The Double Anti

I've been thinking a lot more about the various groups attending the pro-Hamas rallies. For those who aren't aware, this includes some gays and even some Jews. If you were a psychologist and your boss said, "I need you to come up with a solid explanation of why those who would be immediately oppressed if Fundamentalist Islam seized power would possibly rally in support of the same right now", what would your explanation be?

These days I'm reading an amazing book by Tony Judt about Europe after WW2. I'm currently in the section focused on the 1950's. It was clear that while the USSR was oppressing millions of people, some very horribly, many in the West refused to criticize them; some even publicly showed support to the USSR and against the USA. Note that this especially included many in Western Europe, who just around a decade before had only escaped the clutches of Adolf Hitler because of America. Talk about a short memory!

Were all of these people mentally ill? That's an easy way to sum things up but probably not accurate. Judt concludes that they were "anti anti-communist".

So in their minds, most of these folks went to sleep each night, comfortable that they were not pro-oppression. They were of course, in deep denial about what was going on behind the Iron Curtain. But absolutely no different than those today who will first & foremost criticize America & Israel yet be highly reticent to criticize Radical Islam, Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, North Korea, Russia, China, Cuba, or any number of African dictators.

Though in the end equation, to any of us with even a mildly right-leaning bent, refusing to criticize totalitarian regimes appears to be exactly the same thing as lending them support; or at least giving them a free pass to do whatever they want.

Looking at the psychology of all this . . .

The Left is generally more emotional, more moved by the immediate circumstances, and rarely looks at the long term view and/or long term repercussions. Words like hypocrisy, dishonour, and self-responsibility have little meaning to those on the Left.

The Right tends to focus on the bigger picture, longer term view. Morality and Right & Wrong have more meaning with the Right, but even more so in the macro than the micro.

Note: Before anyone points out to me about corrupt conservative politicians, religious leaders, business executives, etc. let me state unequivocally that these individuals are phony, greedy poseurs. They are actually the worst of the lot, pretending to be one thing but something else entirely when the rubber hits the road.

A perfect example of this Left-Right difference is the situation of whenever a Canadian soldier kills a Taliban fighter in Afghanistan. In no way, shape, or form can Canada be accused of being an imperialist power. So why did that Canadian soldier pull the trigger on his gun, which killed the Taliban man? The Right understands that a mother's child has just died but focuses on the bigger picture, namely that the Taliban is a horrific regime that will bring nothing but oppression and immense cruelty back onto the innocent people of Afghanistan should they be allowed to return to power. The Left, on the other hand, can pretty much only focus in on the individual death and suspects that an injustice has occurred. For them, thinking beyond the immediacy of that death just doesn't occur.

Members of the media are almost always on the Left. From a psychological perspective, I don't precisely know why this is. It might be because the nature of their work has them bombarded with event after event after event. So they tend to focus most of their attention on the immediate rather than the bigger picture. Historically I wonder if there was more of a balance between Left and Right journalists, unlike the reported 98% to 2% polls say it is now. So professionally, it's very unwise for a new member of the media to espouse anything but Leftist views.

What is so dangerous about the media being so inclined is that their power to shape public opinion is enormous. And like with any good marketing campaign, be it to sell the latest widget or fashion accessory or be it to dehumanize Jews to the level of pigs & dogs, they do alter public opinion more readily than we'd all like to admit. Of course, they take no responsibility for this, citing the old canard that "they're just reporting the news". Sigh.

One saving grace is that the mainstream media is very quickly going broke. I will regret the day if there are no more formal news reporting agencies but hopefully they will remain, albeit with much more balance ... and dare I say it, professionalism. In the early part of this millennium that P-word is sadly lacking across the journalistic spectrum. It has gotten so bad that we now have prominent TV news channels faking deaths.

The Liberal Mind Analyzed by a Psychologist

This book is priceless! Here are some key points in a recent review:

"A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do," he says. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do."

Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

• creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
• satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
  
• augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
  
• rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.

"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."

Replica of the Conformity Experiments of Solomon Asch

Absolutely fascinating! You can read more here.

Can you spot a fake smile?

I tried this test and got 16 out of 20 correct. How about you?

Wise Words For Pushovers

NICE PERSON SYNDROME

Nice People are carefully trained to be, at all costs, "good boys" and "good girls." They are steeped, too soon and strongly, in the value of unselfishness, cooperation and the importance of pleasing others. Consequently, they grow up feeling that it is natural to defer to the wishes of others, putting their own desires in second place (or ignoring them altogether). I use the word Nice (capital N) to describe adults who still act like good boys and girls. Such people are often highly intuitive, but they use their sensitivity mostly for the purpose of learning what is expected of them. They have a profound need to be liked and will violate, if necessary, their own integrity for even the possibility of love and affection. They usually are accepted and well-liked, but they are not satisfied, because they know they have withheld something of their true identity. As a result, Nice People often live in fear that nobody will ever really love them -- including their weaknesses and blemishes. They feel they must be perfect. Yet they are constantly and painfully aware that they are not perfect. A good number appear to have bodily symptoms of chronic inner conflict (e.g., anal tension).

Nice People operate on the basis of one central conviction: The only way to get what I need is to do what other people want. They are usually very good at getting what they want (without asking for it) but there is always something missing. Spontaneity is difficult since each interpersonal encounter is, in a sense, a performance. Remaining a Nice Person requires constant vigilance, since all "bad" qualities (e.g., anger, selfishness, competitiveness) must either be suppressed or rechanneled in such as way that they at least appear nice....

Nice people have trouble making explicit requests...Nice People know that if they are just good enough, others will automatically know what they want and give it to them...Nice People are usually "rescuers" ...We rescue somebody each time we withhold or distort our true feelings, not wanting to hurt or anger the other person. We do the same thing when we go along with something that we really do not want to do...Nice People save up little grievances each time they play rescuer because they rarely let themselves say "no" when they want to. As a result, they are chronically angry....

In sex, as elsewhere, it is impossible for a person authentically to say yes to anything unless he/she simultaneously feels complete freedom to say no.

-- Jack Morin