Saturday, July 12, 2014

Ethical Narcissism

Over the last couple of years, this concept of ethical narcissism has nudged its way into my consciousness as I think about the "problem(3) of the problem(2) of the problem(1)" -- where problem(1) is Islam, problem(2) is mainstream Western PC MC myopia about problem(1), and problem(3) is the extent of flawed analysis in the nascent Counter-Jihad of both problem(2) and problem(1).

The concept or phenomenon of ethical narcissism certainly is a major factor in problem(2) -- i.e., in PC MC -- insofar as PC MC cultivates a smugly preening self-satisfaction (combined with an irrational anxiety) about Doing the Right Thing defined apodictically as embracing and respecting Muslims and their Culture (i.e., Islam), along with the flip side, vilifying anyone (usually through the framework of an Eqo Quoque fallacy) who dares to subject Muslims to criticism (much less to the condemnation they so richly deserve).

Where it gets interesting, because less obvious, is the degree of ethical narcissism in the Counter-Jihad.  When it exerts itself in an individual who self-identifies as being Counter-Jihad, it is usually (and logically) correlated directly with the degree of PC MC in his heart and mind.  In previous essays, I have termed this retention of PC MC in the supposedly politically incorrect Counter-Jihadist the "asymptotic tendency".  So, to the extent that the Counter-Jihadist is asymptotic, to that extent he will indulge in ethical narcissism.

What then is ethical narcissism...?  As I implied above, it is essentially the egotistical need to feel better about oneself as intimately tied to the way one treats Muslims.  Now, for the garden-variety PC MC, this presents less of a problem, since they don't set up the enormous cognitive dissonance which the asymptote creates in his own heart and mind.  I.e., the PC MC is already predisposed to try to feel good about Muslims, to embrace and respect them and their Culture, and so he has ordinarily little tension between that and his logical extension of this, when he proceeds in one or more of a variety of ways to do just that, in word and/or in deed -- to embrace and respect Muslims and their Culture.

The asymptotic Counter-Jihadist (or "asymptote"), on the other hand, can often generate a good deal of internal tension and dissonance, because he is otherwise familiarizing himself with an inordinate amount of ugly data about Muslims and their Islam, and he likely is supplementing this autodidactic learning curve with an activity of participating, more or less, in a self-reinforcing subculture of discussion about how evil Islam is -- whether in discussion forums, chat rooms, book clubs, town meetings, informal gatherings, and so on.  In this ongoing context, which is not static, but must be growing apace with the continuing escalating metastasis of Islamic jihad around the world, the asymptote will increasingly feel a deep discomfort, because his own self-worth is joined at the hip with how good he feels about himself as an ethical person, and his ethics in turn are dependent -- in part -- on the PC MC still resident in his heart and mind through his asymptotic tendency.

To put it simply, the residue of PC MC in his heart and mind tells him to be nice to Muslims, while his growing knowledge of Muslims and their Islam tells him this will be very difficult, if not impossible to do, if he wants to protect his society and if he wants to stand up for human rights.  Indeed, what often occurs is the development of a tension between two competing ethical concerns: the ethical concern to be nice (or "humane") to Muslims, and the opposite ethical concern to stand up for the rights of the various victims of Islamic violence and oppression.  Of course, this wouldn't be much of a tension, nor much of a problem, if one is convinced (as the mainstream PC MCs are) that Muslims by and large (other than a "Tiny Minority of Extremists") aren't doing that much violence or oppression.  But the tension can become enormous, the more that a person has opened his mind to learn the horrifying mountain of data out there about the grotesquely ghoulish and gruesome atrocities Muslims are perpetrating around the world, in a context furthermore of a concerted desideratum to conquer the world and try to destroy our free world using a combination of terrorism and stealth jihad.

In addition, the latter -- stealth jihad -- involves a cultivation and deployment of mendacity and deceit (taqiyya), which, as we in the Counter-Jihad have learned, all too often results in the phenomenon of the False Moderate: precisely the type of Muslim who seems relatively nice and decent, thus tugging at the asymptotic heart strings of the ethical narcissist.  As I have reiterated innumerable times (if only because so many in the Counter-Jihad seem obtuse about digesting its full import), the phenomenon of taqiyya in Islam renders it impossible for us to tell the difference between the harmless Muslim (assuming that category exists) and the dangerous Muslim who is advancing, in any one or more of the myriad ways Islam allows, the jihad against us.  Once we realize the impossibility of adequately discerning this difference, we rationally conclude with the grimly dismal inference that the tension set up by our ethical concern cannot find assuagement in some mass demographic of viably harmless Muslims.  The ethical narcissist, however, tends to be unable to face this fact, and seeks other ways to protect his denial -- precisely because his concern to feel better about himself is more important than the truth, and more important than the safety of his society (even if he denies -- even to himself! -- that he is in fact making this choice).

