When Tucker Carlson proposed nuking Tehran in response to an alleged assassination plot against Donald Trump, his words were not merely unhinged—they were morally monstrous.
It’s easy to preach ‘family values’ when you’re not involved in the day to day grind of raising a family. I’d be surprised if any of these guys knew how to operate a washing machine… Conservative commentators love shaming women into doing jobs (for free) that they wouldn’t take millions of dollars to do themselves. I don’t consider them authorities on anything, let alone the ethics of nuclear warfare.
This is not a feminist issue. Besides which, the 60s/70s feminist movement was just another Marxist tactic for signing-on masses of Useful Idiots to assist in social destruction.
I say that as a woman who was wise enough never to bow to them. You didn't fall for feminism.....did you?
Oh I used facts on you. See above. But they bounced off -- most predictably. I didn't expect them to get through, actually. Takes more than that to awaken those who sleep.
I have probably posted this resource here before, but since we are on the topic today -- here is a link to the 2024 Ph.D. dissertation of Karen Mitchell of Australia. Her subject was the Dark Personalities -- Machiavellians, pathological Narcissists, Psychopaths and others of that ilk.
Carlson is both a psychopath and a hypocrite. In this debate, though, he made his point mainly as a hypocrite. Ted Cruz is well known as America First and as Israel's good friend for religious reasons. Carlson is well known, lately -- ever since muslims have been financing his endeavors to the tune of tens of millions of dollars -- as an adversary of Israel.
But, now that he's been railing against Trump for considering destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities, which called Qatarlson's loyalty to America into question, he had to prove that he's not only a more knowledgeable Christian than Ted Cruz, but an even fiercer defender of the president than Cruz. Thus the pretending to not be aware of the most recent intelligence reports concerning how close Iran was to producing nuclear weapons, or the assassination plot against Trump. As long as it's not in the act of helping Israel in any way, he implied, then he would be willing to do what even Ted Cruz wouldn't contemplate doing for America and its president.
I question the wisdom of engaging in any sort of debate with someone like Qatarlson, who has to defend a position that he's paid for, though he may or may not believe in it himself. Ted Cruz, the great debater in his own estimation, came out the worse for wear in this confrontation. Other than confirming to those of us who already knew it, that Qatarlson is a soulless actor, Ted Cruz accomplished nothing by it.
The bombing of the nuclear sites yesterday proved yet again that Rush Limbaugh was right when he declared decades ago that some people cannot be reasoned with, they must simply be defeated. This is as true now regarding the Iranian regime as it is regarding the likes of Qatalson and Matt Walsh. Or, as Trump and Netanyahu both reminded us yesterday, there are times when talk is counter-productive, when the evil make use of it to extend a stalemate to their own advantage; at such times, if our survival matters to us, the use of force becomes indispensable.
Whether in his capacity as psychopath or hypocrite, Qatarlson is evil. Verbal confrontation with him is pointless, his type must simply be defeated.
"Or, as Trump and Netanyahu both reminded us yesterday, there are times when talk is counter-productive, when the evil make use of it to extend a stalemate to their own advantage; at such times, if our survival matters to us, the use of force becomes indispensable."
This was an interesting interpretation. I watched a couple minutes of that Carlson-Cruz confab, and I had to turn it off. It was like watching two drunk idiots in a bar argue over sports ball. I don't think Tucker was actually advocating bombing Tehran; that's his lame attempt at sarcasm. If you look at his general approach to politics, he is quite consistent: Violence is wrong when directed at enemies of western civilization, because that only leads to more violence; but he ignores the converse. As Stalin said, a single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic. And Tucker's fawning interview with Putin seems to validate Stalin's observation. [There are strategic reasons why getting involved in Ukraine was a bad move for the Biden/Blinken administration, as well as for Ukraine itself, but I'm only referring to Tucker's useful-idiot morality.] So I don't think he was seriously suggesting nuking the ayatollahs--I think he figured out Ted Cruz was too lazy to do his own homework, and he was clowning him. When was the last time you saw Tucker memorize facts about anything, rather than following his usual deer-in-headlights, "What is even an ally?!?" dumb-guy playbook?
