January 9th, 2010

Are Obama’s lies politics as usual?

Most people now recognize that Obama has been lying about a lot of things. But it’s often said that’s just business as usual for politicians, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is being naive.

Blogger Richard Fernandez of Belmont Club, a writer with a keen mind and a graceful style, as well as more than his share of that rare commodity known as wisdom, has this to say on the subject:

An Election Promise is now almost synonymous with a Lie. Few voters believe that an election promise will actually be kept, but many vote according to what they are promised anyway…

But although the politician may lie, he may also be expected not to break his promises blatantly or obviously…Perhaps Barack Obama is perhaps the last gasp of nostalgia; the last hurrah for the Kennedyesque indulgence of electing someone for his charisma and personal beauty. Deep down in their hearts a considerable number of those who voted for Obama knew he would never conduct the health care negotiations on Cspan or even keep them safe. But there was something hypnotizing about the possibility of magic; something compelling about the prospect of getting something for nothing; something touching in the hope that if you truly, truly believed in hope and change from an associate of Tony Rezko and the Blag, that you would really get it.

I have deep respect for almost everything Fernandez writes, but this time I disagree with him, at least in part. Yes indeed, we’ve become very used to politicians telling lies. And yes, I suppose “a considerable number” of those who voted for Obama didn’t expect him to keep the promise about televising the deliberations on C-span. But I think an even more considerable number believed he would.

Here we’re not talking about a tangential or trivial lie, although the C-span promise may seem to be minor. But it went to the very heart of Obama’s attractiveness to voters, which was that he was a different sort of politician. The C-span promise was tied to a larger and more fundamental promise about being responsive to the people and actually listening to them, and well as allowing them to witness the deliberations of their government. Unlike Jimmy Carter, Obama never actually made the explicit pledge “I will never lie to you.” But it was implicit, and it was central to his appeal.

This was true especially for young people, who formed one of the demographics most responsible for Obama’s win. Young people may be cynical (although they tend not to be as jaded as their elders). But what cynicism they had most of them suspended in the case of Obama. One had only to look at their shining eyes to see how much they believed, and whether it was because of hypnosis or the “possiblity of magic”—still, they had real (if misplaced) faith in Obama’s openness and veracity.

So Obama’s lie was about who he fundamentally is in terms of honesty and openness. It was a lie about lying itself. I cannot recall another president who built his campaign so heavily on an important personal characteristic and then demonstrated the exact opposite so quickly, nakedly, and without apology. In sum: Obama lied about the most central fact of his character.

And then there’s the little matter of where Obama stands on the political spectrum. Many politicians tack left or right during a campaign as the situation demands. For example, they tend to be more extreme in the primaries because they are catering to their base, and then move to the center once nominated because they must now appeal to the country as a whole. Obama, however, was deceptive from start to finish about extent of his leftism, although the canny observer could look at his record and divine his true leanings. But most people did not do so.

It’s possible that other candidates would love to practice such a degree of deception, if it could get them elected. But most are precluded from it because (a) they have a longer and more well-known track record that can’t be hidden; and (b) the press would expose them. Obama, however, was able to get away with what he did because his record was shorter and more obscure, and because the MSM colluded with him in covering it up.

I submit that this is not business as usual. This is something sui generis in American politics. And this is something that everyone who’s paying attention—Republicans, Independents, and even Democrats (including idealistic liberals, and those who expected more of a voice in the political process)—can recognize and be angered by.

59 Responses to “Are Obama’s lies politics as usual?”

  1. mizpants Says:

    Apparently he told this whopper 8 times. It wasn’t an inconsistency he got caught in — “transparency” was a major part of his platform. There’s something vertigo-inducing about his silence on the matter. It’s really frightening, and maddening. I’d feel safer if he said ANYTHING, no matter how “transparent” a lie it was!

  2. neo-neocon Says:

    mizpants: his silence is a form of arrogance, as well as contempt for the public. He doesn’t believe he needs to acknowledge the switch. It also is a form of gaslighting the public and the press—”what lie?”

  3. mizpants Says:

    Neo: Yes, that’s just what I mean. His arrogance is what’s so frightening, and so unprecedented. It’s exactly the reason this is not “business as usual.”

  4. mizpants Says:

    There’s a wonderful quote — I forget from whom. Oscar Wilde? Something like “Dishonesty is the price vice pays to virture.”

  5. driver Says:

    Gaslighting, yes, well put. Should we not all have an even greater respect for Rep. Joe Wilson who had the courage to shout “You lie!” on the floor of the United States Congress in response to this malevolent mendacity?

    Obamalinsky is indeed a different kind of politician, one who lies without shame because it is an intrinsic part of his program. Nat Hentoff called him “perhaps the most dangerous and destructive president we have ever had.”

  6. mizpants Says:

    Sorry, it’s “the TRIBUTE vice pays to virtue.”

  7. Mike Mc. Says:

    There was a time, not long ago at all, when the cultural elites would have (naturally) been educated in the Ethcis of Aristotle, the great myths of Greece and Rome, the fables of Aesop, and all the “fairy tales” and “folk tales” that transmitted the wisdom of the ages to young people from age 5 to 25.

    That world was assassinated and killed a little while back – when the Anti-President was growing up (wherever that was).

    Today, no one really remembers the truth about lies and lying. As my mother frequently said – a lie is the worst thing a person can do because then trust is destroyed and no one knows anything and all manner of ills personal and public ensue.

    We are living with all these ills now, and it should get worse because, really, who can we call in to recall to us the old stories and behaviors?

    We need a Renaissance – going back to go forward. But first we have to STOP. Then GO BACK. Only then can we hope to move Forward again.

  8. neo-neocon Says:

    driver—”Obamalinksy” is a good one.

  9. rickl Says:

    Yes, I wish Wilson hadn’t been browbeaten into apologizing. He had it exactly right, and he should have stood his ground.

    Conservatives need to start calling out the leftists on a daily basis, and decorum be damned. This is a war for America’s future.

  10. rickl Says:

    This is a war for America’s future.

    I should have added: So far it’s just a verbal war. So far.

  11. Mike Mc. Says:

    I agree with rickl. But it is already more than verbal. I think you mean it is not yet a shooting war. It is a financial and legal and rights war to this point. It is something like the period between the French and Indian War and the Revolutionary War.

