Sunday, June 21, 2009

Progressive Personality Disorder

Still wading through the early days of the blog, and not finding much that sets my thigh a-tinglin'. However, as a general rule, the posts that I regard as mere trifles generate the most traffic. It seems that people come for the insultainment but never stay for the laughty revelations.

The following post is a case in point. According to my site meter, hardly a day goes by that someone doesn't find their way to it. It also occasioned our very first persistent troll, L.A. Larry, and a record number of comments at the time, the majority of which were deleted. Back then, I was naive enough to think that the best way to deal with a troll was to engage them, which only results in repetition compulsion, AKA the Eternal Return of the troll's weird fixations and willful disunderstanding. Yes, the cause of trolls is paying attention to them, as you will learn today.

I just clicked through from one of Larry's comments to his now abandoned blog, and his last posts from 2006 indicate that he was obsessing over telephone surveillance of terrorists and the omnipotence of Karl Rove. Something tells me he's not currently obsessing over telephone surveillance of terrorists and the omnipotence of David Axelrod.


The following is based on a perceptive post by someone named John Moore, which I found through a link to a link on Dr. Sanity's grand rounds of the psychosphere.

It looks as if it were hastily composed in a manic burst of inspiration, but it's so accurate that it deserves wider dissemination. I've taken the liberty of cleaning it up, editing it, adding a number of criteria, and putting it in the actual format of the DSM (the diagnostic manual for mental health practitioners).

I've also taken the additional liberty of altering the name of the condition, from his "Cognitive Disorder of Progressives" to "Progressive Personality Disorder." This is because Moore's nomenclature implies that this is an Axis I condition. These disorders generally involve a short-term change in functioning, such as a time-limited anxiety or depressive disorder. In short, Axis I conditions usually involve temporary states, whereas Axis II conditions involve quasi-permanent traits.

Axis II is primarily reserved for the Personality Disorders, which are much more difficult to treat, as they involve enduring patterns of maladaptive thought, behavior or emotion that lead to either significant functional impairment or subjective distress -- for example, Paranoid, Narcissistic, or Borderline Personality Disorders. When a person suffers from a personality disorder, much of their condition involves acting out in the world rather than harboring internal "neurotic" conflict within oneself.

As often as not, the person with a personality disorder causes as much or more pain and difficulty for those around them than they do for themselves. Furthermore, it is fair to say that most people with a personality disorder don't ever recognize that they have one. When they come in for treatment, it is usually for some ancillary problem that is caused by the personality disorder, such as difficulty forming stable relationships, identity disturbance, poor self esteem, impulsivity (e.g., with regard to sex, drugs, spending, etc.), sexual identity confusion, meaninglessness, depression, etc.

Ultimately their problem doesn't revolve around the "content" of their mind so much as its very structure. Typically, an individual with a personality disorder has damaged psychological structure as a result of early childhood experience. And the damaged structure typically takes the form of inability to auto-regulate in one or more areas, such as emotion, self-esteem, impulse control, mood, or identity. Rather than treat their condition, such a person may demand that it be regarded as "normal," and that people adapt to them.

For example, in California, it is against the law to discriminate against men who want to pretend they are women, which means that the state forces us to accept the abnormal as normal, the perverse as healthy, and to propagate this lie to our children. But anyone who thinks it is appropriate to expose children to such perversity shouldn't be allowed around children, let alone run the educational establishment

But personality disorders virtually always involve inducting others into the patient's psychodrama as an intrinsic part of their condition. Therefore, politics is the ideal forum for anyone with a personality disorder. In the field of politics, such individuals are given sanction to act out various conflicts in an entirely insight-free way -- indeed, as an alternative to insight. Remember, their mission is to force others to regard their abnormality as normal, e.g., the intrinsic absurdity of "homosexual marriage."

Politics truly is a sort of show business for the unattractive -- the psychologically unattractive. And you can well understand why the Democrat party would attract such people, because unlike conservatism, it does not mainly consist of ideas but of promises made to various constituencies of dysfunctional losers, weirdos, cranks, misfits, and malcontents. It is the party of the Unhappy who imagine that the state can make them happy.