I am curious, though, what Francisco thinks about Trump and Bibi now: Are they perhaps going to do the right thing for strategic reasons, or is this another kayfabe in which the mullahs are denied nuclear weapons, but allowed to remain in control of their enslaved populace? And what does he think should have been done to end WWII with Japan? [On a tangent, I always wondered why we learn so much about German atrocities in high school, but not Japanese. Shouldn't that be a part of our cultural narrative, in order to justify the decision to firebomb Tokyo and drop two nukes? As I understand the history, the second nuke could have been avoided, because Japanese high command was warned, but they chose not to tell their own people.]
Another question, to counter the narrative that psychopaths always end up in control of warlike civilizations, is why leaders sometimes behave altruistically; for example the British naval campaign to disrupt the global slave trade in the 19th century? Which gives rise to yet another questions: Why are there so many small independent [non-warlike] nations which manage to coexist with the hegemonic powers? Is it because, like the mythical Iron Bank, they provide valuable client services to many powerful countries, and so are allowed to maintain their independence? That's an obvious answer, but I don't know if it's correct...
I've always suspected that the German crimes are taught to promote a certain resentment in many people in the EU former-nazi countries, but also it goes hand in hand with promoting the notion that Jews control Western media (a propaganda meme heavily promoted in Western media). Similarly, imo holocaust denial laws have a net effect of heavily promoting the falsehood that Jews control what others can say or do. The reality of course is that the EU elites (or other elites) promoting holocaust denial laws have no problems hiding Husseini's involvement or lynching Israel with all kinds of lies (in the media or at the UN).
So the Japanese crimes are not useful for this mission.
"The only side worth defending is the one with a conscience."
Workable conscience is in the middle. At the point of homeostasis on the spectrum where the polarized ends are both too far gone.
The leftwing can be totalitarian Psychopaths (the WOKE/Democrats). The rightwing can be totalitarian Psychopaths (radical Islam and 17th century Puritans),
And, despite our attempts to continually seek the middle way, it is often elusive in times of crisis, when it feels like everyone is a critic but nobody offers pragmatic alternatives.
I consider my Middle way to refrain from the religion of atheism, and instead to follow the values of moderate Christianity. But I am not scrupulous about it. There is such a thing as being "too good". I think of it as balancing the Id and the Superego.
In 2025, being a WOKE Democrat means you have gone too far leftward. Being a Jehovah's Witness means you have gone too far rightward.
I have discussed all of this in a hundred different ways over the years. In the end, people have to feel their own way through. Ultimately, this is about self-differentiation. But we must do so in the context of a society. Doubly challenging.
I calibrate my moral compass by embracing the discovery that I'm wrong about something important, which happens on a very regular basis these days. I agree that there is such a thing as being too good, which generally equates too being insufficiently self-aware.
It is a popular refrain in times of duress to decry moral relativism; however morality is relative--or else what's all the fighting about? It is also popular to bemoan the collapse of civil discourse by saying that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but they're not entitled to their own facts. And yet, the history of science, and history itself, continually reminds us that facts can be maddeningly elusive [most often when urgently needed]. As Yogi Berra said, making predictions can be difficult, especially about the future. There is no guarantee, unless you're a cave or temple dwelling monastic individual, of being on the right side of history by the courage of your own moral convictions; which is why true believers are more dangerous in the political arena than mere kleptocrats who are not seeking to create utopia.
Cultivating a willingness to be wrong is no different than cultivating a dopamine rush from a hard workout, as opposed to the default setting of seeking pleasure by avoiding hard work. It's hard work to avoid our own confirmation bias, as Richard Feynman said, but it's the only way to improve critical thinking. And in a historical context, it's impossible to guess the outcome of difficult decisions. That's why we learn about Neville Chamberlain trying and failing to appease Hitler, but we don't learn about America's successful embargo of Japan's oil supply [94%!], which didn't work either [not only did they attack Pearl Harbor, but several other Pacific targets on the same day]. The hard thing to realize about history [and science] is that you can seldom deduce the best solution just by thinking about it--no risk, no glory. I don't think Truman was a psychopath; I think he faced a monumental dilemma.
Sorry, just agreeing with you, but in my inimitable breezy-wheezy fashion...
Thanks, I had not gotten around to reading that post yet. My use of him as an example in this case was only to demonstrate that it's hard to guess how an enemy will behave, if he is indeed regarded as an enemy. Also makes sense since the British were playing political games with Yugoslavia that worked out in favor of the Nazis...
note that this was remarkably similar to 46 years of US presidential appeasement of the islamic republic...
