paranoia?
MANICHAEAN PARANOIA is the moral certitude that one is leading the forces of good against the empire of evil. it is the idea that one's moral superiority justifies one in committing immoral acts. because one perpetrates these acts on "immoral" people, one is not morally responsible for themeans used, only the ends achieved.
the term has its roots in the ancient PERSIAN RELIGION MANICHAEISM, which held a highly dualistic view of the world----a viewpoint of black or white, enemy or friend. it split the world into good and evil which then are in constant conflict. in manchaean paranoia, this combines with a paranoia about the dark evil and the irrational fear that this evil is actively out to "get" you, causing you to fight against it or be destroyed by it. this can lead to the justification of "evil" actions in the name of good.
this intense dualism can lead to a moral polarization, where every position can take on either a morally good or morally evil cast, resulting in very little ground for neutrality. because everything is either morally good or morally evil, taking any position other than the "good" one can result in defaulting to evil. it is then possible that those who criticie the morally good are seen as automatically morally evil, while those that pledge loyalty to the morally good are seen as morally good no matter what actions they may commit.
THIS IS FROM WIKIPEDIA, the encyclopedia on the internet.
read the above again. then listen to "right wing" radio talk or the speeches of george w. bush and see what conclusions you draw.
from the "you are either with us or against us" of gwb's speech or the unending attack on "liberalism" by the commentators on right wing radio, you will hear that moral certitude coming through. they are "right" and anyone who disagrees in any way is therefore "wrong." to disagree with bush is to be a supporter of terrorism. no middle ground, no way to compromise, no way to even discuss.
i listened to two right wing radio shows the other day (have no idea who they were), one of which was going on and on about how "war against evil is good" and how "war purifies a nation". the other one (may have been coulter) was ranting about how the "left" has no intellectaul basis for their arguments and therefore all leftist arguments are invalid. both shows kept complimenting their own listeners on "how intelligent" they are for listening to them. the inability to listen to the other side and to automatically discount any view that does not agree is not a sign of intellect. it is a sign of either sickness or stupidity. or manichaean paranoia.
the term has its roots in the ancient PERSIAN RELIGION MANICHAEISM, which held a highly dualistic view of the world----a viewpoint of black or white, enemy or friend. it split the world into good and evil which then are in constant conflict. in manchaean paranoia, this combines with a paranoia about the dark evil and the irrational fear that this evil is actively out to "get" you, causing you to fight against it or be destroyed by it. this can lead to the justification of "evil" actions in the name of good.
this intense dualism can lead to a moral polarization, where every position can take on either a morally good or morally evil cast, resulting in very little ground for neutrality. because everything is either morally good or morally evil, taking any position other than the "good" one can result in defaulting to evil. it is then possible that those who criticie the morally good are seen as automatically morally evil, while those that pledge loyalty to the morally good are seen as morally good no matter what actions they may commit.
THIS IS FROM WIKIPEDIA, the encyclopedia on the internet.
read the above again. then listen to "right wing" radio talk or the speeches of george w. bush and see what conclusions you draw.
from the "you are either with us or against us" of gwb's speech or the unending attack on "liberalism" by the commentators on right wing radio, you will hear that moral certitude coming through. they are "right" and anyone who disagrees in any way is therefore "wrong." to disagree with bush is to be a supporter of terrorism. no middle ground, no way to compromise, no way to even discuss.
i listened to two right wing radio shows the other day (have no idea who they were), one of which was going on and on about how "war against evil is good" and how "war purifies a nation". the other one (may have been coulter) was ranting about how the "left" has no intellectaul basis for their arguments and therefore all leftist arguments are invalid. both shows kept complimenting their own listeners on "how intelligent" they are for listening to them. the inability to listen to the other side and to automatically discount any view that does not agree is not a sign of intellect. it is a sign of either sickness or stupidity. or manichaean paranoia.
posted by Ron Shock | 10:28 AM
3 Comments:
Since you mention Persian made me think of Persia or Iran.
Now to the point. It will be interesting what sort of situation evolves now that Mr. Putin seems to becoming engaged. Could he be the voice of reason?
It reminds me of the term ,fair and balanced which could make one feel they are not closed minded.
russia is filling the void of counter-weight to the unilateral actions of gwb. while putin is, in fact, moving towards a dictatorship of sorts in russia, he is enough of a pragmatic person to not step over the line but he is doing enough to give pause to bush. with russia aligning themselves with iran (persia) george and his neo-con gang will have a much harder time trying to attack the iranian homeland.
Post a Comment
<< Home