Denial and Self-Delusion

[John]

A lot of what I've written about on this web site is about "denial"
and self-delusion. This is particularly evident in Washington, where
"experts," politicians, analysts and journalists, who know almost
nothing about what's going on in the world, express opinions totally
lacking in intelligence.

There is a single root concept that most forms of denial have in
concept: The unwillingness to believe that things happens despite
what the politicians do and say. What Generational Dynamics shows is
that great events occur because of things that happened decades or
even centuries earlier, and that politicians can neither cause nor
prevent them.

This denial occurs on both the left and the right. In recent years
the major form of denial on the right is the refusal to believe that
democracies have wars any less often than dictatorships. Rush
Limbaugh is the main example of denial on the right.

One of the most bizarre examples of this was when Republican foreign
affairs expert Jim Baker decided that we can "flip Syria" to solve
all of our Mideast problems.

** Can we 'flip Syria' and solve all the Mideast problems?
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... 07#e061207

On the left, there have been massive amounts of insanity generated by
the leftist Gen-X loons on web sites like moveon.org and
dailykos.com. The fact that the amount of insanity on the left is so
much greater than the amount of insanity on the right is a historical
accident. The insanity of the left was generated by Boomers in the
1960s Awakening era. It never made much sense in the 60s, and since
then it's morphed into this body of intellectual garbage that's been
fully adopted by the leftist Gen-X loons, who refuse to believe
anything else.

Thus, the concept of "denial" is closely tied into the concept of
"ideology." When people with two different ideologies argue with
each other, each assumes that the other is ideological and in denial.

Each person is unwilling to recognize his own ideology. His own
ideology becomes proven established truth, not an ideology. It's
always the other side that's being ideological. This is hugely
apparent on the left these days, as I frequently hear pundits say,
"The Bush administration was totally ideological; the Obama
administration will be based on facts, not ideology."

Today, the loony left ideology has become so dominant, that it's
treated by many journalists and politicians as "fact," not ideology.
This is the phenomenon that Friedrich Nietzsche was describing when
he said:

> "Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups,
> parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."

In the financial world, we've seen the massive self-delusion and
denial with respect to the credit bubble. I've quoted the following
in <#hreftext ww2010.i.garrett071009 ""The bubble that broke the
world,""#> written in 1932:

> "Mass delusions are not rare. They salt the human story. The
> hallucinatory types are well known; so also is the sudden
> variation called mania, generally localized, like the tulip mania
> in Holland many years ago or the common- stock mania of a recent
> time in Wall Street. But a delusion affecting the mentality of the
> entire world at one time was hitherto unknown. All our experience
> with it is original.

> This is a delusion about credit. And whereas from the nature of
> credit it is to be expected that a certain line will divide the
> view between creditor and debtor, the irrational fact in this
> case is that for more than ten years debtors and creditors
> together have pursued the same deceptions. In many ways, as will
> appear, the folly of the lender has exceeded the extravagance of
> the borrower."

This form of denial is being repeated today, with disastrous effects.

The GI Generation and Silent Generation that survived World War II
had most of their self-delusions wiped away by the Great Depression
and the war itself. The Boomers re-introduced self-delusion in the
1960s, and today self-delusion is the rule, among Millennials,
Gen-Xers, and Boomers. There is no room for reality in today's
world.

The cycle of denial and self-delusion is tied into the generational
cycle. As the survivors of the previous crisis war die off, the
younger generations move farther and father away from reality and
more and more into self-delusion. This is the most dangerous time
for a society, and the self-delusion prevalent among the loony left
today is the greatest danger to America's society.

