came of age politically in a time marked by progressive movements such as that of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). But after I went home for clean clothes to find an anti-gay hate message written on my door, right next to a set of stickers spelling out “Vote 4 Hillary,” my couch-surfing took on new urgency. I was no longer searching for comfort from my peers — I was trying to preserve a sense of safety.

He is either very funny or insane, but it is so pitch perfect it is impossible to tell for sure which it is.

UPDATE: Turns out he’s insane. Read the comments on the article at the Washington Post. There you will not only others treating him sympathetically, but very few pointing out how psychologically damaged the writer of this article must be. I can hardly believe such people exist, never mind that the Washington Post is not embarrassed to give them space on their opinion page.

Humour is conservative

I don’t know what to make of this.

One of the differences between conservatives and we classical liberals is that we do humour better than they do. And way better than the left.

Libertarian humour is a fantastic idea, one that would never cross my mind, but at least I can see the funny side in saying it. I definitely do not read Ayn Rand or Mises for their lighter bits. Humour is essentially the preserve of conservatives. You might say Woody Allen or Seinfeld are funny and they are on the left. But that’s just their politics and here we are discussing what makes what they write funny. Where have you seen humour as conservative as in, let us say, Midnight in Paris or Annie Hall or almost any Seinfeld episode? Portrayed is the world as it is, in which we see life with a comic touch. Here is the list put together by The Guardian of the 100 best novels ever written in English. I will pull out the ones that are comic (and note they are in date order only). Almost all the authors are conservative by nature, and even where you might associate them with the left, there is no utopian madness found in any of these.

3. Gulliver’s Travels by Jonathan Swift (1726)
5. Tom Jones by Henry Fielding (1749)
6. The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman by Laurence Sterne (1759)
7. Emma by Jane Austen (1816)
9. Nightmare Abbey by Thomas Love Peacock (1818)
14. Vanity Fair by William Thackeray (1848)
18. Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll (1865)
23. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain (1884/5)
25. Three Men in a Boat by Jerome K Jerome (1889)
49. Gentlemen Prefer Blondes by Anita Loos (1925)
57. Cold Comfort Farm by Stella Gibbons (1932)
60. Scoop by Evelyn Waugh (1938)
61. Murphy by Samuel Beckett (1938)
66. Joy in the Morning by PG Wodehouse (1946)
72. The Catcher in the Rye by JD Salinger (1951)
80. Catch-22 by Joseph Heller (1961)
86. Portnoy’s Complaint by Philip Roth (1969)
88. Rabbit Redux by John Updike (1971)
96. Breathing Lessons by Anne Tyler (1988)

Now find me anyone funnier than Mark Steyn today or Ann Coulter. The left just laugh at people from their smug superior view from above. To be conservative means not just to understand the human condition but to show sympathy with life’s victims, which is everyone. I was asked the other day for a joke about the Scotch which led me to this (and please also note that final bits of dialogue in the story must be in a Scottish accent):

An Australian goes into a shop selling tartans somewhere in Glasgow and asks for a length of MacIntyre tartan. The shop assistant says that he’s terribly sorry but they have sold out of the MacIntyre tartan. This Australian grabs the shop assistant by the collar, shakes him around a bit, and says look, I didn’t come all this way to Scotland not to be able to buy my clan tartan when I got here.

Just one minute, says the shop assistant, I will check with my boss out the back. So he goes into the backroom, and says to his boss that there is this mad Australian out the front, who insists on having MacIntryre tartan even though I told him we had run out.

OK, says the boss, give him this, and throws him a piece of cloth.

But that’s not MacIntyre tartan, says the shop assistant, that’s Dunlop tartan.

That’s OK, says his boss, Dunlops have been MacIntyres for years.

What is quite interesting about the story is that in this very short narrative there are three different personalities involved, each one of whom is as real as anyone you might meet. It’s the world as it is. No one is trying to prove some kind of subtle political point, although there’s no reason why they couldn’t. It’s really no more than a pun, but the humour is situational. You could actually imagine this as a real-life event.

It is this same absurdist humour you find in Steyn and Coulter. It is essential that you agree with their politics before you find what they write funny, but they both write about the world of politics in ways that make you see reality differently, but also more accurately.

Ann Coulter is the more difficult to appreciate because she is so hard hard edged. There is no writer I admire more since what seems just off the top of her head polemics is actually very well researched analysis of what is going on around us. But her style is brilliant but only someone with the most highly developed sense of irony could pull it off. This is what she does:

1. Make a factual statement

2. Make a joke about what she has just said.

Here is an excerpt from In Trump We Trust from which I have taken the following.