I've taken to promoting the slogan that recent events were an effort for the US to apologize to the Muslim world for what was done to it 46 years ago. So while Obama used some deliberate sleight of hand (and capitalized on ignorance) to say in essence that we had to 'apologize' by empowering jihadi psychopaths, we should co-opt his bs in a more accurate way: we had to apologize for inflicting psychopaths by liberating them therefrom.
It's still too soon to be certain about the future of Iran, but for several months Pahlavi's son has been in some social media, and I hope he is restored to power. The Shah understood that the best way to 'defeat' the 'dialogues in hell' scenario is with a benevolent monarch. He understood that 'western democracy' was entirely corrupt.
Well, Singapore makes a good case for benevolent monarchy, despite what westerners instinctively believe. How strongly are you in favor of the notion that the current western capitulation to Islam is an apology for past interference? I'm aware that cultural elites and academics feel this way, but are politicians really so altruistic? I suspect they do not share the guilty conscience of intellectuals, but I can't come up with a better reason for their suicidal migration and anti-nativist policies.
"It's hard work to avoid our own confirmation bias, as Richard Feynman said, but it's the only way to improve critical thinking." Yes, indeed. And it's uncomfortable too, because it causes Cognitive Dissonance. So we as human beings tend to shy away....until we are up against a brick wall and tough decisions must be made.
To admit that you have been, or could have been, wrong -- is a major step. And we have all been wrong about something at some time. Not ever to admit this only leaves a person blind and in Shadow. Conditions which have their own pitfalls.
Francisco, do you think that the average person knows much about the Cluster-B Disorders and how these manifest? They barely know that pathological Narcissism exists, nevermind Psychopathy. Which to the average person is what they hear in Hollywood movies. They think it is all Hannibal Lechter stuff.
You tell them that Henry Kissinger was a Psychopath, and they just cannot grasp it.
I think the concept of "psychopath" as someone who has zero compassion for others and even enjoys their suffering is relatively widely understood. Cluster-B is of course a much more obscure term. But I think the concept "psychopathy" is current in the wider culture.
But the term "Psychopath" is thrown around as an insult...like "racist". It has lost its real meaning. It's used as just a common insult these days.
As I said...has the moral compass been re-set in societies where abortion at any time during gestation -- right up to the moment of birth -- is legal? See Canada. And now Britain too. I consider that psychopathic, but I am probably in the minority.
Accepting atrocities can become normalized....like the frog in the pot of slowly boiling water. Were American southerners all psychopathic at one time, for allowing (and simply shrugging-off ) slavery?
I think that the actual Psychopaths are at the top...and the general moral compass gets re-set in the masses through social contagion.
Well, has the term "psychopath" been watered down (like so many other things)? Yes, I agree with you there.
I think the social contagion you are talking about has definitely happened. And I like your examples. We really need to fight to right the ship of the West, and communicate with others on questions of basic morality.
You are right. It happened. We are in a very difficult moment. And the West may indeed soon be lost.
The West has no more wiggle-room. Like an alcoholic who has hit rock bottom, the possibilities have become very limited. We cannot just take the wait-and-see approach any longer.
I have been a canary-in-the-coalmine much of my life, Francisco. I am the Intuitive type. I saw as a schoolgirl what was happening.
Most such canaries give up and stop singing however, because unless you are very prominent in your platform, this does not always work to awaken others.
Perhaps I have said this somewhere in my postings on this Substack; I have certainly written/discussed it countless times over the years of my writing. It is my own observation and well-considered conclusion.
That I believe the modern group insanity of the West is mass SHADOW POSSESSION. As in Jung's concept of the Shadow. Though he did not live to witness most 20th century examples of this, and he was not really certain about what was going on in 1930s/40s Germany until well after the fact.
Psychopathy and totalitarianism come from the Shadow. Shadow Possession is a very severe form of this. Like a Night Terror come to life.
It used to be Judeo-Christianity that encouraged basic morality. From childhood onward. I have never been a religious extremist, but now.....I can see the moral gap in society is astounding. We must return to the centre, in a large-enough critical mass.
We are staring into the abyss. Although I have to say, it has been obvious since the 60s that this is what we were headed for if we did not correct course. We were socially engineered that way over the decades. How discouraging that very few even noticed.
Canada has had legal state euthanasia for many years now. As of this week, Britain too.
And no, I do not think it is a personal choice in many cases. If you had heard the stories out of Canada over the years, you would be reminded of Aktion T4. And far too many family betrayals.
Suicide is also highly socially contagious. We knew that by the turn of the 20th century. As do the psychopathic designers of these regimes, I am certain.
I had not watched the Carlson-Cruz exchange live and only learned the details of it reading this here. I used to live in Tehran working there as a journalist from 1980 to 1982. I have many friends still living there suffering under the Islamist psychopaths. Also I know many good people in the Iranian diaspora longing to return once the Islamists are forced from power. So Carlson’s “nuke Tehran” statement outrages me also. I already had learned about Carlson’s use of “got-cha!” rhetorical tactics against Cruz: asking if Cruz knew the population of Iran or if he knew the precise book/chapter/verse citation for his (correct) quotation from the Bible. Those were petty rhetorical devices which amount to little more than argumenta ad hominem and therefore are despicable. But Carlson’s advocating the mass murder of civilians exposes his complete lack of any moral credibility.
For example, there is an issue such as legalized abortion. Look at the data on the vast numbers killed in this way across the West. It is staggering! . Huge, horrifying numbers, of the most innocent victims. Through the decisions of their own mothers.
Frankly, I find THAT to be evil. But most people these days just shrug. Even at abortion with no limits. So are those people psychopathic? Not usually. But they seem to support others who are, without engaging their own moral compasses to any great degree. I always look sideways at any woman who has aborted a child (how could a normal person do this?)....but maybe that's just me.
It’s easy to preach ‘family values’ when you’re not involved in the day to day grind of raising a family. I’d be surprised if any of these guys knew how to operate a washing machine… Conservative commentators love shaming women into doing jobs (for free) that they wouldn’t take millions of dollars to do themselves. I don’t consider them authorities on anything, let alone the ethics of nuclear warfare.
This is not a feminist issue. Besides which, the 60s/70s feminist movement was just another Marxist tactic for signing-on masses of Useful Idiots to assist in social destruction.
I say that as a woman who was wise enough never to bow to them. You didn't fall for feminism.....did you?
You’re right I’d much rather be a house inmate on tranquilizers thanks for opening my eyes
Matt Walsh has six kids. Dave Rubin has two kids. Tucker Carlson has four children. I bet they all know how to operate a washing machine.
Having lots of kids doesn’t mean you know how to take care of them. It means you have a working penis.
If you want to get technical, it would mean "working sperm" meeting viable egg(s)....😁
Give it a break, Radha. We all know the ugly feminist spiel by now. Anyone with common sense stays clear of it.
Feminists use the same kind of "aren't I clever?" verbal comebacks as the radical atheists. Can spot them from a mile.
Alright, you’ve both destroyed the ‘ugly feminist’ with nothing but facts and logic! Hope you have a nice day :)
Oh I used facts on you. See above. But they bounced off -- most predictably. I didn't expect them to get through, actually. Takes more than that to awaken those who sleep.
I have probably posted this resource here before, but since we are on the topic today -- here is a link to the 2024 Ph.D. dissertation of Karen Mitchell of Australia. Her subject was the Dark Personalities -- Machiavellians, pathological Narcissists, Psychopaths and others of that ilk.
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://static1.squarespace.com/static/64910384d2da1763d7156043/t/65bc5a78ab4aef10b9901a25/1706842827397/Psychopaths+Narcissists+Machiavellians+Toxic+Leaders+Coercive+Controllers++Subsets+of+One+Overarching+Dark+Personality+Type++MITCHELL+PHD+THESIS.pdf
Carlson is both a psychopath and a hypocrite. In this debate, though, he made his point mainly as a hypocrite. Ted Cruz is well known as America First and as Israel's good friend for religious reasons. Carlson is well known, lately -- ever since muslims have been financing his endeavors to the tune of tens of millions of dollars -- as an adversary of Israel.
But, now that he's been railing against Trump for considering destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities, which called Qatarlson's loyalty to America into question, he had to prove that he's not only a more knowledgeable Christian than Ted Cruz, but an even fiercer defender of the president than Cruz. Thus the pretending to not be aware of the most recent intelligence reports concerning how close Iran was to producing nuclear weapons, or the assassination plot against Trump. As long as it's not in the act of helping Israel in any way, he implied, then he would be willing to do what even Ted Cruz wouldn't contemplate doing for America and its president.
I question the wisdom of engaging in any sort of debate with someone like Qatarlson, who has to defend a position that he's paid for, though he may or may not believe in it himself. Ted Cruz, the great debater in his own estimation, came out the worse for wear in this confrontation. Other than confirming to those of us who already knew it, that Qatarlson is a soulless actor, Ted Cruz accomplished nothing by it.
The bombing of the nuclear sites yesterday proved yet again that Rush Limbaugh was right when he declared decades ago that some people cannot be reasoned with, they must simply be defeated. This is as true now regarding the Iranian regime as it is regarding the likes of Qatalson and Matt Walsh. Or, as Trump and Netanyahu both reminded us yesterday, there are times when talk is counter-productive, when the evil make use of it to extend a stalemate to their own advantage; at such times, if our survival matters to us, the use of force becomes indispensable.
Whether in his capacity as psychopath or hypocrite, Qatarlson is evil. Verbal confrontation with him is pointless, his type must simply be defeated.
"Or, as Trump and Netanyahu both reminded us yesterday, there are times when talk is counter-productive, when the evil make use of it to extend a stalemate to their own advantage; at such times, if our survival matters to us, the use of force becomes indispensable."
Yes. Well said.
Thank you.
This was an interesting interpretation. I watched a couple minutes of that Carlson-Cruz confab, and I had to turn it off. It was like watching two drunk idiots in a bar argue over sports ball. I don't think Tucker was actually advocating bombing Tehran; that's his lame attempt at sarcasm. If you look at his general approach to politics, he is quite consistent: Violence is wrong when directed at enemies of western civilization, because that only leads to more violence; but he ignores the converse. As Stalin said, a single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic. And Tucker's fawning interview with Putin seems to validate Stalin's observation. [There are strategic reasons why getting involved in Ukraine was a bad move for the Biden/Blinken administration, as well as for Ukraine itself, but I'm only referring to Tucker's useful-idiot morality.] So I don't think he was seriously suggesting nuking the ayatollahs--I think he figured out Ted Cruz was too lazy to do his own homework, and he was clowning him. When was the last time you saw Tucker memorize facts about anything, rather than following his usual deer-in-headlights, "What is even an ally?!?" dumb-guy playbook?
I am curious, though, what Francisco thinks about Trump and Bibi now: Are they perhaps going to do the right thing for strategic reasons, or is this another kayfabe in which the mullahs are denied nuclear weapons, but allowed to remain in control of their enslaved populace? And what does he think should have been done to end WWII with Japan? [On a tangent, I always wondered why we learn so much about German atrocities in high school, but not Japanese. Shouldn't that be a part of our cultural narrative, in order to justify the decision to firebomb Tokyo and drop two nukes? As I understand the history, the second nuke could have been avoided, because Japanese high command was warned, but they chose not to tell their own people.]
Another question, to counter the narrative that psychopaths always end up in control of warlike civilizations, is why leaders sometimes behave altruistically; for example the British naval campaign to disrupt the global slave trade in the 19th century? Which gives rise to yet another questions: Why are there so many small independent [non-warlike] nations which manage to coexist with the hegemonic powers? Is it because, like the mythical Iron Bank, they provide valuable client services to many powerful countries, and so are allowed to maintain their independence? That's an obvious answer, but I don't know if it's correct...
I've always suspected that the German crimes are taught to promote a certain resentment in many people in the EU former-nazi countries, but also it goes hand in hand with promoting the notion that Jews control Western media (a propaganda meme heavily promoted in Western media). Similarly, imo holocaust denial laws have a net effect of heavily promoting the falsehood that Jews control what others can say or do. The reality of course is that the EU elites (or other elites) promoting holocaust denial laws have no problems hiding Husseini's involvement or lynching Israel with all kinds of lies (in the media or at the UN).
So the Japanese crimes are not useful for this mission.
That makes sense.
"The only side worth defending is the one with a conscience."
Workable conscience is in the middle. At the point of homeostasis on the spectrum where the polarized ends are both too far gone.
The leftwing can be totalitarian Psychopaths (the WOKE/Democrats). The rightwing can be totalitarian Psychopaths (radical Islam and 17th century Puritans),
The Middle Way is where you want to be.
And, despite our attempts to continually seek the middle way, it is often elusive in times of crisis, when it feels like everyone is a critic but nobody offers pragmatic alternatives.
Yes, true enough Chuck.
I consider my Middle way to refrain from the religion of atheism, and instead to follow the values of moderate Christianity. But I am not scrupulous about it. There is such a thing as being "too good". I think of it as balancing the Id and the Superego.
