Is Bush the Son of God?

[jku]

WMDs And The Psychology Of Fanaticism
Filed June 18, 2003

By all accounts, the behind-the-scenes battle within the Bush administration over just what information should be used, or spun, or hidden, to make the case that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to America and the rest of the world was a knockdown, drag-out fight between the facts and a zealous, highly politicized, "who needs proof?" mindset. And, at the end of the day, the truth was left writhing on the floor.

Hey, why let the facts get in the way of a perfectly good war?

This pathological pattern of disregarding inconvenient reality is not just troubling -- it's deadly. And it's threatening to drag us into a Sisyphean struggle against evildoers in Syria, Iran, North Korea, or whatever locale Karl Rove thinks would best advance "Operation Avoid 41's Fate."

Since I'm not a psychiatrist, I consulted the work of various experts in the field in order to get a better understanding of the fanatical mindset that is driving the Bush administration's agenda -- and scaring the living daylights out of a growing number of observers.

Dr. Norman Doidge, professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto, has identified among the telltale symptoms of fanatics: an intolerance of dissent, a doctrine that is riddled with contradictions, the belief that one's cause has been blessed or even commanded by God, and the use of reinforcement techniques such as repetition to spread one's message.

Sound like anyone you know? George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle... come on down!

According to Doidge, one of the essential features of fanatics is their certainty that not only is their cause good "but that it is the only good, an absolute good." Or as President Bush famously declared: "There is no in-between, as far as I'm concerned. Either you're with us, or you're against us."

This absolute intolerance of dissent, says Doidge, often extends beyond the fanatics’ enemies -- frequently leading to a "campaign of terror" against those within their own ranks. If you're wondering what this has to do with the Bush administration, you might want to give a call to Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and George Voinovich.

After having the temerity to question the wisdom of the president's massive tax cut plan, the senatorial pair became the targets of withering TV attack ads, sponsored by allies of the White House, that portrayed them as "so-called Republicans" and compared their opposition to the latest round of tax cuts to France's opposition to the war in Iraq. It was a Night of the Long Knives, GOP-style.

Another crucial element of a fanatic's faith, according to Professor Dixon Sutherland, who teaches religion at Stetson University, is that he "sees himself as acting for God... You have a circular logic that is very powerful that combines God’s authority -- through the Bible -- with a messenger who carries out that authority."

Tom DeLay, for example, saw the 2000 election as a choice between a "biblical worldview" and the worldview of "humanism, materialism, sexism, naturalism, post-modernism or any of the other -isms." And the Republican Party, of course, represented the biblical worldview, God and all things good.

Gustav le Bon, a social scientist known for his crowd psychology theories, has stressed the importance of repetition as a weapon in the fanatic's arsenal. Repetition breeds blind acceptance and contagion.

"Ideas, sentiments, emotions and beliefs," writes le Bon, "possess in crowds a contagious power as intense as that of microbes." As James Moore, co-author of "Bush’s Brain," says, "If the president says it over and over enough, people will believe it, just as Karl Rove got him to say over and over that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11."

The technique was so successful that a poll taken by the Pew Center in 2002 showed that 66 percent of Americans believed that Hussein and bin Laden were both behind the attacks. In the words of that giant banner that Rove had placed behind the president following his Top Gun landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln: "Mission Accomplished."

Wonder why the WMD are MIA? The answer may lie in the DSM -- the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. I know it can sound a bit cheap to call people you disagree with nuts, which is why I refer you to the psychiatric literature. And keep an open mind, something the Bushies stopped doing a long time ago.

[Benwa]

I think jku should continue to post as he sees fit. And not even think about toning it down. Let it rip brother. The point of the article was to point out the similarities the current admin and those that the admin has determined are "evil". I'm never comfortable with that word: evil. Whenever its used theres always seems to be an arrogance surrounding it. Like somehow the person who says who is evil is somehow "good". It also has a sense of absoluteness (is that even a word). Once someone is judged evil then they are completely evil, there is no gray area. And people are in shades of gray. Plus religious folks like to spout it out as much as possible and isn't that an insult to your god. Isn't your god supposed to determine who is evil? Are you somehow qualified to know your god's business?