Incidentally, I get accused now and then of being "ideological,"
although no one has ever been able to identify what my "ideology" is
supposed to be, since neither Republicans nor Democrats would ever
associate themselves with anything on this web site. Nor would any
other political group that I'm aware of. I do try to support
Generational Dynamics predictions with detailed explanations of
generational theory.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com/forum

[John]

-- Sleazy reporting on global warming and "denial"

On Friday, Jason Margolis of NPR delivered one of the sleaziest
reports I've heard. I was interested in the report in the first
place because it was on the subject of "denial," but it turned out to
be largely a really nasty screed attacking anyone who doesn't accept
the leftist tenets on global warming.

In the course of the report, Margolis assumed that whatever Al Gore
says is the Golden Truth of the Universe. He criticizes "global
warming skeptics" as "deniers," and likens them to Holocaust deniers.
Along the way, he completely misrepresents what they're saying.

It's interesting to contrast NPR (National Public Radio) with the
BBC. The BBC has reporters around the world. Although I've accused
the BBC of being anti-American several times, the fact is that
seeing and understanding what's going on in places like Darfur and
Sri Lanka and Pakistan forces them accept reality that goes well
beyond the ideology of the loony left.

The reporters at NPR have no such conflicts. They have little idea
what's going on in the world, and they get most of their information
from Washington politicians, analysts and loons. Thus, much of what
you hear on NPR is highly delusional.

If you want to hear Margolis' entire report, use the following links:

http://www.theworld.org/?q=node/22729
http://www.theworld.org/audio/1121088.mp3

The following is my transcript of most of the report:

> Barack Obama: Now is the time to confront this challenge once and
> for all. Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an
> acceptable option.

> Announcer: It's not clear whether the President-elect was talking
> about a few powerful individuals, or a larger group of people.

> A poll taken by the Pew organization earlier this year showed
> that one in five Americans don't believe that the earth is
> warming, and that a majority of Americans believe the rising
> global temperatures have nothing to do with human activity.

> So on the face of it, some might say there is group denial in
> this country over global warming, and our role in it.

> As it turns out, group denial is pretty common across the globe.
> The World's Jason Margolis has more.

> Jason Margolis: At a recent conference on climate change in NY
> city, Christopher Monckton, a member of the British house of
> Lords, gave the opening address.

> Christopher Monckton: Current plans to curtail the emission of
> carbon dioxide are a useless and dangerous misallocation of
> intellectual capital and resources, that could and should be more
> productively allocated to addressing the real needs of humanity.

> Margolis: This wasn't a typical climate conference, for those
> here say global warming is a hoax. Scientists still widely debate
> what the impacts of global warming will be, but they don't debate
> that the planet is warming. That is unequivocal. And scientists
> say that it's almost certainly being driven by human activity.

Notice here that Margolis is lying. Monckton didn't say that global
warming was a hoax. He said that plans to curtail carbon dioxide
emissions are useless and a waste of money.

In fact, I showed exactly the same thing a year ago, when I showed
that the "cap and trade" scheme to reduce carbon emissions was being
driven by the same Gen-X financial engineers who created worthless
securities from subprime mortgages. This time, they want to create
worthless securities from "carbon credits," and then make fat
commissions by selling them to investors.

** UN Climate Change conference appears to be ending in farce
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... b#e071214b

** UN Climate Change conference reaches a compromise agreement
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... 16#e071216

There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that anything that's being proposed
today to reduce carbon emissions has any chance at all of succeeding.
The "cap and trade" concept is a hare-brained scam.

Here's what I've written before about Al Gore:

> This whole thing is a big joke. Even if all the claims about
> "global warming" are true (and I doubt it), I still haven't heard
> anything remotely like a technology or a plan to stop it that has
> even the tiniest hope of making any difference.

> Al Gore himself obviously thinks it's a big joke. He lives in a
> mansion expending huge amounts of energy, and makes jokes about
> donating money to Greenpeace to make up for it. Every chance he
> gets, he uses "global warming" as an opportunity to make fatuous
> political statements.

> If Al Gore really believed what he was saying, then he'd be a lot
> more serious. Instead, his only prescription is that you should
> vote for Democrats. If he really believed what he was saying, and
> that the earth was in danger, he wouldn't be joking around and
> making stupid political statements.

> I know this because I DO believe what I'm saying. I believe
> every word that I write on my web site. When I was just getting
> started, and realized the consequences to myself and the world, I
> was so depressed that I couldn't sleep for months.

> (Incidentally, I'm doing my part to support the great worldwide
> crusade to prevent global warming. I use fluorescent light bulbs
> throughout my apartment, I walk often, and when I drive, it's a
> compact car. I feel confident that my "carbon footprint" is
> smaller than Al Gore's.)

So now, let's return to the report by John Margolis:

> More than 2500 scientific experts from over 130 countries agreed
> to this conclusion in a United Nations report last year. People
> at the conference in NY are unimpressed with this body of work.

> [More from the conference, including tearing down Monckton.]

> Monckton calls people like himself "Climate change skeptics."
> But many say that this is no longer healthy skepticism. This is
> denial.

> When people are faced with a fact that's too uncomfortable to
> accept, they deny it, despite what may be overwhelming evidence.

> Denial comes in different forms, says Peter Sandman, an
> international risk consultant. He helps people and governments
> understand risk and denial. First, Sandman says, there's
> strategic denial.

> Sandman: That's the least interesting, but it's at least
> important intellectually to understand that sometimes people know
> perfectly well that X is true, but they deny it anyway, because
> it's in their interest to pretend it's not true.

> Margolis: The second type of denial is when people believe that
> something can't be true.

> Sandman: Something that's so frightening, you can't bear it.

> Margolis: For example, when societies fail to prepare adequately
> for pandemics. On an individual level, many people fail to give
> themselves exams for breast cancer, even though they know they
> should.

> Sandman: They're not failing to check for lumps because they're
> insufficiently worried about breast cancer. They're failing to
> check for lumps because they're EXCESSIVELY worried about breast
> cancer.

> Margolis: Sandman says there's a third type of denial, where
> reality threatens our world view.

> Sandman: This is something that if it were true, you're wrong
> about the world, and you'll have to reassess your entire sense of
> how life is. And people have extremely strong commitments in
> continuing to see the world the way they see the world.

> Margolis: This happens across the planet.

> Volkan: Every country does the same thing, everywhere in the
> whole world.

> Vamik Volkan is an expert on large group psychology, at the
> University of Virginia. He says entire nations regress and blur
> fantasy with reality. In Sreb..., Bosnia, around 8,000 Muslims
> were murdered by Serbs. Mass graves were later uncovered. To
> this day, many Serbs deny the massacre.

> In Turkey, much of the nation denies the massacre of Armenians
> during World War I, despite strong historical evidence.

> Sometimes denial and avoidance become blurred. We don't deny
> facts, but we push them away. Vamik Volkan sees this milder form
> of denial with Americans today, with the way we view Iraq, or
> rather the way we sometimes choose to ignore Iraq.

> Volkan: We don't talk about the horrors of wars or killing so
> many Iraqis every day. It just gets rationalized.

> Margolis: Volkan doesn't draw a moral equivalence between a
> society that ignores the horrors of war, versus, say, the facts
> about global warming. But he does say the same large group
> psychology is at work. Our group identity is threatened. We are
> part of the problem. That's hard for us to accept.

> Still, science is not war. Science can be tested and verified.
> So why do so many Americans still deny the existence of global
> warming?

> Maybe in part because it's a highly politicized issue, pitting
> Democrats against Republicans. On the Democratic side, Al Gore
> has become the leading voice for action to reverse global warming.
> And a lot of Republicans don't always believe Al Gore. Again,
> Peter Sandman.

> Sandman: Mistrust of the messenger is certainly a major reason
> why people reject messages. But it's very often a rationale for
> denial.

> Margolis: We're all guilty of this. Take a moment and think of a
> politician or pundit you despise. We often have a knee-jerk
> reaction to dismiss whatever he or she says, even when it's true.
> Sandman adds that with climate change, many people have been
> pushed into denial. He says guilt is a bad motivator, and some
> environmentalists have sometimes been too aggressive.

> Sandman: What they're saying to the public is you, you're
> consumptive life style, your insistence on living high on the hog,
> you greedy American, you're responsible for ruining the world.
> Therefore, you ought to stop.

> Margolis: Sandman proposes this imaginary alternative, that might
> provoke less denial.

> Sandman: You know, the world has improved more in the last
> hundred years than in the previous thousand. Then suddenly, very
> belatedly, just in the last decade, we begin to get a sense that
> there was an unintended and unknowable outcome, that this huge
> improvement in our quality of life, it now looks like is
> unsupportable by the ecosystem. Who knew? Who could have known?

> Margolis: In other words, putting people less on the defensive is
> more likely to decrease denial. Which brings us to the word
> itself.

> "Denial" is a loaded term, often associated with the denial of
> atrocities in Nazi Germany. And because of this, Matthew Nesbitt,
> a communications professor at American University doesn't like
> using the term.

> Nesbitt: It sort of violates a third rail of political rhetoric
> in that it immediately puts or triggers 07:22. people's
> interpretations of the Holocaust.

> Margolis: Nesbitt says that when you're referring to your
> opponents as deniers, you're associating them with some of the
> most evil people in history. The countercharge would be, "How
> dare you call me a denier."

> When that happens, the debate goes exactly in the direction of
> where you don't want it to go. It becomes a discussion of the
> personalities involved in a conflict, rather than the substance
> of the issue which was your original goal in the first place.
> 07:50, so ultimately it ends up being very distracting.

> At the conference of self-labeled climate change skeptics in NY,
> they agree the term "denier" is offensive. Yet the speakers
> continually bring up the term and the idea of the Holocaust.

> Timothy Ball: About five years ago, the ?? referred to me as a
> "climate change denier," with all of the holocaust connotations
> of that term.

> Roy Innis: We are deniers, you know. It's a very slick way to
> push us into a corner, to look as if we're the moral equivalent,
> or the immoral equivalent of the Nazis, Holocaust deniers.

> Margolis: Those were conference speakers Timothy Ball and Roy
> Innis. By referring to others referring to them as deniers,
> climate change experts are making themselves the victims, says
> large group psychology expert Vamik Volkan, a very common trait
> across cultures.

> Volkan: If you're a victim, you're going to put it as a marker,
> and tell the whole world that, my God, I am victimized, and I am
> going to let everybody know.

> Margolis: And no matter how much evidence is presented, some
> people just won't accept the different version from what they
> believe, perhaps something like this story. I asked Vamik Volkan
> if some people listening to this report will simply think, "More
> lies from the liberal media."

> Volkan: Yeah, they don't invest in it. If some disaster occurred
> because of global warming, then they would change. Or, if a new
> leader comes and explains to them in a different way, if the
> leader is charismatic, then the whole societal process will
> change.

> Margolis: Of course, that's what some people are hoping for with
> the election of Barack Obama. They think, this is a time deniers
> might reassess long-held beliefs. For "The World," I'm Jason
> Margolis.

There was one thing about this report that I found particular
interesting, Peter Sandman's list of three kinds of denial:

• Strategic denial, where people know perfectly well that X is true,
  but they deny it anyway, because it's in their interest to pretend
  it's not true.
• People believe something that cannot be true, something that's so
  frightening, you can't bear it. An example is failure to prepare for
  a bird flu pandemic.
• Where reality threatens our world view. This is something that if
  it were true, you're wrong about the world, and you'll have to
  reassess your entire sense of how life is. And people have extremely
  strong commitments in continuing to see the world the way they see the
  world.

The stuff about Holocaust denial in the report is fatuous sleaze,
with no other purpose except to smear people with whom Margolis'
ideology disagrees.

Sincerely,

John