Monday, February 12, 2007

MUST READ: Explaining the Left To the Left

The Left's Identification With Murderous Aggressors

By James Lewis

Psychiatry is familiar with an odd syndrome called "identification with the aggressor." It's sometimes called the Stockholm Syndrome, after the behavior of air passengers taken hostage by PLO terrorists at the Stockholm Airport in 1973, who, when they were rescued, came out singing the praises of their murderous captors.

Recently we saw the same human oddity when two Fox News reporters were kidnapped in Gaza, and forced to convert to Islam at the point of a gun. After his freedom was bought (at a reported cost of millions of dollars), reporter Steve Centanni
told the world that:

"I hope that this never scares a single journalist away from coming to Gaza to cover the story because the Palestinian people are very beautiful and kind hearted. The world needs to know more about them. Don't be discouraged."

"Kind-hearted" and "beautiful" are not the first words that come to mind to describe kidnappers who were quite ready to murder Steve Centanni only a day before. In psychiatric thinking the reporters "identified with the aggressors" --- the terrorist kidnappers --- in a mental flip that allowed them to push away their realistic fear of dying to a distant imaginary cause. They no longer thought of themselves as helpless victims, having adopted the kidnappers' point of view.

The most infamous examples come from World War II Nazi concentration camps, where some prisoners were placed in charge of others. According to witnesses like psychiatrist
Viktor Frankl, these "Kapos" would wear discarded pieces of Nazi uniforms and often abuse their fellow victims. Unconsciously they were identifying with the aggressors, to ward off the awful awareness of their own vulnerability. People do things like that in extremis.

Now look at the behavior of the Left since 9/11, both in this country, Europe, and even Israel. Rather than feel righteously angered by the terrorist mass murder of 3,000 innocent people, large parts of the Left have adopted the aggressors' point of view. They keep telling us that the Islamic fascists were right to blow up innocent people who had done them no harm; some of them have taken on conspiracy theories, claiming that Bush or Israel really committed the atrocities.

At the same time they are in deep denial about the danger of future terrorist attacks on American soil, and blindly refuse to see the rising threat of nuclear proliferation by stateless terror groups. Instead, they "displace" their fear and anger on George W. Bush. To the Left, once Bush is gone, the terror problem will simply and magically go away.

Yet we know that small amounts of radioactive materials --- like the Polonium 210 that was used just two months ago to poison
Alexander Litvinenko in London --- could be turned into a "dirty bomb" in anybody's garage. It wouldn't take any more technical skill than was used in 1995 to blow up the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City.

Terrorists with dirty bombs are a murderous threat to all of us, but the Left denies it. Twisting reality is the hallmark of mental pathology.

The Left's behavior looks just like identification with the Islamofascist aggressor. Just as the concentration camp Kapos wore pieces of Nazi uniforms to magically assume the power of their killers-to-be, the radical Left adopts the symbols and slogans of Hezbollah and Al Qaida. Strikingly, their intellectual leader Noam Chomsky is the son of a Talmudic scholar --- a man who devoted his life to the study of Jewish scripture, and who would therefore be a ready target for today's fascists.

Chomsky must have grown up as a child in a most devout household. No doubt many of his family members were murdered in the Nazi Holocaust. Yet last year Chomsky flew to Lebanon to be publicly photographed shaking hands with Hassan Nasrallah, who was even then preparing to launch many hundreds of short-range missiles at Jewish civilians in Israel --- including, no doubt, Talmudic scholars. Chomsky has been a radical Leftist all his life, even before he became famous as a linguist. Identification with the aggressor? It certainly would explain his very odd life course.

In London, during the Hezbollah war in Lebanon, demonstrators from George Galloway's Respect Party (an offshoot of the Socialist Workers' Party) carried signs reading "We are all Hezbollah now." They literally adopted the aggressors' point of view. This has been happening all over Europe, where the Left still reigns supreme, and on American university campuses as well --- probably for the same psychological reason.

The rise of anti-Zionism (and of course anti-Semitism) in Europe can also be seen in this light. If only those six million Jews in Israel were to disappear like magic, goes the wishful thought, all the danger and trouble would go away. Europe's Muslims would become as peaceful as lambs, and Iran's zealots would learn to love us. It is a childlike surrender to fear.

Notice that this is exactly what the Left did during the Cold War. I do not remember a single passionate demonstration against the Soviet Union, which had nuclear-armed missiles aimed directly at Europe and the US. Instead, the most extreme and feverish passions were aimed straight at the United States, the country that led and protected the West from Soviet aggression.

The other side of "identification with the aggressor" is "blaming the victim." In Nazi concentration camps the Kapos would act out sadistically to other victims, blaming them for Nazi crimes. A decade ago the phrase "blaming the victim" was on everybody's lips, when feminists loudly accused all men of blaming rape victims for being raped. That seemed to disappear along with the Bill Clinton saga and his blatant sexual abuse of a young intern, to the deafening silence of the feminist Left. Today we can plainly see "blaming the victim" among Islamic fascists, who often accuse young girls of being sluts if they are gang-raped by men. Islamic radicals always blame their victims. That is what makes them incapable of guilt toward their victims.

The real oddity is that the Left has enthusiastically joined the new fascists. We no longer hear the old trope of "blaming the victim" from feminists. Rather, feminists on the Left have joined Islamofascists in blaming the United States --- for being the fire brigade that is trying to put out the fire. The Left even defends women being pressured to wear the burqa, the ancient sign of women's submission and sexual slavery in the most retrogressive kind of tribal Islam. Shari'a law prescribes exactly how women are to be physically slapped for failing to obey fathers and husbands. Feminists are silent.

The Left claims to value "peace" above all things; but that means that self-defense ranks nowhere. It's not an option --- at least not when Republicans are in office. If we leave out self-defense against Iranian nukes or El Qaida truck bombs, there is no option except submission. That is what "identification with the aggressor" comes down to. It is a Stockholm Syndrome for millions of people --- most of the readers of the New York Times and the UK Guardian, just for starters.

To make things worse, the Left itself is ruthlessly aggressive against conservatives, democratic individuals who happen to disagree with them. There is a true persecutorial viciousness in the Left's attacks on Republican presidents, from Herbert Hoover to Dwight D. Eisenhower and George W. Bush. Emotionally, these people want to destroy those who defy their demands. Almost all the assassins and would-be assassins of American Presidents since JFK have been Leftists, starting with Lee Harvey Oswald. So their rage is not exactly harmless.

Most of the time the Left just aims at destroying conservatives' careers and public reputations - as they have tried to do with ferocious fury in the cases of Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Ann Coulter, Tom Delay, Rush Limbaugh, and numerous others. And it's not just national politics. Harvard University feminists just formed a lynch mob that drove Larry Summer's out of the Presidency and appear to have succeeded in replacing him with
one of their own. They have succeeded in placing their own radical leaders in the top power positions at the most prestigious university in the United States.

They are driven by paranoid rage: They are in fact the aggressors.

But when it comes to assaults on their country, the Left blames the victims. The most militant Leftists seem severely damaged psychologically. The
recent suicide by the militant lesbian President of UC Santa Cruz may be only the tip of the pathological iceberg.

Many radical Leftists seem to suffer from a basic twist in character. They constantly confuse aggressive and defensive actions by their own country, on whose freedom and protection they depend every hour of the day. They constantly indulge sworn enemies of our freedom and well-being. They constantly push for government actions that seem plausible on the surface, but which inevitably hurt the very people they are supposed to help. It happens over and over again.

When I was young I thought the Left was just confused, but now I'm increasingly drawn to the idea that there is a deep, if unconscious, malevolence at the bottom of the history of disasters inflicted by those people. They are dangerous.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/the_lefts_identification_with.html

33 Comments:

Anonymous Les Ismore said...

"They keep telling us that the Islamic fascists were right to blow up innocent people who had done them no harm;"
Can you cite one source for this other than the usual single insane people you use over and over again? Can you cite a single, respected source for this? Please include a link.

7:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"At the same time they are in deep denial about the danger of future terrorist attacks on American soil, and blindly refuse to see the rising threat of nuclear proliferation by stateless terror groups."

Name the President that has turned a blind eye to the release of A.Q. Khan in Pakistan. As everyone knows, he has done more for nuclear proliferation than anyone in world history. Why arent we insisting on his arrest and execution?

7:36 AM  
Blogger VerityINK said...

ANONYMOUS:

http://dudratreview.blogspot.com/2007/01/war-on-terror-and-why-we-havent-found.html#links

Les Ismore--this is something the Left insists upon from MANY different sources.

8:26 AM  
Blogger VerityINK said...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2004/291004binladenappears.htm

8:27 AM  
Blogger VerityINK said...

Academy Award-winning director Michael Moore examines the Bush administration's financial ties to Saudi Arabia and the bin Laden family in FAHRENHEIT 9/11, a well-researched, fast-paced, highly controversial, and important documentary that won the Palme d'Or at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival. Using actual footage and declassified documents, Moore takes a detailed look into political events both before and after the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, beginning with the polarizing Supreme Court decision that ultimately gave the state of Florida and the 2000 election to George W. Bush. Moore reveals how the U.S. government helped the bin Laden family return to Saudi Arabia immediately after September 11, when all other flights were still grounded; and examines military recruiting techniques in such poor areas as his own hometown of Flint, Michigan. He even attempts to get congressmen to enlist their own sons and daughters into the military. The writer-director also visits with the troops, including at a VA hospital where soldiers are having second thoughts about America's involvement in Iraq, and spends time with a family whose eldest son is fighting in Iraq. FAHRENHEIT 9/11 is a worthy successor to Moore's previous documentaries, ROGER & ME, THE BIG ONE, and BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE, once again shining a light on the past, present, and future of the US.
Theatrical Release Date: June 25, 2004

http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=6769902

8:44 AM  
Blogger VerityINK said...

http://boards.historychannel.com/thread.jspa?threadID=300018337&tstart=0&mod=1102715087735

8:47 AM  
Blogger VerityINK said...

I am sending you various dabs--there are so many more. You need to Google them yourself and, now that I have said it, prove it's NOT true.

8:50 AM  
Anonymous Les Ismore said...

Donel,
With all due respect, but the links you supplied are as relevant to my question as a footnote in an Ann Coulter screed. As I said before, cite one credible reference that the 9/11 terrorist were right to blow up innocent people. Certainly not in the Michael Moore reviews you posted. I am just asking because if there are credible Democrats saying this, they need to be exposed.
Respectfully,
Les.
P.S. Your previous post doesnt identify any of these either and very artfully skirts the whole A. Ql Khan issue as well.

9:31 AM  
Blogger VerityINK said...

Les Ismore--What I posted IS relevant. Michael Moore's movie is absolutely mainsteam and it made him tons of money. Go read DU/KOS--or ANY liberal blog/web/magazine. The idea that we deserved 9/11--or even that Bush did it IS a mainstream idea that hurts the politics in thios country. Whether a prominent Dem carefully outlined it--or made oblique ref to it, does not matter. The word got out, got around, and people believe. The Dems certainly have not tried to get the OPPOSITE message out. No, they saddle Bush with it every chance they get. I don't have time to do your homework for you. If YOU can't tell this is a mainstream idea, you are lost.

3:33 PM  
Blogger VerityINK said...

P.S. I think most pols in this country are smart enough to not state this baldly--but they get it out subtlely--and theylet it stand once it is out and do not refute it. That they let the Michael Moores of the world deliver THEIR mmessage does NOT mean they do not advocate it, too. They are only smart enough to let the media do their dirty work for them.

3:35 PM  
Anonymous teller said...

I agree. The leftist media has LONG been getting that type of damaging message to the people. They have an agenda that is all too-clear.

3:36 PM  
Anonymous bobcat said...

I think it's clear what the Dems believe - and what message they glory in having out there. Of course they are smart enough to deliver it via MM et al.

3:44 PM  
Anonymous cassie said...

Afternoon, Donal! This is great stuff!

4:01 PM  
Anonymous Les Ismore said...

cite one single reference with a link. Michael Moore did NOT say we deserved 9/11 and you know it. One single solitary reference and that does not include comments in some website. Just one.

5:35 PM  
Blogger JINGOIST said...

Great article, and oh so true!

Morgan

6:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey "Lesismore''(boy thats you all over) Moore did say,"There is no (terrorist) threat''. Want a link,go to the fat mfers web-site and look at it for yourself,and quit haunting my friends web-site. J'Mac

7:47 AM  
Anonymous Les Ismore said...

J'Mac,
Thanks for the tip on MM website. This is what I found on his site.

"And frankly," he added, "they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

The speaker was none other than Collin Powell. Here it is at another link so you know that MM didn't make it up. Here is the link. http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd-original.htm

9:55 AM  
Anonymous Les Ismore said...

But more importantly, my original point is that no one on the left is saying that we deserved 9/11 as Donal's original post maintains. But one doesnt have to look far past Pat Robertson to find quotes saying we deserved 9/11 because of Roe v. Wade, gay marriage and everything else on his list. I am guessing he is a Republican.

I am not making judgement, just pointing out facts.

10:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Powell was talking about Saddam and his 'not being able to project conventional power against his nieghbors'' I don't know where he was during 1980-1988, and 1991 when Saddam invaded Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. I always love when your type cites some rino as speaking for the whole conservative movement;as if we think in lock step like the lefties and libs do. Show me where and when Moore and his ilk have ever DEFENED the US and denounced Islamofascism. Can you do that? J'Mac.

10:17 AM  
Anonymous Les Ismore said...

J'Mac,
Actually during that time Powell was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and in 1991 was largely credited along with Schwarzkopf with driving Sadam out of Kuwait. That quote I referred to was from February of 2001 when he was the new Secretary of State.

Finally, "I always love when your type cites some rino as speaking for the whole conservative movement". That is a great observation J, simply replace the word rino with left and conservative with Democratic. Isnt that what we are all about here?

With greatest respect for Donal and her blog,
Les

12:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Again, Powell making statements such as these shows either mis-quoting on your part or terrible ignorance on his. And you completly ducked my question: Can you find any reference of support or admiration for America from Moore and his type? Johnnymac

1:14 PM  
Anonymous Les Ismore said...

J'Mac,
You can go to the link I provided several times. Or simply google it. You will find it cited in many places. Like here http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd-original.htm or simply Google part of the original quote.

Lets stay on topic for now and address MM on a MM thread. Donal, could you please start an MM thread?

Back to the top post here. The contention that the left believes that the 9/11 terrorists were right to destroy 3000 American lives on that horrible day. Can you cite one source for this other than the usual single insane people you use over and over again? Can you cite a single, respected source for this? Please include a link.

Sincerely,
Les

1:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yeah sure,and do your own homework. You want people who've said America desevered 9/11? Ok,try Ward Chruchill, Noam Chomsky,the late Susan Sonntag, George Galloway for starters. Howard Dean,who made the idiotic statement during the 04 campaingn about the Administration having advanced knowlege of the attack. And just what is your point anyway? J'Mac.

3:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh and les, try Ted Turner too. J'Mac

3:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

JMac,
I'm not asking you not to do my work, but simply to do yours. Pretty simple. Google, Lexus/Nexus, any of these should be able to get you the quotes and links you need to back up the slander you seem to back.
Ward Churchill is hardly a credible Democrat. George Galloway, well if he was an American let alone a Democrat, you might have something. Howard Dean, although you bring a good point there, it is not relevant to my question. (see post #1).

4:44 PM  
Blogger VerityINK said...

Les Ismore--And that is exactly the point. The Left believes the most outrageous nonsense WHETHER IT'S FROM A RESPECTED SOURCE OR NOT.

7:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Like this nut who wrote the post you copied here???

2:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've done my ''homework asshole,now do yours. You said who on the Left said America deserved 9/11 and I gave you a number of people,they're not Democrats per se, but commited Leftists.And you still haven't answered my question. Which one of these dirtbags has ever said anything positive about the US? J'Mac

7:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And "Lesmoore'', or whoever the fuck you are try Code Pinks web-site, A.N.S.W.E.R's, Untied for Peace and Justice, check those sites out. J'Mac

7:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

J'Mac,
Please take a deep breath. No need to go into a deranged hate mode. I asked you for a single quote, not names, but a link that you can prove to me the thesis of the original post. Obviously you are very, very frustrated. I understand. I find it frustrating that you keep trying to change the subject. I guess we are getting no where on this. Please, we are guests in Donal's "house" so lets try to keep it civil. See you upstream.
Your pal,
Les

7:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

First of all, I'm not your ''pal''. As far as civility, I'm the sole of it except when a git like you tries my patience(And Mrs.D understands this) and hate?, you aren't in any way important enough or powerful enough a person in my life for me to make such a heavy emotional investment as to ''hate''. I've told you, go to any of the leftist web-sites I mentioned,or go to Horowitzs "Discover the Networks'' at FrontPage Magazine.com and you'll find all the blame-spewing diatribes from the left. Do IT! J'Mac.

8:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stupid question here. What is a git?
- Boxer

9:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The only stupid questions are the ones that are never asked. A ''git'' is a British word for an annoying person, a jerk. J'Mac.

10:20 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home