I understand WB discomfort with references to Hitler. But shouldn't the events of the holocaust make you more vigilant to shady government doings. Once your people were on the other side, wouldn't you be mindful as to not let anything remotely like that happen again. I would at least hear out those who oppose, without passing judgement. The US doesn't exactly have a great track record in the human rights department. We nearly wiped out an entire race of people (the Indians), enslaved another race (african) and caused countless civilian casualties in our wars. You may say "thats ancient history" but I give you this, where are all the arabs in america that were rounded up after 9-11. Nobody knows! They were rounded up and sent to some central prison camp area, are being held illegally with no trial and everything is being kept hush hush. Doesn't that scenario sound chillingly familiar.

While reading some of these posts, I've wondered why WB has a tendency to come down on the Muslim world. But as you mentioned you are Jewish, it makes more sense. I'm not saying your a Muslim hating prejudice jerk. Far from it. But obviously a Jewish person would more likely have some damage in this area. I understand your distaste and disgust with muslim extremists. All I can say is this. The most powerful skill to master is empathy. Not sympathy, but empathy. Sympathy is emotional "I feel your pain" type stuff. But empathy is simply being able to understand where someone is coming from, understand why they feel and do the things they do. And when I look at Muslim extremist actions, although I disagree with them fully I can empathise and fully understand where they are coming from. It becomes rather simple to understand how someone can be seduced to strap C4 to their chest and kill some people. And once you empathise with them, their actions lose alot of the power that they were intended to have. The rufusal to have empathy is why the conflicts are still continuing and peace plans are a joke. And it won't ever stop until both sides get a little empathy. Actually they need alot of empathy because this is one mother of a problem.

[sunbear]

The Jews were really badly affected by the Halocaust, I can totally empathize with WB when these references bother him.
And if something bothers him, he is entitled to say that he's offended. It's only fair, especially since I believe Jku's only intent is to get a point across.
I feel from reading WB's posts that he really felt anger from the 9/11 tragedy. By the way, the Arabs rounded from around the country was not anything remotely close to the Japaneese concentration camps or even the halocaust. I personally know A LOT of people who disagree with the fundamentals of Muslim religion- Agnostics, Christians, Mormons- Jews are one group.

[jku]

NB: The article was written by Arianna Huffington - take that as you will. Also, her discussion about "Fanatcism" is more of an attempt to correlate fundamentalist Islamic groups like Hamas, to fundamentalist Christian segments of America. Hitler is an issue someone on the thread read into her essay.

On my end, it's so hard to sell ideas that you know are false. I have to do it everyday - QLC is the only place to TELL the truth as I'm seeing it from a very unique vantagepoint.

Fascism is defined as the ultimate marriage between government and corporations.
I don't believe Bush is evil, and I don't have an ax to grind - but many of his policies are indefensible and the political environment in this country today can easily be viewed as fascist. The spin coming out of the White House is just stunning in the sense that so many people believe it! Bush may not be killing thousands of Jews in concentration camps, but the tacit goal of this administration is the ultimate destruction of many ideals Americans hold dear.

I (try to) subscribe to the OLD journalistic creed: "If you're mother says she loves you, check it out!"

I used to view Hitler's Germany the same way you do W-brake. As pure evil - but in college I had a wonderful class taught by a Rabbi, who made it clear that Hitler's Germany could happen anytime, anywhere; The people of Germany were not evil - they believed in their government and its policies of funding WAR above all else. In terms of history - as the Jews/gays/poor minorities suffered under Hitler, he was greatly loved by a middle class non-Jew/non-Gay Germany in a horrible economy with high unemployment. Sound familiar? How do you think Hitler was allowed to push his insane ideology through? The voice of dissent under his power was crushed mercilessly. Many people knew something was up, but they didn't have the power in their generation to do something. Could the holocaust have happened if the Internet was around? I don't know.

Bin Laden is an icon in the Middle East. He's a beloved figure to many young underemployed Muslims in their 20s. He funds hospitals, takes care of widows, uses his father's money to build schools and mosques. We view him as evil because he is out for us - but what fuels the rage of Islamic fundamentalists is the policy of our government. I know its hard to look at a situation with objectivity when you belong to the group in question, but I can clearly see issues with the media, my race, my religion - sometimes my Jewish co-workers see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from such an anti-Israeli viewpoint, I'm floored.
As Will Shakespere said: "KNOW THYSELF."