The media successfully smeared Romney as an out‐of‐touch multimillionaire, whacking working‐class Americans with his polo mallet. He was helpless. Tasteful people don’t talk about themselves, and they certainly don’t talk about money. Not Trump! Early in Trump’s campaign, journalist Mark Halperin asked him about the “backlash against rich candidates like Mitt Romney—any chance of that with you?” Trump said, “First of all, he wasn’t rich.”

And that was that. How do you attack someone for being rich who is constantly bragging about how rich he is? Yes, yes, I’m a WASP, too—it’s appalling, embarrassing, awful—but oh, my gosh, does it work! Luckily, voting machines register only yes or no—not yes, but I hate myself.

You know, I laughed when I read it for the first time in August and I laugh at it again now. This is funny even with a serious point. What is there on the left that is the equivalent of that? As for libertarians, I won’t even ask you to look since why search for unicorns when there are other things to do with your life.

BTW if you haven’t read Ann Coulter, or Thomas Love Peacock, it’s time you did.

Have Trump’s plans on global warming changed?

You could get that impression by reading your daily paper or listening to the usual sources. Here is James Delingpole to set you straight: No, Donald Trump Hasn’t Suddenly Gone Soft on ‘Global Warming’. Here to calm your nerves is a quote he gives us from Trump that really is astonishing. The question is about whether there is any connection between human action and the weather:

TRUMP: I think right now … well, I think there is some connectivity. There is some, something. It depends on how much. It also depends on how much it’s going to cost our companies. You have to understand, our companies are noncompetitive right now.

They’re really largely noncompetitive. About four weeks ago, I started adding a certain little sentence into a lot of my speeches, that we’ve lost 70,000 factories since W. Bush. 70,000. When I first looked at the number, I said: ‘That must be a typo. It can’t be 70, you can’t have 70,000, you wouldn’t think you have 70,000 factories here.’ And it wasn’t a typo, it’s right. We’ve lost 70,000 factories.

We’re not a competitive nation with other nations anymore. We have to make ourselves competitive. We’re not competitive for a lot of reasons.

That’s becoming more and more of the reason. Because a lot of these countries that we do business with, they make deals with our president, or whoever, and then they don’t adhere to the deals, you know that. And it’s much less expensive for their companies to produce products. So I’m going to be studying that very hard, and I think I have a very big voice in it. And I think my voice is listened to, especially by people that don’t believe in it. And we’ll let you know.

Millennials wonder why their job prospects are as lousy as they are and their incomes are so low. Here is part of the reason why.

Not very intelligent if you ask me

I have seen some pretty disgraceful things since the election, but this must rise to the top. This is from The Economist Intelligence Unit, sent to me by an undercover agent who will remain unknown, but does have my thanks. Even to raise the question is near enough beyond the pale – Do you think China has a better system for political transition than the US? – but the fellow who has asked it, their Chief Economist, must at least entertain the idea as a possibility, if it is not actually his own personal belief. If you were ever in doubt of the necessity in electing Trump as president, have doubts no more.

 

From Our Chief Economist
Not an election
November 24th 2016

After the recent surprises brought about by Brexit and the election of Donald Trump, many are questioning whether democracy is an effective system. In last year’s edition of our annual Democracy Index, The Economist Intelligence Unit’s analysts identified public anxiety as a stress point for democracies in 2016 (watch out for the next edition of the Democracy Index, due in January). For the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), electoral travails in some of the world’s leading democracies provide succour and reinforce its message to the people of China that democracy is not desirable. However, there is no avoiding messy politics; it is just a matter of the means through which it happens and to what extent it does so in public view.

China has its own messy elections. Fluid power alliances within the CCP, combined with certain set-piece events, fulfil a role similar to multi-party electoral processes in democracies. One critical such event is the reshuffling of the politburo, which will take place at the end of 2017. Just as in the US election, punditry here is based on speculation and gossip, along with occasional facts. The CCP election process can be just as messy as a democratic election, and China is not immune to the risk of unexpected outcomes.

Do you think China has a better system for political transition than the US? [My bolding.] How might the leadership changes affect your business? Let me know your thoughts via Twitter @Baptist_Simon or email on simonjbaptist@eiu.com.
Best regards,


Simon Baptist
Chief Economist

Conrad Black disposing of the Obama legacy

This is Conrad Black speaking for the most part nicely about Obama, but he also thinks nicely about FDR so it is par for the course. Nevertheless, he also says this:

So this is the legacy the president and his press-ubiquitous claque are clangorously raising heavenwards like a messianic effigy. A depression was avoided by doubling 233 years of accumulated national debt in seven years to get an annual economic-growth rate of 1%, as 15 million people have dropped out of the work force. The auto rescue could have been much better designed and even Chapter Eleven for Chrysler and General Motors would not have repudiated corporate bonds altogether, would have provided a pittance for the equity-holders rather than nothing, and would not have handed control of much of the industry to the self-destructively greedy United Auto Workers who were at least half the problem in the first place.