  12. huxley Says:

    I can see Fernandez’s point to a point.

    As I watched Obamamania surging during the campaign, I had the sense that these people, even the young, were playacting in a feelgood political movie of the early Sixties with Obama as JFK/MLK, and at some level they all knew it, but it felt good and Bush was evil, so why not? It was a high.

    I was struck by how quickly — even before Obama’s serial betrayals of his campaign promises and persona — Obamamania evaporated and there was little soul-searching I could discern about what had happened to the magic. After the Sixties people spent another ten years wondering what had happened to all the expectations of that era and whether it could be recaptured.

    Obama’s campaign reminded me of Bono and U2′s attempt about the time of “The Joshua Tree” album to resurrect the feel of the Sixties and lead the young into a genuine political-cultural movement.

    The kids at the concerts and the benefits sure looked like they were into it, but the idealism didn’t last the fifty-five minutes it took U2 fans to get out of the parking lot afterwards, and no one gave it a second thought.

  13. Assistant Village Idiot Says:

    mizpants, it’s Hypocrisy, not Dishonesty that pays tribute in the exact quote. Similar, but with an important shade of difference.

    It is politics as usual insofar as we have been trending this way for a long time. We took a great leap forward under Clinton, remember. But I agree that new ground is being broken.

    As to whether the Obama voters knew he was lying or not, I don’t think that’s a clean distinction to make even on an individual level.

  14. mezzrow Says:

    “if you truly, truly believed in hope and change from an associate of Tony Rezko and the Blag, that you would really get it.”

    Oh, we got it and are still getting it. Good and hard.

  15. jhimmi Says:

    American voters are so fed up with slimy disingenous politicians they elected George Bush. Twice. Bush appealed to people because he seemed like someone who, like it or not, would say what they meant. Same with Palin.

    Being honest and direct probably doesn’t seem like the single most important qualification for political office to most people, at least until they are saddled with a rep for whom honesty is perceived as character flaw.

  16. mizpants Says:

    So it is, AVI. Do you know who said this? I find conflicting information on Google. Somebody said Matthew Arnold, but that doesn’t sound right.
    I think you’re absolutely right about whether Obama supporters knew whether he was lying or not, even on the individual level.Wishful thinking and the “titillations of solidarity” (Leon Wieseltier) muddied those waters too much.

  17. Cappy Says:

    After the Sixties people spent another ten years wondering what had happened to all the expectations of that era and whether it could be recaptured.

    That spirit should be captured. Then indicted, tried, waterboarded, executed and waterboarded again.

  18. Barry Meislin Says:

    There is absolutely no reason to believe anything Obama says.

    His “Who?-What?-Where?-Nope, not me” reaction to the Rev. Wright revelations should have made that crystal clear early on.

    Sadly.

    Maybe he’ll discover there’s such a thing as the truth. I find this unlikely, though. Mindsets usually don’t change and he and his pals (and his umpteen czars) seem to be deep into “Ends-justify-means” territory.

    And they have very firm ideas about where they want to take America.

    The American people are going to have to get lucky.

  19. NeoConScum Says:

    Obamalinski…! Perfecto !

    It is, indeed, Saul Alinsky playbook time…AT THE WHITE HOUSE, for Gawdsakes ! The fast revealing reality of that ought to sober and send shivers to anyone with a brain and an American Liberty Loving Heart.

    Short of just one year in office, we are seeing a vast Leftist Shipwreck being steered by Boy Wonder in the Presidency. Worse & Worse. And, that’s the Alinskyite-Trotskyist point.

    Time for EVERYONE who loves American Liberty & Exceptionalism to wake the ***k up !

  20. Baklava Says:

    Neo,

    Look for Reid’s comments concerning Obama not having a Negro dialect.

    There has already been a response from Reid and a response from the White House saying the “book is closed”

    CLOSED????

    CLOSED????

    Oh No. Reid cannot win re-election and should be held accountable.. As a younger American (39), I’m incensed that this good old boy Democrat from Nevada is allowed to pull these Senate tactics – say whatever he wants to say – and never be held accountable.

    Incensed.

  21. K.G. Says:

    Barry, sadly there is no hope that BHO will change. He doesn’t see the need. He’s a silly little kid reared by leftists–an insulated, parochial true believer–as are his followers. (Actually HE’S the follower.)

    And, as we all know, it’s OK for the left to lie. Their ends are so noble, so necessary that the “noble lie” is noble and necessary.

    Joe Wilson’s sin wasn’t that he accused the president, but that he made a scene over the obvious.

  22. Amused Observer Says:

    I agree with our gracious hosts insight but for one line.

    “although the canny observer could look at his record and divine his true leanings.”

    You didn’t have to be that canny. For at least 20% of the electorate this was painfully obvious from the beginning. The tag “most liberal Senator in congress” was heard many times in the campaign.

    LOL, Joe Wilson was only echoing the angry shouts hurled at innocent TVs throughout the land.

  23. neo-neocon Says:

    Amused Observer: The bar has been lowered for “canny” these days.

  24. Occam's Beard Says:

    Can we now officially bury the Sixties? Please? They sucked. From beginning to end, they sucked. I was there. I know.

    Yet their malevolent influence continues to this day. Not only do many of my fellow members of the Worst Generation get misty-eyed about the Sixties, and long for reprise them (“Recreate ’68,” anyone?) but people who are only around today because of poor quality control in the condom factories of the time want to have their own Sixties, at whatever cost.

    I just received my alumni magazine (aka funding plea) that waxes poetic about the Sixties and how wonderful they were, is replete with cutesy anecdotes about Herbert Marcuse, letters from morons who still have their “Shut it down” T-shirts, depictions of various communist pinups (Che Guevara – but of course – Mao (ditto), Malcolm X, Cesar Chavez, etc.), blather about “social justice,” and other communist code words, and then concludes by sticking its hand out for money. Amazing. It’s like a time warp. Did someone seriously think that this was good marketing? Seriously? Maybe it is to others – but not to me it isn’t.

  25. huxley Says:

    The Sixties were neither black-and-white good nor black-and-white bad. They were a mixed blessing.