If we don't question the policies of our government, do we live in a democracy or a dictatorship? In that case, what is the difference between Hussein/Bin Laden - they may use means of physical torture, but the hard-core right can be argued to be using forms of psychological torture. If you lose your job because of your beliefs, is that American? Just ask Tim Robbins and The Dixie Chicks.

[coll214]

Actually WB, I think that was very well-said... :) and I know what you mean, except reverse it. lol

[Benwa]

Non-violence doesn't work? It didn't work for Gandhi? It didn't work for Martin Luther King Jr.? It didn't work for the American colonists? In fact the nonviolence of the american revolution was many times more effective than the battles. They practically perfected the art of the boycott. We are taught mainly about the battles because that is somehow viewed as more significant.

Violence will never end the Isreal Palestinian conflict. In most cases like this, nonviolence is the only sensible choice. Because when one side is so much stronger on military and power, the other sides only hope is nonviolence. I agree that the Palestinian extremist need to stop blowing things up. In fact the whole thing hinges on them stopping their violence and using nonviolent techniques. In situations like this, the underdog has to step up. Not just for themselves but for both sides. Isreal could practice nonviolence but its silly to suggest it since they are the dominant player. In every succesful nonviolent revolution, the underdog has adopted peaceful techniques. I'm not saying Isreal can't or shouldn't do their part, but the whole thing hinges on the Palestinians. In fact I'm rather surprised a Ghandi-esgue figure hasn't risen yet. The world being a smaller place would make nonviolence even more effective.

Nonviolence doesn't mean nonaction. The whole "give peace a chance" thing kind of sounds like "just sit around, be nice and others will be nice to you". Nonviolent action is far from that. It's exciting, empowering and can be very dangerous. Nonviolent advocates aren't a bunch of wimps. It takes incredible restraint and dedication to make it work. You yourself mentioned you have the occasional internal rage. Certainly you can admire someone who can keep their emotional knee jerk reactions in check, while keeping their eye on the prize.

[jku]

WB made a very interesting point. Terrorism does come from frustration - but the difference is that my friend, WB, you have HOPE. HOPE and a belief in "delayed gratification." I remember being college, studying for O-chem on a Saturday night - looking out the window at all the fun everyone was having. There was always that image of being happy with my job, having plenty of money I earned, love. I imagine as you study for your bar exam, you have similiar hopes.

Young men our age in the Middle East have the same desires we have. For love, a family, success, wealth - but they see it in their TVs and American movies - its a million miles away.

Economic deprivation in conjuntion with frustration, add religious fundmentalism, and the boldness and bravado of youth - that is what gives us terrorism.


So is the solution more violence, as that begets more violence? Who can argue that it doesn't? Any movement that has made a difference has practiced peace, as peace being its ultimate goal. That woman in Myanmar, MLK, Gandhi - these are the people history has respect for. Anyone care to remember TOJO?

Bush's policy of using the worst in man as a guise to counter the worst in man is something I can't support. A total lack of acknowledgement of the history of OUR policy as Americans is just plain wrong. Did you know many Iraqis believe Saddam Hussein is living in the White House? Why is that?
Because they know the history of Hussein's relationship with Bush Sr and Reagan. We, the people of the greatest nation, haven't a clue.

It goes against all religious and spiritual teachings, particularly the Bible to practice the policies of violence set by this Administration.
Is that hypocrisy? Is there a (obviously less politically savvy) solution other than "kicking ass?" Of course? Will we even ATTEMPT to discuss that as a potentional solution. No.

Well MAYBE - after Bush is re-elected, the QUAGMIRE in Iraq extends for the next five years, and the draft begins again.

PS to WB - YES, of course we all fear terrorism - but I FEAR the ROOT causes, not the overt acts. If I am to die, I am to die. But to hell with anyone that makes my country LESS SAFE with the goal of getting re-elected. Blind trust for government is not what this country was founded on.

[coll214]

WB- Yup...but I've gotten so used to it by now, I just let all the stupid little comments (why aren't you dating, when are you going to get a b/f, etc.) go in one ear and out the other...I'm now an expert at it! :)

I think that you're right on your comments about Ghandi and MLK, they both already had large followings which helped to advance their causes while groups like the KKK were able to survive so long for the same reason.... It's like when you try to tell a friend who you know is wrong about something that they are, no matter what you say, they aren't going to change their minds.

But I can't agree about the war. I just can't help but feel that it was more for political reasons than to help the people of Iraq. Bush was going to topple Hussein, no matter what reasons he told the American people.

[pisces2473]

Yeah, it is awful...but at least sometimes I enjoy my independence. I was talking about that with my friends on my vacation last week and my friend Maria burst out with the Kelly Clarkson song, singing "What is this feeling takin' over???" LOL It cracked me up. I've always been on my own, I don't know what it's like to have a boyfriend to depend on, talk to, etc. The thing I liked about the sailor (the guy I was dating) is that he was gone 2 weeks out of the month so I had some "me" time. But that was a downfall because when he came home, he didn't want to hang out...long story. This other guy who I've liked since college and still talk to all the time lives 1.5 hrs from me--perfect because I wouldn't have to be around him all the time, like the sickening couples that I know, lol. But then again, when I'm bored and all of my friends are busy, it would be nice to have someone else.

At least here I've found that there are other people like me, who are normal and good looking and haven't dated and feel abnormal because of that :neutral: I just wish we all lived closer so we could just hang out in our singledom together.

[coll214]

I hear ya!! We should have a New England group somewhere since there doesn't seem to be very many on here :)! The single QLCers club. LOL :)

[pisces2473]

There is/was a New England group but it was in the Boston area...I would much rather go to the NYC area since Metro North is a hell of a lot cheaper and easier than getting to Boston! But then again, people don't seem to want to do much of anything anymore :(

[jku]

You guys all seem so wonderful, intelligent, articulate, ambitious and open minded. Please just hang in there - these days of miserable single-dom will be behind you...then miserable couple-dom can begin. :)

As for the debate on violence vs. non-violence. I think if the Palestinians (and other extremists) had a non-violent protestor to rally around, they're case would be much more credible. But as long as they kill innocents in the name of God, they cannot gain any sympathy.

In my analysis, Israel has to start addressing one major issue with America, in that we like to have it BOTH ways. We give money and business to countries that support and fund terrorism - Egypt and Saudi Arabia - yet we also claim to support countries like Israel that are victims of it. If America were to stop allowing surrounding Middle Eastern nations to rape their own countries, then use the horrible Palestinian-Israeli conflict as a scapegoat for domestic problems - it would be a start. Surrounding countries could take the Palestinians in, but they won't because they need to conflict to perpetuate. American interests rely on Israel as a customer for our tanks and copters - they won't buy if there isn't a threat.

When government and corporation marry its facism - and innocent people are the victims.

BTW - JOHN KERRY is in the MOVEON primary today. The winner will get fundraising power from MoveOn. I hope and encourage people here to lend their support to John Kerry.

[pisces2473]

Hahahaha, go us!

Wait, what is that thing people do in chats when they "hug" people? Is it this?

(((((((((((((((((((((QLC singles))))))))))))))))))))))


LOL x 1,000,000

[coll214]

Yay for us!!:D Thanks jku! You may be right jen about the ((((hug)))).

[pisces2473]

Coll, I haven't a clue. It's funny because we are young and computer-literate, but it seems like the younger generation has developed some kind of weird chat lingo...dropping letters off words (tho = though), making new spellings of words (ne = any)...I don't get it.

[coll214]

What can i say, we're old now! lol

We remember when chat rooms and instant message started, they've always had it.:D

[pisces2473]

Ahh yes, very true! :cool:

[dakotagopher]

RE Israel/Palestine, a brief thought:

I have believed for some time that all the Palestinians would have to do to instantly gain credibility and success in their fight for land is to perfect the art of peaceful protest.

Think how much support for Israel would decline if the Palestinians stopped all violence and just held (example) sit ins around the houses that were about to be dozed.

I think this would very quickly force Israel into a negotiating position. But as long as the Palestinians come across as bloodthirsty lunatics, people just CANNOT empathize w/them, thus they have a hard time.

[jku]

Just wanna say I'm glad DAKOTAGOPHER and I can AGREE on something for a change! :)

And just wanted to add something I forgot to mention earlier - the Palestinians had some great chances (like in 2000) to solve their crisis - but (we have em in America) an individual who decided that capitulating to Israel was not the right course of action, screwed it up for EVERYBODY else!

Just like that bastard kid who jumped off the gondolas at Disneyland, and now they shut it down!

BTW - PLEASE VOTE FOR JOHN KERRY IN THE MOVEON.ORG PRIMARY TODAY!

PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST!!