But obviously it never works. Rather, because that breast doesn't actually produce milk, it only provokes more greed and envy toward the breast. So it is no surprise that Obama is in the process of creating the largest breast that has ever existed. But if it actually succeeds in appeasing the hungry mouths of the left, I promise to stop blogging forever.



A. A pervasive pattern of progressive political thought and action, rooted in discredited leftist (neo-Marxist) beliefs, beginning in early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by at least five of the following (individual must be at least 18 years of age to qualify for the diagnosis of Progressive Personality Disorder, as many of the criteria are age-appropriate for adolescents):

1. Utopian thinking: A delusional belief that there exist simple, linear, side effect-free solutions to all social problems. (Note to clinician: please differentiate between mere historical ignorance, e.g., a doctorate in history from an elite university, vs. psychotic delusions of grandeur or adequacy.)

2. Anthroplastic ideation: The delusion that behavioral conditioning performed by the government or some other collective will cure all behavioral and social problems, rooted in denial of fixed human nature. Implicit in this delusion is the idea that human beings are infinitely malleable and subject to behavioral manipulation leading to perfect control and predictability. Free will, personal conscience, and objective morality are denied, devalued or denigrated.

3. Anti-theistic rebellion: An emotional antagonism to the Judeo-Christian tradition, rooted in an abnormal persistence of adolescent rebellion (may also be related to the need to avoid counter-arguments that would question utopian, anthroplastic ideation). This behavior ranges from a mere antagonism to Christianity to a hatred of all forms of religion. The rejection of religion leads to a deep longing for a messiah and master. (Generally the more Western a religion is, the more it is despised. Thus, these patients may openly accept more primitive pantheistic, neo-pagan, or animist belief systems, such as Wicca or fraudulent "new age" philosophies, e.g., Deepak Chopra, Tony Robbins, etc.)

4. Naturist delusion: The belief that mankind is evil and nature is benign. The incidence of this symptom is inversely related to practical knowledge and experience of nature. Collective self-hatred is a feature in this area, paradoxically existing side by side with egomaniacal omniscience, e.g., ability to accurately predict weather 100 years into the future. Typical thinking includes the paranoid belief that mankind is a cancer on earth and that the planet (subjectively felt as a "feeling being") will "retaliate." The naturist delusion includes considerable cognitive dissonance, since the typical Progressive Personality is a believer in natural selection, which has resulted in untold suffering and cruelty, mitigated only by mankind's presence.

5. Environmental spasm: Chaotic, unreasonable, or incoherent episodes of manic activity on behalf of the environment or "mother nature." The delusional nature of this activity is evidenced by the misanthropic attacks on all works of man, and also by the manic focus on visible or totemic biological objects of little actual worth. The patient is typically obsessed only with cute or cuddly creatures, often a displacement of the nurturing urge (which is not infrequently unfulfilled due to abortion). Such patients may show more concern for the President swatting an insect than waving aside the concerns of millions of human beings living under tyranny and crying out for help.

6. Control obsession: The tendency to strive for excessive control over others through state intrusion. A contemptuous projection of the unconscious oral envy into anonymous others (the mythic "little guy"), which is subjectively experienced as "compassion." Through the magic of this unconscious mechanism, the very people who want the state to appropriate your wealth can imagine themselves to be generous and "compassionate," irrespective of how they actually treat real human beings.

7. Racist/feminist hypocrisy: Passionate advocating of government-enforced discrimination based on sex or race, while aggressively proclaiming opposition to policies which are "racist" or "sexist." Obsession with conformity of thought within a racially diverse population. For example, such a person might favor seating a racist on the Supreme Court, so long as the person is of the "correct" race.

8. Overemotional perception: Excessive concern with how a social action "looks" or "feels," to the exclusion of actual effects in the real world, in particular, any effects beyond the immediate. Resistance to, and denial of, objective evidence proving the adverse consequences of progressive policy. Superficial cognition about most matters of significant import, as the progressive personality relies on the "feel" of issues rather than truly understanding them. Obsession with "fairness" or "social justice" as opposed to what actually works.