Wall Street “reform” has meant stifling red tape, a witch hunt among traders and fund managers but continued fiscal subsidization of those who substitute velocity of money-transactions in place of activities that add value, precisely the practice that Mr. Obama denounces elsewhere in Mr. Remnick’s article as creating the menace of increasing unemployment and income disparity, dangers that this administration has done nothing to allay.

“Banning torture” means stopping waterboarding, which is frightening but not painful and may, in some conditions, be justifiable in counterterrorism. “Marriage equality” is a state-by-state matter and the legalization was by the Supreme Court, and the whole issue is the applicability of the word “marriage,” not the right to same-sex civil union. Lilly Ledbetter, for the 99% of readers who would not know, involves the Supreme Court decision allowing limitations on claims of discriminatory pay-scales to begin at the last paycheck — hardly a ground-shaking tweak of the law, though a respectable reform.

Justices Sotomayor and Kagan are acceptable judges but no better than most confirmed under recent presidents of both parties. The whole court has gone to sleep while the Bill of Rights has putrefied, and there is no sign that Justice Kagan, an ex-solicitor general, will do anything about it. “The end of the Iraq War” was thoughtlessly hasty and spawned the Islamic State, handed 60% of Iraqis to the overlordship of Iran, and helped generate an immense humanitarian crisis (a fact that Mr. Trump and Senator Sanders were the only presidential candidates to acknowledge).

The “opening of Cuba” just legitimized the Cuban seizure of American assets and accomplished nothing for anyone, least of all the victims of the Stalinist Castro regime. The Paris climate-change agreement was unspecific piffle about an unproved threat. Two relatively scandal-free terms could be said of all 13 previous two-full-term presidents except Grant and Mr. Clinton. The elimination of bin Laden is conceded as a fine achievement, and Obamacare, “heavy investment in renewable-energy technologies,” and the Iran nuclear deal are all almost unmitigated disasters.

For me, Obama cannot be gone soon enough. Whatever patriotism he had was never in my view to the United States of America. More to my taste is this, the first of the “top” comments at Instapundit:

“It would have been no less fair for the Republicans to have tied Mr. Obama hand-and-foot to Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright.” Are you fucking kidding me? It is precisely the GOP’s refusal to go after Obama for his sordid America-hating past that made conservatives and Republicans so disgusted with Romney and McCain. Obama was a target a mile wide … and the GOP didn’t even pull its gun out of the holster … All because the GOP has no balls…And worries about one thing .. Will the media call the GOP names? Pathetic. I have zero respect for the GOP for one main reason…They do not fight and expose the Dems for what they are….treasonous socialist racist America hating scumbags.

In a state of reflection

thinker

Ancient ‘thinking person’ statuette unearthed in Israel, ancient as in 3800 years old.

The Israel Antiquities Authority said on Wednesday the jug, dating back to what archaeologists refer to as the Middle Bronze Age, had been found during an excavation in Yehud, a Tel Aviv suburb.

“It seems that at first the jug, which is typical of the period, was prepared and afterwards the unique sculpture was added, the likes of which have never before been discovered in previous research,” said Gilad Itach, who directed the excavation, which included teenage diggers.

The statuette is about 18 cm (7 inches) tall.

“One can see that the face of the figure seems to be resting on its hand as if in a state of reflection,” he said.

Discrediting the very notion of human rights

The oddest part about many of the decisions Gillian Triggs has made is that she has done more to discredit the notion of human rights abuse than any actual instance uncovered since she came to head the AHRC. Is there more to this latest instance or is it as bizarre as it sounds:

A TOP tech firm has been told to cough up $76,639 in compo to a drug dealer, after besieged human rights boss Gillian Triggs ruled he had been unfairly fired over his criminal record.

The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) wants Data#3 to pay the sacked IT consultant $71,639 in lost earnings plus $5000 in compo for “hurt, humiliation and distress as a result of being discriminated against’’.

Ms Triggs — whose politically-correct decisions have triggered calls for her resignation as AHRC president — gave the eyebrow-raising edict that obtaining a security clearance or passing a police check were not “inherent requirements’’ of the IT job.

But Data#3, which does sensitive work for government agencies, told the AHRC that the contractor’s employment was “untenable’’ because all employees “must have and exhibit the highest ethical standards’’. . .

The sacked worker, known as Mr AW, was hired on a $185,000 salary package as a Microsoft “solution specialist’’ late in 2013.

He was fired a few weeks later after Data#3 discovered his criminal conviction on six counts of selling ecstasy in New Zealand in 2011.

In what sense is it dealing with “human rights” abuse to punish firms to the tune of thousands of dollars for making a judgement call about whether they can trust an individual who has withheld information about their prior criminal conviction? Is there some kind of law she is following, or does she just make it up as she goes along?