Pelosi Lied, American Samoans Cried

It’s OK To be a hypocrite and it’s OK to lie and it’s OK to victimize non whites.

That message has come on loud and clear, by way of Nancy Pelosi’s despicable and racist behavior. Her phony commitment to integrity and helping the ‘little guy’ has been made clear. When it comes to some non whites, House Speaker Pelosi has made clear they are to remain in the back of the bus. (Ms Pelosi may be just a bit too close to Robert “The Klan really wasn’t so bad” Byrd, Senator from West Virginia and former Ku Klux Klan kleagle).

As far as the 110th Congress is concerned, that’s all just business as usual.

The good news is that Nancy Pelosi has proved that women are indeed equal to men when it comes to deceit, corruption and hypocrisy. Now that Ms Pelosi has proved that she can play the game with the worst of them, we can treat Ms Pelosi in the same way as we treated her predecessors- with contempt and derision.

Actions speaker louder than words. For all the high minded rhetoric coming from Congressional Democrats, Nancy Pelosi has given absolutely no reason for us to believe that she is anything but a hypocrite and bigot.

Time to look at Nancy Pelosi’s campaign finances.

Sandy ‘Pants’ Berger And The Expansion Of Denial

Dr Sanity, in The Beautiful Indifference About Berger, asks why the media is ignoring Sandy Berger’s ‘L’affaire du pants.’ We noted in a comment that ‘For the left that are seemingly obsessed with the ‘truth’ and ‘lies’ of the Bush administration, ‘L’affaire du pants‘ only highlights the depth of hypocrisy and the hubris of the dysfunction that have become the identifying characteristic of the left.

In her third and final installment of Strategies For Dealing With Denial, Dr Sanity addresses reality head on. The post is presented with a sureness of purpose and a refined clarity. Using well chosen words, she sets the stage:

At the center of all psychological denial is a hidden agenda. That agenda is usually not completely conscious–meaning that the denier has not thought through the issues surrounding his denial; and may not even be aware of what his motivation is in asserting something is true when it isn’t; or false when it isn’t.

Denial need not be absolute and completely cut off from reality. Even among alcoholics and drug users there is a varying level of awareness of their problem. Some accept that they are in jail or sick because of their substance use, but yet are still not willing to do anything about it. Some may recognize some facts about their drinking (like that they get put in jail), but completely deny the impact of those facts on themselves or their families; or the future implications of continued drinking or drug use (e.g., that they are killing themselves and will die).

The nuances of denial are no longer camouflaged. In the case of Sandy Berger, for example, he might have been of the belief that his theft of documents, while self serving, also served a higher purpose- to preserve the legacy of the administration he served. In his mind, the release of a few damaging documents might serve to undermine a legacy that in his view, was in fact, a great legacy. Berger’s denial serves a higher calling.

Dr Sanity demystifies that denial with familiar language and ideas. With the use of clear language, Dr Sanity also decloaks ideas that are deliberately presented as complex and obtuse. Sandy Berger’s rationale for his crime, is clearly a deliberate attempt to hide and obfuscate certain ideas and agendas that on their own, might be seen for what they are- unacceptable expressions of agendized ideologies and beliefs.

No one steals documents that exonerate them or cast them in a good light- only documents that would point to their incompetence or implicate them in a deliberate crime and cover up.

The theft of classified documents by Sandy Berger was not committed out of fear, to avoid criminal prosecution. The theft was committed to preserve a concocted legacy of the notions, myths and fables of the Clinton administration. While it is true that every administration wants to be regarded well by history, it is also true that few other administrations, if any, have stooped to committing felonies in order to maintain an illusion. Not even Franklin Roosevelt, who deceived Congress and armed Great Britain in the first years of the Second World War, felt the need to hide or destroy documents.

The significance of denial cannot be understated because denial is one of the great ’slippery slopes.’ Denial always escalates and denial always leads to ever increasing dysfunctional behavior. As reality intrudes on the denial, more and more complex justifications for the dysfunctional behavior emerges, culminating with ‘conspiracy theories’ that place all control out of the dysfunctional’s control.

A case in point in the phenomena of suicide bombings. For many, if not most of us, there is the belief that heinous behavior is an aberration, directed at the Israelis by ‘frustrated’ and ‘noble’ Palestinians willing to sacrifice themselves for a greater cause (as if the murder of innocents might serve that agenda and highlight their civility!). The Palestinians of course, do not see it that way. For them, denial has become reality. Schools, roads and building are named after suicide bombers.

We in turn, remain in denial, that such behavior and response are really a part of Palestinian reality. We are also in denial as to what the implications of ‘terror realities‘ really are. There is the belief in part- real denial- that we do not face the prospects of such horrors, nor will we. We need to believe that terror and suicide bombings are not a reality, but remain an aberration.

Of course, those beliefs are not at all borne out by the facts.

For example, Iran has announced they have 40,000 volunteers that would happily target America and Americans. Assuming only 5% would go through with that evil, we are looking at 2,000 attempts at killing Americans. It is well entrenched denial that allows many to remain blissfully- and deliberately- unaware of the danger of that reality.

To believe we can ‘talk’ our way from one reality into another is pure denial on a pedestal of stupidity, for all to see. Dr Sanity goes on

The entire act of denial was initiated to begin with by the psyche for a good psychological reason– to temporarily suppress awareness that something was wrong–while the person struggled with the effort to face that possibility.

That awareness was so frightening, that a temporary psychological bargain evolved into a binding contract that allows the person to suspend cognition and reason so that he is able to ignore any knowledge or evidence that alters his fantasy reality.

Dr Sanity goes on to talk about the blinders we all wear, from time to time. While that may be harmless most times, blinders- denial- as a part of our everyday wardrobe can be dangerous. Too many people treat ideas like fashion: ‘I look good in this color, so I’ll stick with it.’ That doesn’t work for ideas- we have to be able to see the world and our place in it. We cannot view the world and our situation with the same tinted lenses all the time. We need to be able to see clearly and without the filters of politically correct ideologies. The consequences of denial can be deadly.

But the reality is that some people in denial prefer the lethal consequences of their denial as long as they don’t have to question their own motivations, beliefs, and ideologies.

Those individuals, groups, or nations who live in the world of deep denial are practically untouchable by reality or rational argument. They go through their daily lives secure in the knowledge that their self-image is protected against any information, feelings, or awareness that might make them have to change their view of the world. Nothing–not facts, not observable behavior; not the use of reason, logic, or the evidence of their own senses will make them reevaluate that world view.

To clarify: Those who choose terror as their calling are very different from the rest of us. They assume huge risks, every day. They build bombs, plot murders and assaults- all activities we find horrific and abhorrent. Nevertheless, they do not want to die. They are still rational.

Suicide bombers on the other hand, are a breed apart. They want to die. They are pathological in their beliefs- and their denial of reality of the magnitude of evil they embrace. In fact, the denial of the suicide bomber is not necessarily very different between the denial of the those who would discount the dangers posed by the suicide bomber. There are similar pathologies of denial. Each believe in totality the merits of their beliefs. There is no room for discussion, logic or rational discourse and argument.

Suicide bombers often emerge from secular and educated stations in life. They claim the passion of an ideology cum religion, but in fact, it is irrational rage and not religion that motivates them. While it is true they are often ‘born again’ Muslims, in fact, they did not learn religion at the feet of teachers, but rather, they were indoctrinated at the feet of radicals less concerned with religion and God than they are with politics and power. The distinction is important. Religious teachers teach students to accept and deal with the complexities of life. Students are taught how to make the right decisions and are given the tools to do just that. Radical, political and power hungry zealots teach students that life is black or white and decisions will be made for them. The frenzied rage is cultivated, directed at will by the radicals. The student submits him or herself willingly- not to God, but to the agenda of the radical teacher.

The agenda of Osama bin Laden, Zawahiri and Zarqawi do not offer an alternative ‘civilization.’ They do not talk about visions of greatness, other than imposing a harsh Islamic will on the kaffirs, of having those same kaffirs serve their every need. There is no talk of justice, mercy or greatness and there is no talk of great schools or great libraries. The Caliphate they dream of is characterized by subjugating the multitudes.

They are using Muslims that have suffered at the hands of their own and wallow in a hopelessness imposed upon them. They have no power and they have no access to a future. They are the perfect fodder for agendized radicals.

Mark Steyn addressed denial as well. In speaking of the threat Iran poses, Steyn notes

…as the Daily Telegraph in London reported: “Iran’s hardline spiritual leaders have issued an unprecedented new fatwa, or holy order, sanctioning the use of atomic weapons against its enemies.”

Notwithstanding that reality, the western world seems more inclined to offer up no more than appeasement. In the same way Hitler armed Germany in the 30’s, Iran is doing exactly the same thing- and we in the west are reprising our own role of pre war European denial.

History tends to repeat itself. Von Ribbentrop, on behalf of the Nazi regime, negotiated a ‘non-aggression’ treaty with the Russia’s Molotov. The Russians, then as now, believed that appeasement would keep them out of the conflict.

That mistake cost the Russians 20-30 million lives.

The Russians are making the same mistake today. They are as much an enemy of Iran as is America, Great Britain and all the western democracies. While the Iranians may not pose a direct threat to Russia, the mullahs would not hesitate to supply WMD’s to Russia’s Muslim enemies, be they in Chechnya or elsewhere in the Caucuses. Terrorists aren’t so particular about borders on a map or other western notions of what makes civilizations work.

If we’d understood Iran back in 1979, we’d understand better the challenges we face today. Come to that, we might not even be facing them. But, with hindsight, what strikes you about the birth of the Islamic Republic is the near total lack of interest by analysts in that adjective: Islamic. Iran was only the second Islamist state, after Saudi Arabia–and, in selecting as their own qualifying adjective the family name, the House of Saud at least indicated a conventional sense of priorities, as the legions of Saudi princes whoring and gambling in the fleshpots of the West have demonstrated exhaustively. Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue–though, as the Royal Family has belatedly discovered vis-à-vis the Islamists, they’re somewhat overdrawn on that front. The difference in Iran is simple: with the mullahs, there are no London escort agencies on retainer to supply blonds only. When they say “Islamic Republic,” they mean it. And refusing to take their words at face value has bedeviled Western strategists for three decades.

And so on:

As Communism retreated, radical Islam seeped into Africa and south Asia and the Balkans. Crazy guys holed up in Philippine jungles and the tri-border region of Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay who’d have been “Marxist fantasists” a generation or two back are now Islamists: it’s the ideology du jour…

Our failure to understand Iran in the seventies foreshadowed our failure to understand the broader struggle today. As clashes of civilizations go, this one’s between two extremes: on the one hand, a world that has everything it needs to wage decisive war–wealth, armies, industry, technology; on the other, a world that has nothing but pure ideology and plenty of believers…

And let’s not forget Bill Clinton’s extraordinary remarks at Davos last year: “Iran today is, in a sense, the only country where progressive ideas enjoy a vast constituency. It is there that the ideas that I subscribe to are defended by a majority.” That’s true in the very narrow sense that there’s a certain similarity between his legal strategy and sharia when it comes to adultery and setting up the gals as the fall guys. But it seems Clinton apparently had a more general commonality in mind: “In every single election, the guys I identify with got two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote. There is no other country in the world I can say that about, certainly not my own.” America’s first black President is beginning to sound like America’s first Islamist ex-president.

What we see in Iran and other terror regimes/cultures are the direct result of the escalation of denial. If we, in an open and free society, tolerate Sandy Berger’s kind of denial, our own slippery slope will be steep, indeed.