9. Sexual dysfunction: Significant anxiety about sexual matters, manifested as:

a. Obsession with sexual and gender roles.

b. Passionate celebration of nontraditional sex roles and preferences.

c. The compulsion to define individuals by their "sexual preference" and to design social policy as if all individuals share the obsession.

d. An inordinate interest in preserving inappropriate, lewd, perverse, or antisocial forms of sexual expression.

e. Fascination with immature or deviant expressions of sexuality; reduction of human sexuality to animal sexuality.

10. Replacement of patriotism with matriotism: Unwillingness to defend country when attacked or threatened. Allied with inability to name or recognize evil. General devaluation of the masculine virtues.

11. Cultural and moral relativism: The fervent belief that all cultures are beautiful except one's own, and that it is immoral to judge another's morality unless they are conservative.

12. The belief that an eagle egg or four-toed salamander is entitled to more legal protection than a human baby.


Northern Bandit said...

godinpotty is a person who instantly tiggers nausea in any decent person.

Thing is, I get that same nauseated sensation with I contemplate myself circa 1985. I was every bit as foul, benighted and shallow as this vile troll.

Why do some of us escape?

Northern Bandit said...

Of course I didn't think for one second that I was a bad person when I was an atheist/leftist. I believed I was strongly on the side of the impoverished, the environment, and strongly opposed to the simple-minded dangerous jackbooted thugs who attended church each week.

I could easily have sailed through life as a smug leftist convinced of my own intellectual and moral superiority. Frankly the change I've experienced came almost entirely from outside me, the more I reflect upon it.

Gagdad Bob said...

It's true. Nothing is possible in the absence of grace. Except man the beast.

Susannah said...

Thank you for posting this, Bob! There is so much I'd love to respond to, when I get a moment. Your last point hits home because recently a friend directed me to this: I cannot believe how hard-hearted leftists are toward innocent human life. But given how I have seen conservatives verbally abused in obscene and villainous ways over the last eight years on lefty blogs and sites (e.g., two words: Rick Santorum) it's no surprise that attitude would carry over to the most helpless and innocent. Of course, in their minds conservatives deserve it for being...conservative (which equals evil, I guess). But how on earth they justify the total lack of legal protection for human infants (cf. Obama on infanticide) in the name of abortion rights...I mean, what did a baby ever do to a leftist? Other than exist? What's even more astounding to me is that the ONLY answer EVER for them is death. Death, and more death. Could there be no other solution for a crisis pregnancy? Like maybe, help? What is gained by pitting women against their own children? It's truly demonic in origin, for nothing will satisfy but blood and dismemberment. "We wrestle not against flesh and blood."

ximeze said...

Happy Father's Day to all guycoons

Gagdad Bob said...

If you ever get arrested for breaking a bald eagle egg, just tell the judge that it was only a "potential eagle."

will said...

>> . . the paranoid belief that mankind is a cancer on earth and that the planet (subjectively felt as a "feeling being") will "retaliate<<

I think it's interesting that the remainder of the original Manson family - those who weren't convicted and jailed, but who remained loyal to Manson - became ardent, yea, rabid environmentalists.

Actually, I do think that "Gaia", formerly known to the old-timers as the Anima/Spiritus Mundi, exists, but not as a fully conscious, "feeling being" capable of smiting us for our polluting ways. I think Gaia serves as a kind of passive, plastic, un-self-aware consciousness - in a sense, it absorbs and reflects human state of consciousness, our emotions, our passions, for better or worse.

In other words, the more human thought becomes perverse and out of balance, the more we revert to base, instinctual passion, then the more Gaia reflects the same back at us in the form of chaotic nature conditions - quakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, drought, etc. And this would be true even if there weren't a speck of pollution on the planet.

goddinpotty said...

I'm starting to get the feeling that you people don't like me. That hurts. But it still doesn't absolve you from the need to answer my question, namely, what is Obama doing or not doing vis-a-vis Iran that is earning him your contempt? Answer the question or I'll take it as a tacit admission that you can't think your way out of a wet paper bag. Name-calling is not an argument, satisfying as it might be.

Susannah said...

Obama is not speaking forcefully against the current regime (or at least not until they started shooting people, and even then, rather tepidly). And Mike Potemra at The Corner made an excellent point re: "restraint": it matters not a whit, when dealing with evil tyrants.

goddinpotty said...

Two more points:

- here's another sane conservative. I only cite these so you can't claim that Obama's cautious approach has anything to do with the left. It has to do with having a realist view of foreign policy, as opposed to the crusade-of-good-against-evil that was exemplified by the Bush admnistration and that you nitwits have bought into.

- I was going to upbraid you for using this historic moment in world history as an excuse to take potshots against Obama, which is petty and small-minded. Then I realized I'm using it as an excuse to take potshots against you, which is even more small-minded -- Obama, at least, is important. So I'll shut up now.

hoarhey said...

Skid Mark said,

"Answer the question or I'll take it as a tacit admission that you can't think your way out of a wet paper bag."

Will you then leave due to a lack of depth and seriousness in the blog writer? And spend your obviously valuable time elsewhere stinking up other, more worthy blogs with your high minded retorts? Promise?
As if yet another explanation would make it past your inner leftist.

Susannah said...

Somebody else at the Corner also posted a letter from Mousavi supporters who were critical of Obama's "two of a kind" rhetoric. "Your statement misled the people of the world. It was no doubt inspired by your hope for dialogue with this regime, but you cannot possibly believe in promises from a regime that lies to its own people and then kills them when they demand the promises be kept."

hoarhey said...

And do you think what is happening today in Iran might have something to do with what Bush did in Iraq to lance the pustule and start drainging the swamp?
Nah! It must have been the result of that speech Obama made in Cairo, yeah, that's the ticket.

Susannah said...

So the only sane conservatives are those who don't criticize Obama? In the mind of someone for whom endorsements from Andrew Sullivan really underline a blogger's *conservative* credentials. LOL!

Susannah said...

More from that letter: "By such statements, your administration and you discourage the Iranian people, who believe and trust in the values of democracy and freedom. We are pleased to see that you have condemned the regime’s murderous violence, and we look forward to stronger support for the rightful struggle of the Iranian people against the actions of a regime that is ***your enemy as well as ours.***" Emphasis mine.

goddinpotty said...

Jeeze, even George Will and Peggy Noonan agree with me. Normally that would be cause to worry, but even they can be right once in awhile.

will said...

Potty -

As much as I hate foraying into politics, I will make an exception here:

By constantly putting pressure exclusively on Israel while seemingly sanctioning the gov. of Ahmadinejad and the mullahs - he labeled Mousavi as virtually no different from Ahmadinejad, thereby undercutting the viability of Iranian protesters - Obama demonstrates the usual moral perversity of the Left. Even a great many Euro leaders have forcefully condemned the Iranian gov, but not so Obama. Yes, he finally came out with a statement somewhat in support of the protests, but only because he felt the heat. Overall though, Obama has been giving the impression that he thinks a regime change in Iran would not be a good thing.

Here's what I think - Obama actually wants Ahmadinejad and co. to retain their hold on the Iranian gov. so that he, Obama, can be seen by the world to personally talk them out of their nuclear/destroy Israel ambitions. That will never happen, of course, but Obama, I believe, is blinded by his hubristic desire for glory as Universal Peacemaker.

Well, that's actually the most positive spin I can put on it. There are other possible explanations for Obama's favoring of the islamo-fascists over Israel, none of them positive, to put it mildly.

Susannah said...

George Will and Peggy Noonan both veer wildly sometimes. George Will hates denim-wearing. Thinks it an execrable outgrowth of Americanism. 'Nuff said. I haven't respected Noonan since I heard her utter a very unladylike word about the Palin pick. Especially after having read (and agreed with) her column re: "where are all the ladies?" There have been other columns of hers that left me scratching my head as well. I think she's an emotional thinker.

ximeze said...

"But it still doesn't absolve you from the need to answer my question..."

Wanna bet?

"Answer the question or I'll take it as ..."

Like we care.

Whatta maroon

Susannah said...

Will, now that you mention it, it does probably have a lot to do with the fact that the teleprompter is already scripted for Ahmadinejad.

Northern Bandit said...

"I'm starting to get the feeling that you people don't like me. That hurts."

Actually as Christians (many or most coons are Christian) technically speaking we love you -- your soul that is. We hate the ideas (aka mind parasites) which currently "possess" you, just as they once possessed many of us (not that any of us are ever completely free of mind parasites -- I sure ain't).

StormCchaser said...

As the original author, I appreciate your effort. I hope you don't mind if I grab and modify your version. I had been planning on putting it in DSM format for years, and never gotten around to it.



Gagdad Bob said...

The real reasons Obama is so contemptuously AWOL on Iran. I will have even more contempt for him when he abandons his "principles" and starts supporting the movement. At least Goddinpotty is unwavering in his idiocy. Give him that.

Joan of Argghh! said...

It has to do with having a realist view of foreign policy, as opposed to the crusade-of-good-against-evil that was exemplified by the Bush admnistration and that you nitwits have bought into.

I'm sure the students in the streets of Iran are quite desperate for a meddling foreign policy; they, more than any commenters anywhere, have a clear focus on the good-v-evil crusade you deride.

The world stage isn't a Star Trek episode all full of "the prime directive" fatuous policy of the elites. But which convenient affectation shall the Left adopt this week? Non-interference as the prime directive, or nanny-state oppression of their fellow citizens?

Obama's diffident and callow approach is either incompetent or deliberate.

Either way, the result is the same: our international neighbor's children are being murdered in the streets of Iran.

hoarhey said...

Turd Worshipper sides with the nit-wit neocons.
Who'da thunk?

Joan of Argghh! said...

Oh, and Geo. Will and Peggy Noonan?


Their isolation from Conservative mainstream, by virtue of their Beltway perqs and privilege long ago revealed them to be the society gloms they are.

Gagdad Bob said...

Even Gallup has his popularity crumbling. I believe the "cracking" stage has begun. You heard it here first!

Gagdad Bob said...

Off topic, but placing Thomas the Tank Engine wooden tracks underneath the spikes of my new Martin Logan speakers greatly enhances the sound. Voices really "bloom."

will said...

As for Obama's silence, which I think shakes down to a sick moral equivalency:

I notice that Obama-philes are flocking to the airwaves to defend his "nuanced" non-response to the protests. Let's not inflame the Iranian power elite, we Americans have been such bad boys in the mideast, etc. All of which amounts to - Let's NOT speak truth to evil power.

Remember back in the coldest days of the Cold War when R Reagan called the USSR an "evil empire"? How the lefties blanched and squawked in horror? Why, RR just went and upset the morally skewed Detente applecart, what godawful repercussions might ensue??

Natan Sharansky, then Soviet dissident (later Israeli citizen and Deputy PM Minister) was freezing his butt off in an icy gulag when RR dropped the evil empire bomb - Sharansky was to later say that the entire Soviet dissident mvt, in and out of the gulag, was electrified by RR's comment. It galvanized them, gave them hope that America finally understood that the USSR was indeed evil. The dissident mvt. gained new life, new fervor while the Soviet bosses experienced a collapse of moral. All one has to do is to turn the light on in a darkened room and the vermin will scatter.

In short, RR's simple unadorned comment might have been the initiating spark that eventuated in the collapse of the USSR.

Van Harvey said...

"Politics truly is a sort of show business for the unattractive -- the psychologically unattractive. And you can well understand why the Democrat party would attract such people, because unlike conservatism, it does not mainly consist of ideas but of promises made to various constituencies of dysfunctional losers, weirdos, cranks, misfits, and malcontents. It is the party of the Unhappy who imagine that the state can make them happy."

Very true... and speaking of gulpingpotty, it said "Answer the question or I'll take it as a tacit admission that you can't think your way out of a wet paper bag."

That's rich, the creature who has yet to answer the most basic of questions about individual rights, property rights, the purpose of govt, and who just demonstrated his complete inability to differentiate between the essentials of what evil is, and is not ("...recently it was conservatives who wanted to bomb Iran, which would have resulted in many more instances of "pure evil" as above..."), is going to demand an answer from us, about something it hasn't even a coherent conception of, let alone understanding.

Can you say... go fish?

Susannah said...

Bob, fatherhood has many advantages it seems. :) I hope you (and all the daddies here) had a wonderful father's day!

Gagdad Bob said...

If Obama had been President in 1987, he would have said, "Mr. Gorbachev, repaint this wall! Something that doesn't clash with the bloodstains!"

Gagdad Bob said...


Obama could never say what RR said, because he truly believes that the US is morally inferior.

will said...

>>Obama could never say what RR said, because he truly believes that the US is morally inferior<<

Sadly true. Oh, for a shadow president who drinks from the well of Truth.

Stay thirsty, my friends.

Gagdad Bob said...

From the Wiki page, to which someone added some fine editorializing at the end:

'The famous "tear down this wall" phrase was intended as the logical conclusion of the President's proposals. As the speech was being drafted, inclusion of the words became a source of considerable controversy within the Reagan administration. Several senior staffers and aides advised against the phrase, saying anything which might cause further East-West tensions or potential embarrassment to Gorbachev, with whom President Reagan had built a good relationship, should be omitted.... On May 18, 1987, President Reagan met with his speechwriters and responded to the speech by saying, "I thought it was a good, solid draft." Chief of Staff Howard Baker objected, saying it sounded "extreme" and "unpresidential," and Deputy National Security Advisor Colin Powell agreed. Nevertheless, Reagan liked the passage, saying, "I think we'll leave it in." Reagan had some huge balls, son. Huge balls.'

ximeze said...

Oh lookit: Colon of Arabia was on the weinie-side of the discussion.

Another 'sane conservative'.

Mrs. G said...

Happy Father's Day to Bob and all the rest of you guys who are saving civilization one kid at a time.

Mrs. G

Johan said...

by accident I found this comment on twitter (a place I had never visited before), so I captured a screen shot:

“We students do not chant Death to America. We want the American constitution”.

Joan of Argghh! said...

From NRO's Corner:

"The administration's words suggest Obama is caught in a political version of the theory of relativity — that he moves along a predetermined course that prevents him from seeing the new situation in Tehran exactly as it occurs. He clings to the pre-election paramount goal of keeping alive the chances for a nuclear deal with any government in Tehran.

Focusing now, and narrowly, on obtaining the highly improbable nuclear accord neglects the moral and historical dimensions of mass protest in authoritarian societies such as Iran's"

QP said...

So while good people continue to struggle with compiling the moral narrative, like Diana West does with observations from John Bolton and Andrew Bostom on the difference between A-jad and Mousavi, it takes the invention of Twitter to disappear the art of agenda camouflage.

Thanks for the screen shot capture of what is Johan. Hell, I want the American Constitution too. In the meantime, Joan's last quote from NRO, points to a reminder from Pope Benedict: "Freedom is living in the truth."

QP said...

But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. ~ James 1:22

My heart has been rekindled to action. Please pray for Arab Vision.

goddinpotty said...

Northern Bandit: We hate the ideas (aka mind parasites) which currently "possess" you, just as they once possessed many of us

How do you know you aren't posessed now by a different (and worse) set? Because that's sure how it looks to me.

I'm guessing the answer will be something about how you suddenly were filled with certainty due to some flash of divine revelation or like that. Naturally the most efficient mind parasites are those that can induce such feelings; so there is no particular reason to trust that sort of thing.

Van Harvey said...

gulpingpotty said "How do you know you aren't posessed now by a different (and worse) set? Because that's sure how it looks to me."

Perhaps you are just a brain in a vat, Vat 69 perhaps... that would explain much.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Thanks for the Father'sDay well wishes Ladies! :^)

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

John Moore-

Good stuff! Thanks for coontributing.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...


Joan's last quote from NRO, points to a reminder from Pope Benedict: "Freedom is living in the truth."

A big AYE to that!

Susannah said...

I'm sharing that link, QP. Thank you. Hubby saw this one the other day. (Hope my link works; I'm hopeless at this!)

Brazentide said...

Reality (including blogs) is no place for the solipsismal mind.

We need to have a starting point for truth, but I'm concerned that from potty's perspective, the view might be a bit grim when the lid is raised.

Herman Benschop said...

The PPD diagnosis is wonderful stuff. I'd like permission to translate it into Dutch and publish it on Dutch-language blogs.

Gagdad Bob said...

Permission granted!

Herman Benschop said...

It took a couple of hours work but I think I've done a good job with the translation. The result can be found here: