Obama states that ISIS was not gaining in strength, though many in his
own party said to express such words are essentially delusional. Of course it’s
gaining in strength. But the reason that ‘delusion’ is the gentlest
interpretation, I think the more likely explanation is, he knows that opposition is weakening, he knows that ISIS is robust and that it’s a
menace, but in the end, he doesn’t think it matters. He’s never thought the war
on terror was important or existential. I contend there is a difference between
millions of people suffering and an existential threat to the West, which is
what it is, and which is what he denies. Obama’s actions and attitude with
regard to radical Islam as surreal.
I was reading a piece written by a psychologist, reference the
Paris terror attacks. The author states “Some good people have a hard time
grasping that these people could go into a crowded theater and start shooting
innocent men, women and children…That’s just malevolent in our time.”
This president’s not recognizing or worse yet, won’t recognize the
danger for what it is. Is this not pathological that he will not recognize
radical Islam? Obama’s lack of action or inaction in response to the Paris
Islamic terrorist attack makes it apparent that failure to recognize the truth
for what it is, is absolutely pathological. And it’s not just pathological;
it’s imprudent and it’s perilous, one might even say stupid.
For numerous years, many
rational Americans have been trying to explain Obama and his thought process. Some
people have made inferences, including the possibility that he’s a genuine
sociopath that is without conscience. I read where one columnist, George Will
described Barack Obama’s intellectual sociopathy –“his often breezy and
sometimes loutish indifference to truth.” Now, does the term sociopathy
actually fit Obama’s profile? Are not sociopaths often well-liked because of their charm and high charisma, but
they do not usually care about other people. Do they not think mainly of
themselves and often blame others for the things that they do? Do they not
often display a complete disregard for rules and tell untruths constantly? Though
my memory may have faltered somewhat since graduate school at Boston University,
my understanding is that sociopaths seldom feel guilt or learn from castigation.
Seems like a pretty good fit, but let’s resume this discourse.
I have read where a forensic psychiatrist has described Obama in terms
of “malignant narcissistic personality disorder.” The modifier “malignant”
signifies the version of narcissistic personality disorder that may cross over
into criminality. Malignant narcissism is characterized by a capitulated will. All
adults who are mentally healthy submit themselves one way or another to
something higher than themselves, be it God or truth or love or some other
ideal. They do what God wants them to do rather than what they would desire.
“Thy will, not mine, be done,” the God-submitted person says. They believe in
what is true rather than what they would like to be true.
In summary, to a
greater or lesser degree, all mentally healthy individuals submit themselves to
the demands of their own conscience. Not so the evil, however. In the conflict
between their conscience (guilt) and their will, it is the guilt that must go
and the will that must win. Are you not struck by the extraordinary willfulness of evil people? They are men and
women of obviously strong will, determined to have their own way. There is a
remarkable power in the manner in which they attempt to control others.
No comments:
Post a Comment