In 2025, being a WOKE Democrat means you have gone too far leftward. Being a Jehovah's Witness means you have gone too far rightward.
I have discussed all of this in a hundred different ways over the years. In the end, people have to feel their own way through. Ultimately, this is about self-differentiation. But we must do so in the context of a society. Doubly challenging.
I calibrate my moral compass by embracing the discovery that I'm wrong about something important, which happens on a very regular basis these days. I agree that there is such a thing as being too good, which generally equates too being insufficiently self-aware.
It is a popular refrain in times of duress to decry moral relativism; however morality is relative--or else what's all the fighting about? It is also popular to bemoan the collapse of civil discourse by saying that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but they're not entitled to their own facts. And yet, the history of science, and history itself, continually reminds us that facts can be maddeningly elusive [most often when urgently needed]. As Yogi Berra said, making predictions can be difficult, especially about the future. There is no guarantee, unless you're a cave or temple dwelling monastic individual, of being on the right side of history by the courage of your own moral convictions; which is why true believers are more dangerous in the political arena than mere kleptocrats who are not seeking to create utopia.
Cultivating a willingness to be wrong is no different than cultivating a dopamine rush from a hard workout, as opposed to the default setting of seeking pleasure by avoiding hard work. It's hard work to avoid our own confirmation bias, as Richard Feynman said, but it's the only way to improve critical thinking. And in a historical context, it's impossible to guess the outcome of difficult decisions. That's why we learn about Neville Chamberlain trying and failing to appease Hitler, but we don't learn about America's successful embargo of Japan's oil supply [94%!], which didn't work either [not only did they attack Pearl Harbor, but several other Pacific targets on the same day]. The hard thing to realize about history [and science] is that you can seldom deduce the best solution just by thinking about it--no risk, no glory. I don't think Truman was a psychopath; I think he faced a monumental dilemma.
Sorry, just agreeing with you, but in my inimitable breezy-wheezy fashion...
Chuck, I believe you have the wrong model of Chamberlain.
https://franciscogilwhite.substack.com/p/neville-chamberlain-nazi-sympathizer
Thanks, I had not gotten around to reading that post yet. My use of him as an example in this case was only to demonstrate that it's hard to guess how an enemy will behave, if he is indeed regarded as an enemy. Also makes sense since the British were playing political games with Yugoslavia that worked out in favor of the Nazis...
note that this was remarkably similar to 46 years of US presidential appeasement of the islamic republic...
I've taken to promoting the slogan that recent events were an effort for the US to apologize to the Muslim world for what was done to it 46 years ago. So while Obama used some deliberate sleight of hand (and capitalized on ignorance) to say in essence that we had to 'apologize' by empowering jihadi psychopaths, we should co-opt his bs in a more accurate way: we had to apologize for inflicting psychopaths by liberating them therefrom.
It's still too soon to be certain about the future of Iran, but for several months Pahlavi's son has been in some social media, and I hope he is restored to power. The Shah understood that the best way to 'defeat' the 'dialogues in hell' scenario is with a benevolent monarch. He understood that 'western democracy' was entirely corrupt.
Well, Singapore makes a good case for benevolent monarchy, despite what westerners instinctively believe. How strongly are you in favor of the notion that the current western capitulation to Islam is an apology for past interference? I'm aware that cultural elites and academics feel this way, but are politicians really so altruistic? I suspect they do not share the guilty conscience of intellectuals, but I can't come up with a better reason for their suicidal migration and anti-nativist policies.
Thanks, Chuck.
"It's hard work to avoid our own confirmation bias, as Richard Feynman said, but it's the only way to improve critical thinking." Yes, indeed. And it's uncomfortable too, because it causes Cognitive Dissonance. So we as human beings tend to shy away....until we are up against a brick wall and tough decisions must be made.
To admit that you have been, or could have been, wrong -- is a major step. And we have all been wrong about something at some time. Not ever to admit this only leaves a person blind and in Shadow. Conditions which have their own pitfalls.
Well said, my friend.
Francisco, do you think that the average person knows much about the Cluster-B Disorders and how these manifest? They barely know that pathological Narcissism exists, nevermind Psychopathy. Which to the average person is what they hear in Hollywood movies. They think it is all Hannibal Lechter stuff.
You tell them that Henry Kissinger was a Psychopath, and they just cannot grasp it.
I think the concept of "psychopath" as someone who has zero compassion for others and even enjoys their suffering is relatively widely understood. Cluster-B is of course a much more obscure term. But I think the concept "psychopathy" is current in the wider culture.
But the term "Psychopath" is thrown around as an insult...like "racist". It has lost its real meaning. It's used as just a common insult these days.
As I said...has the moral compass been re-set in societies where abortion at any time during gestation -- right up to the moment of birth -- is legal? See Canada. And now Britain too. I consider that psychopathic, but I am probably in the minority.
Accepting atrocities can become normalized....like the frog in the pot of slowly boiling water. Were American southerners all psychopathic at one time, for allowing (and simply shrugging-off ) slavery?
I think that the actual Psychopaths are at the top...and the general moral compass gets re-set in the masses through social contagion.
Well, has the term "psychopath" been watered down (like so many other things)? Yes, I agree with you there.
I think the social contagion you are talking about has definitely happened. And I like your examples. We really need to fight to right the ship of the West, and communicate with others on questions of basic morality.
You are right. It happened. We are in a very difficult moment. And the West may indeed soon be lost.
The West has no more wiggle-room. Like an alcoholic who has hit rock bottom, the possibilities have become very limited. We cannot just take the wait-and-see approach any longer.
Agreed. But the first step is still to create a critical mass of people who get it. Please keep sharing. And thanks for your support!
I have been a canary-in-the-coalmine much of my life, Francisco. I am the Intuitive type. I saw as a schoolgirl what was happening.
Most such canaries give up and stop singing however, because unless you are very prominent in your platform, this does not always work to awaken others.
Perhaps I have said this somewhere in my postings on this Substack; I have certainly written/discussed it countless times over the years of my writing. It is my own observation and well-considered conclusion.
That I believe the modern group insanity of the West is mass SHADOW POSSESSION. As in Jung's concept of the Shadow. Though he did not live to witness most 20th century examples of this, and he was not really certain about what was going on in 1930s/40s Germany until well after the fact.
Psychopathy and totalitarianism come from the Shadow. Shadow Possession is a very severe form of this. Like a Night Terror come to life.
It used to be Judeo-Christianity that encouraged basic morality. From childhood onward. I have never been a religious extremist, but now.....I can see the moral gap in society is astounding. We must return to the centre, in a large-enough critical mass.
We are staring into the abyss. Although I have to say, it has been obvious since the 60s that this is what we were headed for if we did not correct course. We were socially engineered that way over the decades. How discouraging that very few even noticed.
Canada has had legal state euthanasia for many years now. As of this week, Britain too.
And no, I do not think it is a personal choice in many cases. If you had heard the stories out of Canada over the years, you would be reminded of Aktion T4. And far too many family betrayals.
Suicide is also highly socially contagious. We knew that by the turn of the 20th century. As do the psychopathic designers of these regimes, I am certain.
I had not watched the Carlson-Cruz exchange live and only learned the details of it reading this here. I used to live in Tehran working there as a journalist from 1980 to 1982. I have many friends still living there suffering under the Islamist psychopaths. Also I know many good people in the Iranian diaspora longing to return once the Islamists are forced from power. So Carlson’s “nuke Tehran” statement outrages me also. I already had learned about Carlson’s use of “got-cha!” rhetorical tactics against Cruz: asking if Cruz knew the population of Iran or if he knew the precise book/chapter/verse citation for his (correct) quotation from the Bible. Those were petty rhetorical devices which amount to little more than argumenta ad hominem and therefore are despicable. But Carlson’s advocating the mass murder of civilians exposes his complete lack of any moral credibility.
Morality can be so complex and muddled, can't it?
For example, there is an issue such as legalized abortion. Look at the data on the vast numbers killed in this way across the West. It is staggering! . Huge, horrifying numbers, of the most innocent victims. Through the decisions of their own mothers.
Frankly, I find THAT to be evil. But most people these days just shrug. Even at abortion with no limits. So are those people psychopathic? Not usually. But they seem to support others who are, without engaging their own moral compasses to any great degree. I always look sideways at any woman who has aborted a child (how could a normal person do this?)....but maybe that's just me.
"The sheer virility—the manliness. The beard. The flannel shirts! The family values."
Sounds like you're talking about the long-gone authentic Canada......where Dudley Do-right met Anne of Green Gables. Sigh...