    Like it or not, civil rights, gay rights, and the flexibility for the rest of us to live lives that were not out of the cookie-cutter fifties came out of the sixties. I’m glad of those things.

    They were also a time of tremendous idealism and creativity. Some amazing music, books, and movies came out of that era that I for one would miss.

    Bashing the Sixties is a lot like bashing your parents or your childhood. It’s good to know the shortcomings and problems that shaped you, but to disown them entirely without recognizing some of the strengths is just another kind of problem IMO.

  26. Baklava Says:

    The 60′s were in one sense a failure of the greatest generation to PARENT.

    Now that I threw that bomb out there… I was born in 1970 and my parents were strict. I didn’t get away with anything…

    I remember being outside as a nine year old in 1979 while these dudes were playing their guitars – they were playing Jethro Tull.

    That man is incredible.

    I thought, “WOW”, these guys are cool. They seemed to be able to do anything they wanted. They had cool cars, had loud stereos, had long hair and was everything i wanted to be. He even drove a garbage truck – which ended up being my dream for a few years. :)

    Now that I’m 39, I see how pointless all that was. You can enjoy music and be cool…. But the best thing in my life has been my two daughters and my family.

  27. The Elephant's Child Says:

    There is something extremely odd about Obama’s untruths. It is as if he is an invented persona saying what that persona thinks his audience wants to hear. That sounds weird, but he says things that are obviously untrue, yet it doesn’t seem to him to be a lie. Practiced liars can lie extremely well, but begin to fall apart if they are seriously challenged.

    Obama has made amazing statements over and over about what the Health Care bills do — his claims bear no relationship to what is actually in the bills; and one is left wondering if he just has no clue, believes what Nancy and Harry tell him, is lying to sell the bills, or thinks the rest of us are terminally stupid and he can say anything. It’s a puzzlement.

    I’ve known a few compulsive liars, and the compulsion seems mostly directed at self-enhancement. Obama has adopted the persona of the brilliant young president — including all the trappings of the campaign — as his “real” self.

    Neo, this is obviously your territory, not mine, and I’m not sure I know what I’m talking about. It’s just that something strikes me as very, very odd.

  28. Mr. Frank Says:

    Muslims are allowed to lie to infidels.

  29. Old Dad Says:

    It’s a truism that all politicians are full of shit. It’s a matter of degree. Obama had the good fortune to rise at the end of an unpopular presidency and run against a very average opponent. Oh, and he had the good fortune to be half black in a guilt addled politically correct sick culture.

    He’s a man of modest gifts, but modest gifts can win with medicocre competition and a complicit press.

    Obama’s fall was inevitable. There is nothing particularly special about it, or about him. He’s a venal sort who let his vanity and bitterness get the upperhand.

    The only amusing aspect of this sorry human episode is to watch the press walk back from their obvious idiocy and go bankrupt doing it. Frying pan, fire and all that.

    On the brighter side, there does seem to be some righteous anger afoot in the country. We’re busy people who generally choose to let the fools in DC alone so long as they don’t do too much harm. It’s not a formula for success, but we’ve done it anyway. Obama has foolishly wandered into electoral no man’s land and wil pay the price.

    I hope he’s not as graceless as Jimmy Carter, but we’ll see. On C-span, perhaps.

  30. Jamie Irons Says:

    Neo,

    I rather like “Obamalinski” too…

    Driving down “my” mountain the other day, I heard something about Rahm on the radio, a possible cognomen for him popped into my head:

    The pit ballerina…

    Jamie Irons

  31. F Says:

    Mizpants — possibly the reason you can’t find it is that the quote should read “hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue” and is attributed (in my source book) to La Rochefoucauld.

    A more apt quote to apply to Obama might come from Andre Gide’s “Journal of the Counterfeiters”:

    “The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity.”

    Finally, I agree with you, Neo — Obama has lied about the most central part of his character. F

  32. neo-neocon Says:

    Elephant’s Child: In my opinion, it’s this one: Obama “thinks the rest of us are terminally stupid and he can say anything.” It worked for him earlier in life, and especially during the election.

  33. K.G. Says:

    It is a fascinating question, isn’t it? Does BHO just mindlessly spout whatever someone puts in the teleprompter and has no clue that it’s self-contradictory blather?

    Or is he in on the joke?

  34. Gringo Says:

    “Hypocrisy is the homage which vice pays to virtue”:François de la Rochefoucauld :French classical author, leading exponent of the Maxime, 1613-1680. ( I have gotten this from at least three sources, so I would consider this accurate.)

    Lord Byron
    has a similar quote: “In England the only homage which they pay to Virtue – is hypocrisy.”

    From the same link as the Lord Byron quote, is a rather telling one from Richard Pryor: “There’s a lot more hypocrisy than before. Racism has gone back underground.” The libs say they are tolerant and loving people who hate hypocrisy and they also say they hate racism and bigotry and prejudice. The venom they express towards dumb right wingers and teabaggers tends to contradict their self perception of being loving,tolerant people. Methinks that they are lying to themselves and others, but do not realize it.

    The point about ∅bama is that he ran on repeatedly claiming that he wasn’t one of “those politicians.” One might reply that anyone who was credulous enough to believe that of a Chicago politician got what he or she deserved. Unfortunately, we who did not vote for him suffer the same consequences. I get the impression that those who voted for him are not pressing him as much about his lies as the right is. Those who voted for him wanted to believe, and do not want to burst that bubble of belief.

    Regarding the Sixties: history happens. I was there, as were many of the commenters on this blog. The issue is not the Sixties per se but that so many people did not grow beyond them, for a variety of reasons. Why some did and some did not grow beyond them is a topic for another thread. And yes, alumni magazines give good evidence of continuing tomfoolery about the era.

    Jamie Irons: Rahm as the ” pit ballerina:” ROTFL.

  35. Artfldgr Says:

    Venezuela’s Devaluation ups stakes in Venezuela election year
    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN096521320100109

  36. Bob From Virginia Says:

    Obama “thinks the rest of us are terminally stupid and he can say anything.” It worked for him earlier in life, and especially during the election.

    As Omessiah still has the support of 50% of the public and the MSM in spite of his obvious mental aberrations there is another quote by Woodrow Wilson that has relevance “Logic won’t take out of a man’s mind what logic did not put there.”

    For some reason 50% are choosing to ignore the obvious, this guy’s meshuga.

  37. When it Comes to Arrogance… « Alt-Con Says:

    [...] so what have we got here. Transparency promises being swept brazenly under the rug? Check. Unpopular, legislation being rammed through while the rest of the country is occupied with [...]

  38. rickl Says:

    Gringo:

    The issue is not the Sixties per se but that so many people did not grow beyond them, for a variety of reasons. Why some did and some did not grow beyond them is a topic for another thread.

    That would be a good thread topic. (Hint, hint.)

    I was a child in (not “of”) the 60s, and my biggest memories of the time are the Gemini and Apollo space flights. But when I went to college a decade later, my friends and I looked to the 60s for our musical, cultural, and political inspirations. We wanted nothing to do with the contemporary designer-clad disco culture.

    After college, I naturally gravitated towards friends who shared my tastes, values, and political beliefs. But for going on 15 years now, I have grown beyond those political beliefs, and not one of them has. Interesting.

  39. Madrussian Says:

    Obama’s future: What happens to a lier when he dies? He lie still.

  40. Rick in NY Says:

    Definitely not politics as usual.

    I always say “read the prospectus before you invest or send money”. Obama had a prospectus, and his background (listed metaphorically in the “risk factors” section) pointed to who he was, what he believed in, and how he would govern. The electorate chose not to pursue it any beyond hope, change, and all the other meaningless, empty phrases that politician use. What was different was the content, not the delivery.

    The content, essentially that of a collectivist, statist, socialist objective, cannot speak its name. The left has long advocated the calling of things by their improper name. You want to get elected? You cannot say that you want to nationalize large swaths of the economy. You just make straw man arguments and hope – ha, there’s that word again – the electorate breathes in the vapors long enough to get past the first Tuesday in November.

    It is not politics as usual. Obama said he wanted to transform the country and he did, or is at least giving a remarkable effort to try. The electorate, played for the fool, doesn’t like it but it’s too late.

    Read the prospectus before you invest or send money.

  41. jonny freedom seed Says:

    I was a naïve teen during the 60s and had my room covered with Che Guevara posters in 1968 ! I wanted to be in the Paris riots and join a Utopian commune. By 1980 I was cured and became a red blooded Conservative. Don’t give up on all our youth yet.

  42. physicsguy Says:

    Random thoughts on some of the comments:

    “The 60’s were in one sense a failure of the greatest generation to PARENT.”

    My mother (83) and I were having this exact conversation. She kept saying how she couldn’t figure out where her generation went wrong in raising us. I’m not sure they did go wrong, but that there were historical and cultural waves that may have been beyond their control. I told her, that at least I think I came out alright :-)

    Obama lying: Seems to me to be part of the general shift of the Dems. I propose a new name for that party:

    CCCP Chicago Crooks and Communists Party

    As they seem to want to recreate the Soviet Union, justs seems to fit.

    h/t to David Horowitz

  43. MikeLL Says:

    When Obama was accepting his nomination he said that people would remember this as the time that sea levels would fall.

    I wondered in amazement if Obama actually believed the things he said.

    I’m still not quite sure.

    It is amazing to me that I can’t quite figure out whether this guy actually believes the things he says or not.

  44. Assistant Village Idiot Says:

    physicsguy, I lean to the explanation that we were the first generation with disposable income as teenagers. That allowed us a freedom of action beyond what our maturity could bear. Some – those who worked for the money or had less, most likely – mastered the temptations of being pandered to better.

  45. Tom Says:

    The root of the problem is all promises become inoperative once elections are over. Voters in contemporary democracies must be amateur Kremlinologists or tea- leaf readers to try to sort it all out.
    Thus, a constitutional mechanism is needed to deal with our Alinskyite taqqiya. When Hell freezes over.

  46. Otiose Says:

    What I find unsettling and I don’t understand is that Obama’s lies are of a different species than the normal politician. A normal politician does more of a deceptive spinning and will move in response to public opinion (or spin that he is), but Obama is so blatantly lying and unresponsive it makes me suspect he really does have something else going on in his head. He may really believe to his core his left wing world view that his ends (e.g. health care bills) justify his means (lying about every aspect of those bills), and that if he can just get them passed, then all things good will arise from these actions and everyone will forget the means it took to get there. It’s ironic, but even though Obama probably has a higher IQ than Bush II, his mind is actually very closed to inconvenient facts and other points of view compared to Bush II. For Obama contrary points of view are at best misguided and more likely arise from malevolent intentions towards the oppressed and morally righteous.

  47. SteveH Says:

    Obama and the democrats lie like they won’t ever face a legitimate election of American citizens again.

    I don’t think we’ve caught on yet to the depths of depravity we’re up against.

  48. betsybounds Says:

    I’m reminded in all this of an arresting visual image, a scene I heard a reporter describe, I think during the 2008 campaign before the election. I don’t recall either the location of the described scene or the person describing it. It was on radio. The scene was set immediately following an Obama speech at a rally. Obama had addressed the wild crowd, one of his typical campaign rally speeches, and then retired to a sort of darkened balcony or catwalk above the arena, while the hall below was brightly lighted. The throng had not disbursed, but were instead still in wild cheering mode. Obama walked to the catwalk railing, unseen from below, and stood motionless, watching his supporters, in their hundreds and their thousands. Just watching, his face expressionless. The observer I heard made the point that it was unusual for a candidate to leave the stage and not remove to a “green room” backstage to talk with staff members, maybe planning the next appearance or crafting some statement or other. The scene as described was eerie, unsettling: What was he doing, why did he do it, what was he thinking?

    There is something terrible about this man and what he’s up to. Something really terrible.

  49. Bob From Virginia Says:

    A messed up childhood, delusions of grandeur, support from self deluded masses, it there a better prescription for, as you said, something really terrible?

  50. Bob From Virginia Says:

    that “it” should have been an “is”.

  51. Thomass Says:

    Baklava Says:

    “The 60’s were in one sense a failure of the greatest generation to PARENT.”

    True, but when generations come of age within such a small window (re: after a baby boom) they pass a certain critical mass point where they can create their own subculture and adults loose a lot of control over their children. This sort of thing has happened a bunch of times. Right now it’s happening in Iran… but might actually help the world as the young are revolting against a system that actually is bad.

  52. Artfldgr Says:

    False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one’s own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy’s strategy of tension.

    historically its been a tactic used by many…
    especially the states who are socialist, and amoral…

    Operation Himmler faked attacks on germans and blamed it on the Poles.

    riechstag fire being the most overt commonly used example to make it tin hat

    “The Reichstag fire was the watershed event which justified Hitler’s seizure of power and suspension of liberties”

    and the lefts accusation towards bush that 9/11 was just such a thing, tells you whats on their minds (and that they thought that another side would pre-empt them the way the chinese tried when the russians sought to take over indonesia)

    here is something closer to our situation
    except this time it was isreali’s in egypt
    http://www.stanford.edu/group/SHR/5-1/text/beinin.html

    After fourteen years in Egyptian jails, the four reached Israel in the prisoner exchange following the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. Their presence in the country was an official secret until 1971, when Prime Minister Golda Meir announced her intention to attend Marcelle Ninio’s wedding. Not until March 1975, when the four told their story publicly for the first time on national television, did an Israeli government acknowledge that they had been trained and directed by the Israeli army. Aviezer Golan compiled an authorized collective memoir, Operation Susannah (the code name for the bombing campaign), and explained that their actions did not constitute treason against Egypt because

    The foursome — like all the other heroes of ‘the mishap’ — were born and brought up in Egypt, but they never regarded themselves — nor were they ever regarded by others — as Egyptians. . . .They were typical members of Egypt’s Jewish community. . . .It was a community with shallow roots. The Jews reached Egypt during the second half of the nineteenth century or the beginning of the twentieth. . . .[T]hey could not read or write Arabic, and spoke no more of the language than was necessary for the simplest daily needs. . . .All of Egypt’s Jews could have been considered Zionists — or, to be more precise, ‘lovers of Zion.’[

    there is a reason why the pawns are generally not from the country that they facilitate to. Hitler was from Austria, Stalin was from Georgia, etc.

    Russia uses such very commonly as it fits their love of lies and games.

    The Russian authorities were swift to lay the blame at the door of Chechen separatists. But no supporting evidence has emerged. Two men from the Caucasus were convicted of involvement after a closed trial this year, but it was widely denounced as a charade.

    Instead a growing body of proof has surfaced that links the bombings, and the Ryazan incident in particular, to the FSB – the revamped KGB. Independent investigators, including several MPs, who have sought to look into the case have been intimidated, arrested or beaten.

    so the idea that terrorists are also attacking russia is hard to know.

    i doubt it.

    why?

    because where do they get their explosives from?

    the undie bomber was using what type of explosive? and where is that explosibve mostly used (hint russian semtex)? he basically dissolved the binder (as instructed in military tactical books), and used that more concentrated form.

    and the bombings in spain moved that country to communism…

    “Why of course the people don’t want war … But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship … Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” – Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.

    and the fact that leftist liberals and communists think that 9/11 is a plot, has some basis in prior plots.

    Operation Northwoods
    Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a false-flag plan, proposed within the United States government in 1962. The plan called for CIA or other operatives to commit apparent acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Castro-led Cuba. One plan was to “develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington”.

    This operation is especially notable in that it included plans for hijackings and bombings followed by the use of phony evidence that would blame the terrorist acts on a foreign government, namely Cuba.

    The plan stated:

    “”

    The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere.

    “”

    Operation Northwoods was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and signed by then-Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer, and sent to the Secretary of Defense.

    Several other proposals were listed, including the real or simulated actions against various U.S military and civilian targets. Operation Northwoods was part of the U.S. government’s Cuban Project (Operation Mongoose) anti-Castro initiative. It was never officially accepted or executed.
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

    but there are tons of nonsense plans out there too.

    Former Republican Congressman and CIA official Bob Barr is one of those runing around talking of such things..

    do note that unlike other states the US has a lot more to lose from false flag operations. that is, the US has freedom of information acts, and other open structures that make using such acts a bigger problem later during blowback. while secret regimes like communists and communitarians ahve no problem as they presume no public knowlege.

  53. Baklava Says:

    Thomas wrote, “they pass a certain critical mass point where they can create their own subculture and adults loose a lot of control over their children.

    Well put.

  54. Artfldgr Says:

    Thomas, and Baklava..

    as i ahve said before, read about lukaks and the bella kuhn government in hungary. did anyone? of course not… if they did, then they couldnt get an atta boy for their own ideas (as they play intelligentsia).

    below is an example of how the Germans propagandized against the communists… subtract jewish from it, and it sounds exactly like today

    The source: Große antibolschewistische Ausstellung (Berlin: Verlag für Kultur- u. Wirtschaftswerbung Daenell & Co., 1937).

    remember today Stone announces that he is going to help us understand hitler and stalin… that is they are going to clean up the history, since hitler was a socialist…

    below is the missive that the feminists took up here to accomplish the SAME end. however, the feminists here, dont think so… (doesnt change history they are ignorant of, does it?)

    and after that… i give a peek into how they made jews out to be racists, like they are making whites, christians, and certain groups today!

    The intentional destruction of the Russian family, just like the systematic destruction of Russian ethnicity, is intended to make impossible any defense against Bolshevism’s bloody dictatorship. this fact was stated with brutal openness at the Komintern Congress in 1924:

    “The revolution is powerless so long as the concepts of family and family ties remain.”

    The corruption of the meaning of marriage into a matter of mere sexual drives serves the same goal. The oft proclaimed right to abortion supposedly frees the woman “from the chains of bourgeois morality.” This freedom results in the destruction of the family and leads to an unlimited exploitation of women’s labor in the service of world revolution. This is shown by the astonishingly high percentage of women in the working class. In 1936, the percentage of women was:

    Mining: 21.5%
    Coal mining: 19.6%
    Hard coal mining: 24%
    The metals and machinery industries: 26%
    The woodworking industry: 40%

    The destruction of the family has had its worst effects on the youth, the living future of every people. Hordes of starving children fill Russia’s country roads, becoming homeless tramps and criminals without a conscience. Bolshevism knew of no other way to deal with this youth misery than through a truly barbaric measure, the death penalty for children.

    The battle against God reveals the same desire to destroy ethnic life and dissolve all moral relations. Above all, the law was corrupted by the terror of the GPU, and this system of injustice is used in the battle against the peasantry. As an “owning class,” it was “liquidated,” or in other words exterminated, or else sent to slave labor camps or reduced to wage slaves of Jewish rulers in collective farms.

    so the sexualization, is purposeful. there is no critical mass point… that is the theory to HIDE the manipulations and make them seem natural. for if they are natural, then they dont get opposed!!!

    that is, if the women today learned about bella kuhn, lukaks, gramsci, the commintern orders given to them, and so on… would they keep supporting their own destruction? even neo has defended that system without actually knowing the FULL history, just their revisioned ones.

    what NEO calls the fringe is the main core of the ideology! which is why the fringe is in power. and why they are pushing the SAME ENDS…

    this makes the quotes i put up MAINSTREAM and the people neo claims to be the main, to actually be the fringe (as far as power is concerned).

    so quotes like this only inform others that you are a person who KNOWS (and should be helped)

    “In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them” — Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Welleslry College and associate director of the school’s Center for Research on Woman

    “No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” — Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, “Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma,” Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18

    [edited for length by neo-neocon]

  55. Artfldgr Says:

    it was the lefts first excursions into controlling the population by controling womens opinions… they operate more collectively and so were easier to co-opt. the fact that the preceeding weimar republic gave them the vote before america, and went through the sme cultural liberalization followed by hyperinflation then war.. makes this very relevent.

    when the russians saw how they lost due to this area, they then went to the west and dominated it. which i said read weigand, pizzey and others… (rather than their own apologists and manipulators, and revisionistas)

    it was magazines like below that gave the soviets and their fellow travelers to do the same in america. so greer and others started MS and Vogue, and unseated ladies home journal, and redbook. they did it by selling out women to alcohol and big tobacco… redbook and JHJ lost and forecer since then magazines knew that fi they actually protected and cared about their readers they would lose to thoset hat didnt!!!!!

    you came a long way baby… from Rote Zora, and onwards, cutting your teeth in weimar, and then siding with the soviets when there were no one else to side with and who would ‘help’

    issues of Frauen Warte
    http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/fw.htm

    With regard to concepts of nation and nationalism, feminist historiography and theory are no longer limited to issues concerning the exclusion of women from conceptual and factual domains of power and from decision-making processes. Rather the focus has shifted to the ambivalent integration of women into social, cultural, and political systems. This becomes crucial when examining the roles of women in wartime societies, with regard to the domains of decision making as well as to the discursive ways in which women and gender are addressed to make nationalist claims acceptable and desirable to both genders. In my paper I examine the two political women’s magazines that had the highest circulation in wartime Germany and Japan. Nippon Fujin (The Japanese Woman) and NS-Frauenwarte (NS-Women’s Outlook) were both organs of their respective states’ streamlined women’s organizations: NS Frauenwarte was published from 1932 through 1945 as the ideological publication of the Nazi women’s organization NS Frauenschaft (NS Women’s Organization), and Nippon Fujin, run from 1942 through 1945, served the same function for the official and supposedly all-encompassing Dai Nippon Fujinkai (Greater Japan Women’s Organization).

    so you can see that both the germans and the japanese had such… anyone care to fill in the name of the others from other socialist states?

    o will bet that this history is completely unknown to the majority of the followers, and not so followers…

    here is a lot more one can read:
    http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ww2era.htm

    and http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/

    and if we take a left turn we also end up in th greenies ideas..

    like the fact that a city is unhealthy and natural coutnry living with free range is better.

    Alfred Vogel, Erhlehre, Abstammngs- und Rassenkunde in bildlicher Darstellung, 2nd edition (Stuttgart: Verlag für nationale Literatur Gebr. Roth, 1939).

    This poster is titled: “People’s degeneration = people’s death.” The point is that a combination of genetic illness and the change from rural to urban life results in a declining population, and therefore the death of the race. At the bottom is a quotation from Hitler’s Mein Kampf:

    “Woe to the people who are not able to master this illness.”

    when you read this, though you start to wonder… the germans were all about promoting themselves. they were not “social creationists”.

    so when you see the same ideas here, they come with a twist, that the idea is no longer the furtherance of a race, but the natural self extermination of said races adn classes for the good of everyone else (who remains)!!

    the ideologies points are the same, they are just tweaked (evolution) to make them work. or they are used in a way opposite the original idea, since the outcome of the original was opposite the desire. the movs become chess moves.

    The title: “From an agricultural to an urban people.”

    1. In 1880, a small city was surrounded by agricultural villages. By 1930, it had become a big city, surrounded by smaller cities, and there were hardly any farmers left.

    2. In 1870, Germany had two farmers for every city-dweller. In 1930, there were four city dwellers for every two farmers. In 1870, two-thirds of the population lived in the countryside. By 1930, the proportion was reversed.

    3. “Apartment buildings are the breeding ground of misery. They are fertile soil for Bolshevism.” The illustration shows a building with 20 apartments: “No soil, bad air, little son, disease (tuberculosis), unemployment and hunger, misery, moral decline, high death rate.”

    all one has to do is read this stuff and you see how it was repackaged and tweaked for a new market.

    that is, you realize that they are creating similar conditions but with slightly different ends. that is, they learned waht these ideas were good for beyond the original concept that birthed them when compared to the empirical outcome

    The title: “Causes for the decline in the birthrate.”

    The first column is social class, the second the number of children per family between 1870 and 1900, the third the number of children from 1900-1930.

    Academicians, business leaders, etc.: Declined from an average of two children to one: “The reduction in the birthrate began with the better-off social classes. A comfortable life, a lack of willingness to sacrifice, and a fear of loss of position are the causes.”

    Mid-range civil servants, independent businessmen, and those in commerce: A decline from three to two children. “A person is judged according to his social position. To enable the children to rise, their number is reduced.”

    Workers, lower-level government workers: A decline from five to three. “Marxism promoted having fewer children in harmful ways in big cities.”

    Farmers: A decline from eight to five. “Finally, ‘education’ also resulted in a decline in the birthrate in the countryside.”

  56. stan Says:

    When it comes to lying, corruption, etc., BO-zo is just a garden variety Democrat. Remember when the lying and corruption of the Clintons became so obvious that no one could reasonably deny it any longer? My Dem friends said that they would still vote for Gore because he was different. But Gore isn’t any different. Neither is Kerry or Edwards or Daschle or Pelosi or Kennedy or Dodd or Frank. Or CNN, MSNBC, the Huffington Post or the NY Times.

    BO-zo can barely find anyone to nominate who isn’t a tax cheat. Corruption among Dems is epidemic. The Clintons ARE representative of the party. Everyone in the party stood with them to the end. Lefty vote fraud is everywhere. Liberals on state supreme courts routinely approve election stealing. Unions are the most corrupt institutions in the country. The corruption is endemic to the party.

    David Horowitz would likely say that this is because liberalism itself is a lie, just like socialism. Their policies are lies. Global warming, health care, the stimulus, it’s all the same — the lies are not only constant, the lies represent the very essence of it all. BO-zo is simply a Democrat. His lies are pretty standard for a Democrat.

  57. Artfldgr Says:

    and now this came out today… (or recently)

    Understanding Obama: The Making of a Fuehrer
    By Ali Sina – FaithFreedom.org

    When cheering for someone turns into adulation, something is wrong. Excessive adulation is indicative of personality cult. The cult of personality is often created when the general population is discontent. A charismatic leader can seize the opportunity and project himself as an agent of change and a revolutionary leader. Often, people, tired of the status quo, do not have the patience to examine the nature of the proposed change. All they want is change. During 1979, when the Iranians were tired of the dictatorial regime of the late Shah, they embraced Khomeini, not because they wanted Islam, but because he promised them change. The word in the street was, “anything is better than the Shah.” They found their error when it was too late.

    and here is the authors attempt to skirt the punishment for bringing up the ONLY well known socialism we have to discuss. most cant discuss russian socialism… they get wrapped up in teh cold war… we cant discuss the germans, we get wrapped up in half the murders while tending to forget the rest. and similar is with mao…

    Equating anyone to Hitler by highlighting the similarities between the two is a logical fallacy. This fallacy, known as reductio ad Hitlerum is a variety of both questionable cause and association fallacy. I believe it is wrong to trivialize the holocaust and the horrors of Nazism by comparing our opponents to Hitler.

    and then…

    However, Hitler, prior to coming to power had not killed anyone. He was insane, but few could see that. Far from it, he was seen as a gifted man and hailed as the savior of Germany. He was admired throughout the world. He appealed to the masses of people – the working class and particularly to women, and did not just inspire them, he “elevated” them. Thousands rallied to listen to his passionate speeches. He gave them promises of change and instilled in them hope. They shed tears when he spoke. Women fainted during his speeches. To Germans, he was not a politician, but a demigod, a messiah. They envisioned him as truly a magical figure of majestic wisdom and glory. They worshiped him. They surrendered their wills to him. He restored their national pride. He projected himself as their savior. He ran on the platform of change and hope. Change he delivered all right, but hopes he shattered.

    “Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.” — Karl Marx

    having read the same sources…

    Wherever a large number of a population is discontent, a charismatic leader can seize the opportunity and present himself as the agent of change. He can create a cult of Personality by associating himself with the idea of change. He convinces everyone that things are terrible and a drastic change is needed. He then casts himself as the only person who can deliver this revolutionary transformation that everyone is waiting for. He portrays himself as a benevolent guide, the only one who cares about people and their needs and can pull them out of their alleged misery.
    These revolutionary leaders need foes. They exaggerate the problems. They make everything look gloomy. They lie, cheat and slander their opponents while casting themselves as the saviors of the nation. Hitler chose the Jews to blame for everything that was wrong in Germany. Khomeini made the Shah and his westernization plans his scapegoats. Obama has chosen President George W. Bush to smear. He can rally people around himself, as long as he can instill in them the dislike of Bush and equate his rival, McCain to him. Sigmund Freud wrote, “It is always possible to bind together a considerable number of people in love, so long as there are other people left over to receive the manifestations of their aggressiveness” (Civilization and Its Discontents)

    Obama is not seen by his admirers as a politician but as something holy.

    “He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh.” Ezra Klein

    Klien used to not like Obama

    What did exactly Obama do, for Klein to change his views so drastically? Nothing! Obama has won this man’s heart only by the power of his mesmerizing words. he is making his conquests, through the sheer power of his oratory. That is how Hitler won the hearts of the Germans.

    Obama’s speeches are grandiose. They are other worldly. He may talk about the war in Iraq, taxes or social security. It does not matter how mundane is the subject, he makes them sound transcendental and his audience is moved to tears. His worshipers do not go to listen to his plans. He has yet to offer any that is workable and different. They go to bask in his glory, to get high. Obama presents himself as someone with a unique vision and grasp of the entire problems affecting, not just the nation but the world, a pretense that is incommensurate with his track record.

    Narcissists are pathological liars. They lie even to themselves. Ironically, they are the first to believe their own lies. When normal people lie, they show the sign of distress. Narcissists don’t. They can pass any polygraph test with flying colors. It is this conviction that fools people around them making them believe in their truthfulness and sincerity. In a twisted way they are sincere because, although they are conscience that they are not truthful, they believe in their own lies. This is difficult to understand and even more difficult to explain, but for a narcissist fantasy and reality are intertwined. The narcissist’s delusional thoughts of grandiosity are real to him.

    So the question is: What made these smart and highly civilized people commit such horrendous acts of savagery?
    According to Vaknin, “The narcissistic or psychopathic leader is the culmination and reification of his period, culture, and civilization. He is likely to rise to prominence in narcissistic societies.”

    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

    Could all this phenomenal support and unbounded adulation erupt into violence? All the abuses and killings in Nazi Germany were done by the Germans, ordinary people who loved Hitler and believed in the glorious tomorrow that he was promising them. Hitler was insane, but those who did his bidding were not. Despite being smart, they did not hesitate to fulfill their fuehrer’s wishes and commit the most heinous crimes. The same thing happened in Iran. Ordinary people, once under the spell of Khomeini, acted like beasts. This is what happens when sane people follow insane people.

    When the co-dependent and the narcissist team-up the result can be catastrophic. Now we have folie à deux. The delusional belief of the narcissist about himself is transmitted and shared by another needy, but ostensibly smart person. The codependent validates and encourages the narcissist’s delusion. As the result, the narcissist becomes bolder, more assertive, more authoritative and more confident. The partnership of the narcissist and the codependent dons their delusion with the mantle of credibility. The codependent will then do everything to persuade others as well. The narcissist’s cause is himself. The codependent will champion that cause. By recruiting others, they find validation for their own belief about the narcissist. Soon the folie à deux becomes folie à trois, then folie à quatre, and when you are a presidential candidate and are followed by a hoard of journalists and cameramen, before you blink there will be folie à plusieurs (madness of many). Recent psychiatric classifications refer to the syndrome as shared psychotic disorder.
    Like gasoline being poured on a fire, the sycophants around the narcissist provide him with an abundance of narcissistic fuel to feed upon. The unbounded adulation poured at his feet further reinforce and escalate the unique and divine self-image of the narcissist. The larger the narcissistic fuel supply becomes, the more inflated becomes his ego, and the more firmly set in his own mind becomes the conviction of his own invincibility and superiority over other men. The narcissist reaches a stage that he will claim to be a revolutionary leader, an agent of change and renascence, an instrument of God, even a messenger or prophet of God. Just as a fire can grow infinitely large as long as it receives its fuel, there is no limit to the delusional belief of a narcissist. When millions of people yell and scream and shout “I love you,” an ordinary narcissist is prone to believe that he is God. If the narcissist happens to be a person with power and authority, in a position of high leadership commanding armies and weapons of mass destruction, the result too often leads to the horrific slaughter of millions of innocent souls in the gulag, gas chambers, or killing fields.
    Unbounded adulation reconfirms the narcissist that he is right and that anyone who disagrees with him is evil and therefore it is just to punish him. Narcissists do not understand the concept of the Golden Rule. Right is what benefits them and wrong is what harms them. So they fight for their own interest and are convinced that this is justice. Human rights and human lives are important only to the extent that they meet their narcissistic needs. They are worthless, and can be disposed of, if they don’t.

    Narcissists are often callous and even ruthless. As the norm they lack conscience. This is evident from Obama’s lack of interest in his own brother who lives on only one dollar per month. A man who lives in luxury, who takes a private jet to vacation in Hawaii, and who has raised nearly half a billion dollars for his campaign (something unprecedented in history) has no interest in the plight of his own brother. Why? Because, his brother cannot be used for his ascent to power. A narcissist cares for no one but himself.

    Narcissists have a profound sense of call as they believe that they have a “special purpose” or a “high calling.” In his autobiography Hitler wrote, “I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.” Politics and religion offer irresistible lure for the narcissist.
    And this is what Obama said about his “calling:” “Kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt I heard God’s spirit beckoning me,” he said of his walk down the aisle of the Trinity United Church of Christ. “I submitted myself to his will and dedicated myself to discovering his truth.”

  58. Artfldgr Says:

    “The narcissistic leader prefers the sparkle and glamour of well-orchestrated illusions to the tedium and method of real accomplishments, His reign is all smoke and mirrors, devoid of substances, consisting of mere appearances and mass delusions. In the aftermath of his regime – the narcissistic leader having died, been deposed, or voted out of office – it all unravels. The tireless and constant prestidigitation ceases and the entire edifice crumbles. What looked like an economic miracle turns out to have been a fraud-laced bubble. Loosely-held empires disintegrate. Laboriously assembled business conglomerates go to pieces. “earth shattering” and “revolutionary” scientific discoveries and theories are discredited. Social experiments end in mayhem.”
    “The narcissist who regards himself as the benefactor of the poor, a member of the common folk, the representative of the disenfranchised, the champion of the dispossessed against the corrupt elite – is highly unlikely to use violence at first.”
    The pacific mask crumbles when the narcissist has become convinced that the very people he purported to speak for, his constituency, his grassroots fans, the prime sources of his narcissistic supply – have turned against him. At first, in a desperate effort to maintain the fiction underlying his chaotic personality, the narcissist strives to explain away the sudden reversal of sentiment. “The people are being duped by (the media, big industry, the military, the elite, etc.)”, “they don’t really know what they are doing”, “following a rude awakening, they will revert to form”, etc.
    When these flimsy attempts to patch a tattered personal mythology fail – the narcissist is injured. Narcissistic injury inevitably leads to narcissistic rage and to a terrifying display of unbridled aggression. The pent-up frustration and hurt translate into devaluation. That which was previously idealized – is now discarded with contempt and hatred.

    “The narcissistic leader prefers the sparkle and glamour of well-orchestrated illusions to the tedium and method of real accomplishments, His reign is all smoke and mirrors, devoid of substances, consisting of mere appearances and mass delusions. In the aftermath of his regime – the narcissistic leader having died, been deposed, or voted out of office – it all unravels. The tireless and constant prestidigitation ceases and the entire edifice crumbles. What looked like an economic miracle turns out to have been a fraud-laced bubble. Loosely-held empires disintegrate. Laboriously assembled business conglomerates go to pieces. “earth shattering” and “revolutionary” scientific discoveries and theories are discredited. Social experiments end in mayhem.”
    “The narcissist who regards himself as the benefactor of the poor, a member of the common folk, the representative of the disenfranchised, the champion of the dispossessed against the corrupt elite – is highly unlikely to use violence at first.”
    The pacific mask crumbles when the narcissist has become convinced that the very people he purported to speak for, his constituency, his grassroots fans, the prime sources of his narcissistic supply – have turned against him. At first, in a desperate effort to maintain the fiction underlying his chaotic personality, the narcissist strives to explain away the sudden reversal of sentiment. “The people are being duped by (the media, big industry, the military, the elite, etc.)”, “they don’t really know what they are doing”, “following a rude awakening, they will revert to form”, etc.
    When these flimsy attempts to patch a tattered personal mythology fail – the narcissist is injured. Narcissistic injury inevitably leads to narcissistic rage and to a terrifying display of unbridled aggression. The pent-up frustration and hurt translate into devaluation. That which was previously idealized – is now discarded with contempt and hatred.

  59. NeoConScum Says:

    W*H*E*W !

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>








Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge