Willful Blindness and Moral Clarity

WillfulBlindnessby Jerry Richardson3/26/15
In a previously posted article, Willful Blindness, I attempted to explore and generate reader comments concerning willful blindness. My exploration in the previous article focused upon what I chose to call ideological willful blindness.  As a result of that exploration I have read books, read reader-comments, and pondered the concept, so now: What do I think is the primary cause of willful blindness?

Let me just cut to the chase.

The type of willful blindness that I have tried to explore is at bottom a spiritual problem. And that problem is rampant across our nation today.

I’m not talking about the decline of organized religion.  I’m talking about the decline of goodness.  I’m talking about the decline of people’s ability to differentiate between simple right and wrong.  I’m talking about the decline in many spheres—both public and private—of basic honesty and integrity.  I’m talking about the undeniable rise in deceit and outright lies constantly pouring-forth from our highest governmental officials.

I’m talking about a steadily-increasing decline of moral clarity in America.

The concept of moral clarity is stated quite clearly in the Bible in one of the most important, in my opinion, social and political verses in scripture:

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Isaiah 5:20 KJV

Moral clarity is the ability and the willingness to refrain from equating good and evil; and to clearly recognize which is which.  Lack of moral clarity will always be found where there is False Moral Equivalency.

I think that some of the best writing on the concept of moral clarity is found in Natan Sharansky’s riveting book, THE CASE FOR DEMOCRACY THE POWER OF FREEDOM TO OVERCOME TYRANNY AND TERROR.  The book is well worth a read.

Here are two pertinent quotes from Sharansky’s book:

Over the years, I have come to understand a critical difference between the world of fear and the world of freedom. In the former, the primary challenge is finding the inner strength to confront evil. In the latter, the primary challenge is finding the moral clarity to see evil.

<blockquote>Those who seek to move the earth must first, as Archimedes explained, have a place to stand. Moral clarity provides us with a place to stand, a reference point from where to leverage our talents, ideas, and energies to create a better world. Without moral clarity, without a reference point, those same talents, ideas, and energies are just as likely to do harm as good.

—Sharansky, Natan; Dermer, Ron (2009-02-23). The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror (location 354, 307) Kindle Edition.

OUR WILLFULLY BLIND PRESIDENT

What is the mistake that President Obama is making with Iran?  It is not just the probability of allowing Iran a path to a nuclear weapon; it goes to something more fundamental than that.

In the words of Natan Sharansky we have leaders (especially the President) who do not have “the moral clarity to see evil.” This is a glaring spiritual problem—it results from a vacuum that many people recognized in Barack Obama even before he became President.  And what is that vacuum?  There have been numerous speculations with few consistent agreements.

Dr. Ben Carson (who may run for President) just recently stated in public that Obama is a “psychopath”; strong words, but many of Obama’s behaviors certainly fit a number of Dr. Robert Hare’s 20-item Psychopathy Checklist. Here are several items from the checklist, decide for yourself if you think they describe any of Barack Obama’s observed behaviors:

1. Glibness/Superficial Charm
2. Grandiose Sense of Self-Worth
3. Need for Stimulation
4. Pathological Lying
5. Conning/Manipulation
6. Lack of Remorse or Guilt
7. Shallow Affect
8. Callous/Lack of Empathy
9. Parasitic Lifestyle
14. Impulsivity
15. Irresponsibility
16. Failure to Accept Responsibility for Own Actions

—Kiehl Ph.D., Kent A. (2014-04-22). The Psychopath Whisperer: The Science of Those Without Conscience (pp. 46). Kindle Edition.

The undeniable evidence of President Obama’s lack of moral clarity is the well-documented and frequently-noticed fact that the President and his administration are unwilling to even call-out, by name, Islamic Terrorism—there could hardly be a clearer indication of a serious moral deficiency.  How can anyone possible have moral clarity about something they refuse to name?  If this weren’t so serious it would be hilarious; it is so childish; it sounds like a policy someone would develop after reading in Harry Potter about Lord Voldemort—He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.

Natan Sharansky’s two earlier quotes describe in a nut-shell the dangerous weaknesses of President Obama’s dealings with Iran as well as the rest of his disastrous foreign policy:

1) Obama lacks the moral clarity to see evil.

2) Hence, the Obama administration has no consistent baseline or reference point from which to evaluate friends and foes.

What is one of the easily-expected results of Obama’s see-no-evil foreign policy?  Enemies may be treated as friends; and friends may be treated as enemies—our nation is in serious trouble due in-part to the fact that our President cannot seem to tell the good-guys from the bad-guys; or simply won’t because he’s in league with them—I think reasonable people have to consider that a possibility, even though I believe that willful blindness is the most probable explanation.

The simplest statement of a USA foreign-policy baseline has always been, “that which is in the national interest of the USA.” However, it is impossible to accurately determine a viable strategy for defending national interest if you cannot, with reasonable accuracy, sort-out your friends from your enemies.

…we seem still to suffer from Neville Chamberlain’s failure: Our leaders and our intellectuals cannot imagine people so different from our image of human nature.
—-
So we have to ask once again, why don’t we see evil when it’s right in front of our faces?
—-
Just as the West insisted that we could deal peacefully with Hitler, just as we reassured ourselves that Stalin was a decent man and Soviet dictators were just like anybody else, so today our leaders refuse to recognize that other evil regimes are on the march.  The clearest example is Iran, where an evil regime oppresses its people and wages war against us.

—Michael A. Leden, ACCOMPLICE TO EVIL IRAN AND THE WAR AGAINST THE WEST, pp. 62, 76. Hardback.

Moral clarity is a cure for spiritual, willful blindness.  But in order for someone who doesn’t have moral clarity to gain it, there must be a process similar to, or perhaps identical with, biblical repentance (turning around).  Sadly, I don’t see any reason to expect that process to happen in the Oval Office any time soon, at least not prior to 2017.

© 2015, Jerry Richardson • (2082 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Essays. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Willful Blindness and Moral Clarity

  1. Good discussion starter. I found your list of psychopathic personality traits re Obama quite chilling. I’m afraid that politics as it is currently practiced attracts that pathology.

    I also thought you might be interested in a book I read a while back — “The Ethical Brain: the Science of our Moral Dilemmas” by Michael Gazzaniga. It sheds excellent insight into what ethical thought really is.

    Thanks for continuing the discussion. d

  2. Jerry Richardson says:

    Deana,

    Good discussion starter. I found your list of psychopathic personality traits re Obama quite chilling. I’m afraid that politics as it is currently practiced attracts that pathology. —Deana

    Yes, “chilling” is the word. I have been carefully tracking Obama’s treatment of Netanyahu and Israel, including his releasing of Israel’s nuclear information. Unbelievable and inexcusable; I think it definitely requires psychopathic traits to do something like that; for someone to be so intent upon punishing another politician, supposedly an ally, who has displeased him.

    In addition, now Saudi Arabia is talking about the possibility of going nuclear. This maniac in the White House is triggering the build-up for a nuclear confrontation.

    Thanks for your pertinent comments.

  3. Timothy Lane says:

    I reviewed a book here on the Titanic a while back (The Other Side of the Night) in which the author (and this was one reason I reviewed it) described the captain of the Californian as a psychopath. It will not surprise you that his list of symptoms sounded very familiar to any careful observer of current politics.

    As for Saudi Arabia, note the recent claim that they chose not to inform the Obama Gang before their intervention in Yemen because they assumed that Iran’s Man in the White House would have informed the Mullahcracy, who would then have informed the Yemeni Shite (yes, I know that’s technically a misspelling, but I call them as I see them) rebels.

  4. Jerry Richardson says:

    Timothy,

    As for Saudi Arabia, note the recent claim that they chose not to inform the Obama Gang before their intervention in Yemen because they assumed that Iran’s Man in the White House would have informed the Mullahcracy…—Timothy Lane

    Certainly the man or the woman (Jarrett) would have passed-on the word.

    Meanwhile the Saudi’s have their eyes wide-open to the dangers brought-on by the do-nothing Obama administration.

    And of course the only way that Barack “The Blind” Obama is going to lead is from behind, way, way behind as he hides on the golf course.

    WASHINGTON – With the Obama administration holding out for a nuclear deal with Iran, Saudi-led air strikes by 10 coalition members against Iranian-backed al-Houthi targets in neighboring Yemen have won broad U.S. congressional backing as Arab leaders move closer to creating a joint Arab military force.

    The Saudis want to intervene more aggressively against ISIS jihadist fighters and the spread of Iranian influence in the region.

    Creation of a joint force – which has been discussed in recent years but never implemented – comes as the Saudis and close ally Egypt see the United States moving toward a nuclear deal with Iran.

    The imminent deal has caused Riyadh to conclude it can no longer rely on U.S. security guarantees and must take the security initiative.
    —-
    “I applaud the Saudis for taking this action to protect their homeland and to protect their own neighborhood,” House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said at a news conference. “If America leads, our allies in the region would be tickled to death and would be happy to join a coalition. But America has to lead.”

    U.S.-Iran Nuke Deal Prompts Arabs to Create Own Force

  5. Jerry Richardson says:

    In the comments on Willful Blindness, Timothy Lane made a very significant statement:

    One is the ideologically blinded, and a closely related group is those who are simply ignorant.
    —Timothy Lane

    The importance of highlighting this statement is that it is becoming increasingly difficult, in modern society, to distinguish between these two groups. In earlier eras when people usually had some degree of logical training (through formal or self-schooling) it was easier to separate the ideologues from the ignorant. Today…not so easy.

    Take the following as an example and then you decide whether the Democrat politician discussed in the quoted article below is:

    1) Is A willfully blind ideologue
    2) Is Irredeemably ignorant (or stupid)
    3) Has a terminal case of Racism-is-everywhere Syndrome
    3) Some combination of 1) and 2) and 3) above

    Rep. Vanessa Summers (D-Indianapolis), who has represented the 99th District since 1991, thinks white toddlers who fear her are racist. Rather than follow the well-trod path of her progressive brethren by writing a Masters thesis — say, “Changes in Postmodern White Toddler Microaggression in Middle America, Pre- and Post-LBJ” — she took her revelation to an open mic on the statehouse floor:

    The already contentious debate over Indiana’s proposed “religious freedom” bill took a surreal twist Monday afternoon when — in the midst of discussion on the bill — a Democratic lawmaker said that a Republican lawmaker’s child was “scared” of her because she is black.

    The comment by Rep. Vanessa Summers drew audible gasps, in no small part because the child — the son of Rep. Jud McMillin — is 18 months old.

    “I told Jud McMillin I love his son, but he’s scared of me because of my color,” Summers told McMillin, who is white, during debate over the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in the House.

    “It’s hard,” said Summers, D-Indianapolis. Then, as other lawmakers groaned at the comments, she followed up with, “It’s true.”

    “He looked at me like I was a monster and turned around and cried. And I told him you need to introduce your child to some people that are dark-skinned so he will not be scared,” she said.

    Lawmaker Calls Colleague’s 18-Month-Old Toddler a Racist

    This person, Rep. Vanessa Summers (D-Indianapolis), could definitely become a challenger to Sheila Jackson Lee for her title of dumbest lawmaker in the USA at either state of federal level.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Oh, I don’t know. How about Hank Johnson, who was worried that putting too many troops on Guam might cause the island to capsize?

      For that matter, go back and look at the arguments Elizabeth Warren aka Blonde Squaw With Empty Head used both to defend her claim to be an Indian and to support her tax-the-rich philosophy. The first has two major logical errors (one of which should be obvious to anyone), and the second shows a lot of willful blindness (or perhaps sheer ignorance and stupidity).

  6. We really can’t forget in this discussion the role played by arrogance. It can produce the most profound stupidity, the most trenchant stubbornness, the most blatant deception. Once a person gets to the “I will be like the Most High” level of self-importance all hell can break loose. (That’s a fairly literal statement.)

  7. Jerry Richardson says:

    Deana,

    We really can’t forget in this discussion the role played by arrogance.—Deana

    Absolute correct. And I think what you have said characterizes David Brooks’ criticism of Ted Cruz.