Concluding Words:

That's about the sum of the description of the phenomenon, though there are likely many complexities that could be further teased out.  One that has interested me of late -- and aggravated the hell out of me -- is the tendency of certain Counter-Jihad asymptotes to become more and more irritable and belligerent, the more I defend my stance about total deportation of Muslims from the West.  While this could be due merely to the personality idiosyncrasy of the asymptotes in question, it also could be a peculiar psychological feature brought on by the aforementioned cognitive dissonance between the two competing ethical concerns in his heart and mind.  If my suspicion is correct, their irascible (and irrational) anger at me is really anger at themselves projected at me -- or anger at the situation they find themselves in, where they feel stuck in tension between those two ethical concerns, and they can't discern a way out.  Again, this tension is not static, but gets worse and worse the more they learn about the horrifyingly escalating evil and danger of Islam caused by Muslims.

Now, given this escalating psychological tension, the asymptote suffering from it will have a strong incentive to try to relieve it somehow.  One way to relieve it, of course (the way I recommend, naturally), is to eliminate the silly ethical concern that anxiously seeks to be nice to Muslims.  Part of the anxiety of the asymptote preventing him from doing this is his fear that eliminating this particular ethical concern will automatically propel him along the slip-sliding slippery slope leading inexorably to genocide.  Of course, all good and decent people want to avoid genocide; but that's not the point.  What we have here is the strange psychological phenomenon of an individual irrationally believing he will become genocidal if he starts thinking a certain line of thought:  "Muslims are so dangerous and Islamic taqiyya means we cannot trust any of them, and so we must deport them" -- this is felt powerfully, if semi-consciously, by the asymptote to be indissolubly connected to genocide.  Part and parcel with this, perhaps, is the notion that the mere act of deporting Muslims (and by extension, the prejudicial profiling this will entail) is itself ethically unacceptable; perhaps not quite as bad as genocide, but tantamount to it, in the sense that it is to be verboten -- a thought crime -- and anyone who dares utter it should be vilified.

Usually for the asymptote, the aforementioned way to relieve the tension -- by eliminating the irrationally conceived ethical concern for Muslims -- is not an option.  In lieu of this rational way, they reach for other less rational attempts:  Anger at, and vilification of, the person who dares to remind them of the logic which our horrible learning curve leads us to; that's one way to try to relieve the pressure of that tension.  By projecting their anger and frustration on someone else, and relocating what they fear in themselves onto an external scapegoat, they can feel at least a temporary or superficial relief from the internal tension.

Another way, perhaps more common, is to cultivate a taxonomy of the "Moderate Muslim By Another Name" (a noticeable phenomenon I wrote about not too long ago) -- whereby with one hand the "Moderate Muslim" is ridiculed and rejected (and the asymptote pats himself on the back for being so wise about the problem of Islam), while with the other hand's sleight it is reintroduced as a viable factor under other terms, such as the "Muslim Ignorant of His Own Islam", or the "Lax Muslim", or the "Cultural Muslim", or the "MINO" ("Muslim In Name Only"); and so forth.

What really irks me about the Counter-Jihad asymptote who indulges his ethical narcissism is that apparently he places a higher premium on how good he feels about himself ethically, rather than on the safety of his society.  Of course, if he is confronted with this problem (which should be at least a dilemma for him), he will likely deny it, and he will claim there is nothing but harmony between his own ethics and his civic duty concerning the problem of Islam.  More often than not, however, his words and deeds in other respects will belie this confidence, and will tend to expose the illogic underpinning it, masquerading as logic.

֍ ֍ ֍ ֍ ֍

1 comment:

Egghead said...

"The ethical narcissist, however, tends to be unable to face this fact, and seeks other ways to protect his denial -- precisely because his concern to feel better about himself is more important than the truth, and more important than the safety of his society (even if he denies -- even to himself! -- that he is in fact making this choice)."

Yes, it all starts and ends with false pride - with "You make us look bad. What will I look like to others? How will other people judge me?" It would be better if Westerners were firmly rooted in Christian morality and worried about how the triune God will judge them for contributing to the mass murder of Christians.

And yet, unfortunately, it must be admitted that Jewish people are responsible for a lot of the current and coming misery in the world - with a higher degree of sophistication and success than Muslims.

If one is uncomfortable admitting that Muslims are a huge problem for the West, try admitting that Jews are, too.

After all, Jewish people control the agenda of the Democrat Party via funding, and Democrats are ACTIVELY enforcing a system in which Democrats have permanent power - completely unchecked by the rule of law as practiced in the West BEFORE Jews took power - and completely hostile to the primary tenets of Christianity - INCLUDING the Ten Commandments (which many 'credit' Jews with contributing to Western law).