    I have argued elsewhere that hypocrisy may serve as a proxy for willful blindness. Here is a case of jaw-dropping hypocrisy by David Brooks, who is supposed to be the token Conservative for the New York Times. This simply documents what many of us already think: Journalists who masquerade as Conservatives are at best willfully blind liberals, and as Deana points out, also arrogant:

    DAVID BROOKS of the NY Times: “My problem with Cruz is that he’s very, very smart – he’s going to Wall Street these days and impressing people with his intelligence – but he’s in the new era of performance politics. He actually hasn’t done much governing in his life but he’s done a lot of performing.”
    —-
    [Brooks] is the same guy who claimed Obama was the smartest presidential candidate ever, based on nothing but press releases and the crease in Obama’s pants. For Brooks and the others this was a good thing even though the contention was completely unverifiable by his college transcripts, which remain legally sealed and never revealed. If we are talking about a Democrat, or Obama specifically, presumed intelligence is a good thing. If we are talking about a Republican, or Cruz specifically, demonstrated and proven intelligence is a problem, according to Brooks.
    —-
    …Cruz’s lack of governing experience is apparently a big negative worth emphasizing. Being Progressive journalists, they can’t even see the irony in their own statements. Candidate Obama not only never governed anything (and still hasn’t), he was famous for voting present on almost every piece of significant legislation presented during his time in the Illinois legislature and he spent most of his time in the U.S. Senate campaigning for president, compiling one of the worst attendance records ever.

    ‘My problem with Cruz is that he’s very, very smart’

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Brooks may have started out as a conservative, but his experience surrounded by otherwise monolithic liberalism at the Slimes eliminated most of that. It’s so easy to yield to groupthink. (In fairness, one should note that conservatives who said Obama lacked experience in 2008 had better have a convincing reason for why Cruz or Paul or Rubio doesn’t lack it.)

      • Jerry Richardson says:

        Timothy,

        (In fairness, one should note that conservatives who said Obama lacked experience in 2008 had better have a convincing reason for why Cruz or Paul or Rubio doesn’t lack it.) —Timothy Lane

        Yes, I don’t think the argument that just because Obama didn’t and doesn’t have experience QED other don’t need it either. So, yes, GOP better be prepared to argue that their candidates have experience.

  8. Timothy Lane says:

    Reading a Thomas Sowell article on minimum wages in Conservative Chronicle reminded me of an excellent example of this ideological blindness. When an activist group that pushed for the new, much higher minimum wage in Seattle found that they couldn’t afford to pay their workers that much, it never occurred to them (or the Seattle officials voting the minimum wage in, or probably the newsliars who urged it) to make the connection to private employers in the same condition. And so, as the new wage takes effect, lots of restaurants are going out of business. Some may simply relocate to more sensible suburbs (if there are any such near Seattle).

  9. Jerry Richardson says:

    Timothy,

    Reading a Thomas Sowell article on minimum wages in Conservative Chronicle reminded me of an excellent example of this ideological blindness. —Timothy Lane

    You have just put your finger on a facet I have not thought about. A major danger of willful blindness is that it puts one a greater danger of unintended consequences. The reason being that is that the more open one is to unpleasant possibilities—not as likely with willful blindness—the more chance to avoid unintended consequences. Score one Tim!

    • Timothy Lane says:

      My view is that the liberal refusal to consider unintentional consequences is an aspect of their unwillingness to accept the possibility that they might possibly be wrong. To a liberal ideologue, there must be no possible case against their policy proposals. Thus, the supposed benefits must be accepted without regard for whether or not they would actually occur, and the possible negative results must be ignored. After all, if there’s any sort of case against their views, then in at least some cases they might actually be wrong, and that is emotionally unacceptable to them. (Whether it’s because they must be right, or the Enemy must be wrong, is an interesting question.)

      This is also why liberals have no interest in checking the results of their policies. It can do no good (they already assume the best), and could do a lot of harm (i.e., prove that they’re wrong).

  10. Jerry Richardson says:

    Here’s more on the observationally-supported opinion that the major underlying cause of Barack Obama’s destructive and irresponsible behavior is that he is likely a high-level psychopath.

    Many people have written about the president’s narcissism. Some have suggested that he may be a sociopath. There is a checklist, developed by Dr. Robert D. Hare in the 1970s and used around the world to diagnose psychopathy. Dr. Hare would likely admit that it is not perfect but it is widely used in psychiatric settings and prisons to determine if an inmate is safe for release. It may be useful in assessing our president and the people with whom he has surrounded himself.

    Obama’s Mental Health: A Checklist

    Although the article linked to above by Patricia McCarthy is very helpful it was not very broadly researched as illustrated by her, probably reflexive, use of the word “sociopath” instead of “psychopath”:

    The term sociopathy was introduced in the 1930s and signified the origin of psychopathic traits from social causes. One of the problems with the diagnosis of sociopathy was that it was too broad and encompassed far too many individuals. Literally every criminal met criteria for the condition. Another unfortunate consequence has been that the term sociopathy has been confused with psychopathy ever since.

    Sociopathy and psychopathy are very different. Sociopathy includes a broad, heterogeneous category of individuals who act antisocially, the causes of which are believed to be social and environmental in nature. Psychopathy is a term grounded in biology and genetics and is truly agnostic to causes or etiology. In other words, genetics and the makeup of the brain, as well as environment, contribute to the construct of psychopathy. Although the term sociopathy is not used in modern academic circles to mean “psychopathy” anymore, some people continue to confuse the terms.

    —Kiehl Phd, Kent A. (2014-04-22). The Psychopath Whisperer: The Science of Those Without Conscience (pp. 40-41). Kindle Edition.

    I think there is a reason that writers often choose the word “sociopath” instead of the more appropriate word “psychopath” when discussing psychopathy. Many people probably believe, incorrectly, that all psychopaths are serial killers. It simply isn’t true.

    And this is what makes Barack Obama’s psychopathic tendencies all the more dangerous—apologists will dismiss any mention of such a thing as an attempt by critics to equate Obama with a serial killer.

    There are nuances to the definition of psychopathy that are often ignored due to the sensationalized use of the term. Here’s a simple reminder: not all psychopaths are criminals, and not all criminals are psychopaths. In fact, you may have an acquaintance that can be considered a psychopath— or you might be a psychopath yourself.
    —-
    Nowadays, people tend to use the term psychopath to refer to almost all criminals who have committed crimes like rape and murder. This misconception cannot be more wrong.
    —-
    Psychopathy means violence. Many people believe that all psychopaths are aggressive individuals with violent tendencies, and that all of them are criminals capable of committing horrendous crimes. While it is true that a fraction of imprisoned criminals have shown symptoms of psychopathy, research suggests that most psychopaths walk freely among “normal” people.

    —Rivers, Clarence T. (2014-01-15). Psychopath: Enter the Mind of a Psychopath! (Psychopath Test, Manipulation) (Psychopath, Psychopath Test, Manipulation) (Kindle Locations 55-105). Kindle Edition.

    Regardless of what appears to be some incompleteness in her research on the topic, the article by Patricia McCarthy contains much hard-hitting truth that the American people need to know about the man who is in the White House:

    While few may be psychiatrists, the American people have had six years, far more than the three hours recommended, to observe President Obama. His score would easily be between 25 and 30.

    This is the man whom Americans twice elected to the presidency. And that is why the entire world is erupting in violence, confused and dangerous, more dangerous than at any time since the end of WWII.

    This man who lies pathologically and feels no empathy (again, too many examples to list but his reactions to the murders of Christopher Stevens and James Foley are indicative), has disdain for America and has set out to do the nation harm as surely as a psychopathic murderer sets out to kill an innocent human being. And he does it all without breaking a sweat or feeling an iota of responsibility or guilt.

    Obama’s Mental Health: A Checklist

    Read the following and decide for yourself if you think it is a fair and accurate description of Barack Obama given his observed behavior since he has been President.

    The term psychopathy was coined in 1941 by a psychiatrist named Hervey M. Cleckley to describe specific traits and behavioral patterns…All they care about is their personal well-being, and they don’t mind lying or doing whatever it takes to get what they want.
    —-
    Psychopaths are highly rational, but they are known to be undependable and irresponsible because they don’t exhibit regular human emotions like empathy, guilt, or even love. They are very impulsive, and when things go wrong in their plans, they’ll find someone else to take the blame for them. They don’t listen to the words of other people and will continue head-on with their own plans.
    —-
    …psychopaths tend to find high-flying and glamorous jobs more appealing than regular ones since having an impressive job strokes their egos. Corporate CEO-ship, lawmaking and enforcement, politics, clergy, and media practice are all potentially attractive job prospects for a psychopath.

    —Rivers, Clarence T. (2014-01-15). Psychopath: Enter the Mind of a Psychopath! (Psychopath Test, Manipulation) (Psychopath, Psychopath Test, Manipulation) (Kindle Locations 116-137). Kindle Edition.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I read once that the 4 basic characteristics of a psychopath are surface charm, pathological dishonesty, alienation from society, and lack of feelings for others. Barry Screwtape Obama has repeatedly demonstrated all 4.

      An interesting take on psychopathy can be found in William March’s novel The Bad Seed. The title character will do whatever it takes to get what she wants, regardless of law or ethics (neither of which matter to her). But if she can get it legitimately, she readily does that; she has no objection to being lawful or moral or ethical as long as it allows her to get her way.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I read once that the 4 basic characteristics of a psychopath are surface charm, pathological dishonesty, alienation from society, and lack of feelings for others

        We should all take the psychopath test and report our results:

        1) Not much charm, surface or otherwise.
        2) No. I tend to be pathologically honest.
        3) Yes and no. I feel myself more and more alienated from a society that has gone stark raving kooky. I guess we have to define “alienation.”
        4) Depends. The older I get, the more I feel (alienated, perhaps) like other human beings are just something to be tolerated. I have deep feelings for friends and family. But that circle is shrinking. Sometimes I feel more for a rabbit, a cat, or a dog than I do for those semi-human-beings that go around (white or black) with their pants down.

        So sue me. But in regards to Obama, I remember reading back in 2007 (when nobody knew who he was, and arguably most still don’t) that even a member of the mainstream media noted that many thought Obama was “creepy” after having first met him.

        It wouldn’t due to simply attribute profound differences in world views to the other guy being mentally deficient. And yet I do think in the case of Obama there is clearly something wrong with this guy. This is likely as close as we can get to an American president who is an invader of this country without actually using the military to subdue citizens. He is representative of the moral and intellectual sickness in our country. To not be alienated from this type would be a sure sign that one had joined him to some degree.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Sounds a lot like me. When I first read that description many, many years ago, I figured that I qualified to some degree on alienation and lack of feeling for others. (To be precise, it seemed to me that my concern for the problems of friends wasn’t really emotional.) Of course, both were only partially true; certain types of abuses could really anger me (though this may have reflected facing similar, if generally milder, abuses myself during childhood).

  11. Jerry Richardson says:

    Brad,

    I have deep feelings for friends and family. But that circle is shrinking. Sometimes I feel more for a rabbit, a cat, or a dog than I do for those semi-human-beings that go around (white or black) with their pants down.—Brad Nelson

    OhHaHa HaHa, Brad you slay me with some of your ad hoc statements. I love ’em! Do you have some kind of algorithmic generator that pumps these out at the push of a button on your computer? If so, could I borrow it?

  12. Jerry Richardson says:

    Timothy,

    Sounds a lot like me. —Timothy Lane

    I don’t think the checklist descriptions of a psychopath sound anything like you. Certainly not the persona that comes across from your many comments. First and main point for my opinion: You are way, way too honest.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I don’t think I qualify under either of the first 2 characteristics (and neither does Brad by his own statement). It’s those last 2 that may catch us. But it takes more than those to be a psychopath. In particular, the basic definition of a psychopath is someone who has no conscience; in effect, he behaves like a solipsist without actually being one (Fredric Brown once covered this in an interesting fashion in his story “It Didn’t Happen”).

      Note that one of the many dangers of liberalism is that it uses political expediency as a justification for ethical lapses, thus allowing liberals to behave like psychopaths in their jihad against conservatives. (I use “jihad” because the same thing is true of Muslims when waging jihad.)

      • Jerry Richardson says:

        Timothy,

        I don’t think I qualify under either of the first 2 characteristics (and neither does Brad by his own statement). It’s those last 2 that may catch us. —Timothy Lane

        Let’s talk about those last two: alienation from society, and lack of feelings for others.

        When you refer to “alienation from society” it could mean several things. The term is somewhat ambiguous. Is a person with the tendency to be a hermit “alienated from society”? I don’t think so, but if so, then I plead guilty. Since retirement, I have become, as much as possible, a modern-day hermit. I will not apologize for that. But, I am not alienated (have hostility or indifference where there had formerly been love, affection, or friendliness)—that’s not me and I do not think it is either you or Brad. Let me express it this way: I am weary of having to be obligatorily polite; as an urban hermit I don’t have to play that game.

        As to “lack of feelings for other”; also ambiguous. Does this mean sympathy or empathy or both? I think we should always, urban hermit or not, endeavor to have empathy (understanding the feelings of others) for other people. But, emphatically, some people do NOT deserve our sympathy (sharing the feelings of others).

        You, Brad, and myself do not suffer fools gladly. And we have biblical support for that (don’t miss the Apostle Paul’s delightful sarcasm here; worthy of Brad) :

        For you readily and gladly bear with the foolish, since you are so smart and wise yourselves!

        For you endure it if a man assumes control of your souls and makes slaves of you, or devours [your substance, spends your money] and preys upon you, or deceives and takes advantage of you, or is arrogant and puts on airs, or strikes you in the face.

        To my discredit, I must say, we have shown ourselves too weak…
        —2 Corinthians 11:19-21 AMP

  13. Jerry Richardson says:

    Here’s what psychopaths “who walk around among normal people” are capable of doing.

    One sad example of how unfair life is concerns how much harder it is to do massive good than massive evil. One psychopath, in one hour, killed 149 innocent people aboard a Germanwings airliner. How many people will ever be able to do nearly as much good for 149 people in a lifetime?
    —-
    Lubitz murdered 149 people because he was a narcissistic individual who lacked a properly functioning conscience. The number of people walking around in the world with a broken moral compass is quite large. Not all of them are depressed. And I am not only referring to violent Islamists. The U.N. just voted to condemn one country in the world for mistreatment of women: Israel. Are all those U.N. ambassadors depressed?

    Dennis Prager, Life Lessons from the German Air Disaster

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Really, that’s why the movie, “It’s a Wonderful Life,” is so powerful. It shows that goodness is not necessarily all that showy, but it weaves its way in and through life. It is the hidden support for society itself, which is why I have absolutely no respect for the naive amoralism of libertarians, for example. They, like so many others, would knock a fence down with little or no care for why it is there is the first place.

      Ya gotta hand it to Dennis again. He sure knows how to sum these things up. And I have to believe there are plenty of people walking around today with a broken moral compass. We could see a tsunami of such incidents in the near future. There are consequences to the Left’s moral bankruptcy and bad medicine.

      One reason I love Dennis is because except for one or two small holes, he’s not a useful idiot for anyone. He’s one of the few prominent conservatives who is ready and willing to call the U.N. the focus of modern-day evil. I don’t know his exact words on that, but he’s no fan of the U.N.

      Now, it may take a while to work on him so that he does not associated National Socialism as “right wing.” But nobody is perfect. 😀

  14. Jerry Richardson says:

    Brad,

    He’s one of the few prominent conservatives who is ready and willing to call the U.N. the focus of modern-day evil. I don’t know his exact words on that, but he’s no fan of the U.N.—Brad Nelson

    He’s 100% on that one. I wish someone, some group, some President, some Congress had the guts and wisdom to stop giving money to that communistic, blood-sucking organization; and not only get the USA out of it, but also get them out of the USA.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *