As predicted the Dominique Strauss Kahn rape case has collapsed. It seems to me that we live in a screwy society where man’s life can be totally turned upside down for weeks on end based on nothing more than the flimsiest of accusations by the flakiest of accusers without any real proof.
Looking back it becomes obvious that the prosecution and the police made a rush to judgment based on nothing more than prejudice, naïveté and sloppiness. They immediately assumed that the woman was telling the truth, and that the man was guilty. They were not objective when they needed to be. Shame on them, and they should be held to account.
Still, the police were in many ways representative several factors that dominates American society and culture, and that influence the assumptions and thought processes of the police.
The first factor that influenced their mentality is a sexual hysteria and puritanism that so often tends to dominate American society and culture. Let’s face it. American society is neurotic when it comes to sex. We are not healthy. Too many of us see its malevolent face lurking everywhere and try to constantly stamp it down, while at the same time there is a feeling that we can never get enough of it. We are both titillated and disgusted by sexuality, and every so often Americas convulsed by a collective hysteria and sexual witch hunt. Maybe it’s the anti-date rape hysteria, the anti-porn hysteria, Janet Jackson’s nipple ring, the day care workers who witch hunt, etc. Being anti-sexuality is about the only thing that the left and right can agree on. The feminists get together with the religious fundamentalists to rail against the evils of pornography and sexual degeneration. In sum, when it comes to matters of sexual “crimes” it’s very difficult for the American Society to keep a level head. Instead we immediately get on our high horse, and tend to become very self-righteously judgmental with the aim that the “degenerate” is going to pay. Furthermore, in such cases there is a tendency to believe that being accused of a sexual crime is about the same as being guilty of a sexual crime.
The next factor has to do with race and political correctness in America. White America has been indoctrinated very thoroughly into erring on the side of favoring Blacks, and tending to treat them carefully, lest they be accused of racism and discrimination. As a built-in defense whites have learned to treat blacks equally, and generally better, than whites to avoid even a hint of racism, and a cover there behinds.
A further factor of political correctness is feminism, which is also had decades to influence American society with the belief that rape is everywhere, women never lie, and men are always guilty.
So, you can see how the New York police are really a product of the culture they live in. We have all been taught that sexual deviancy is all around us and must be exposed and punished mercilessly, that rape is also rampant, that when a woman accuses a man of rape, she is automatically telling the truth, and he is essentially guilty, and finally that blacks (and to a large extent women as well) must be treated with extra care and deference, to avoid any accusations of racism and sexism. Combine all those factors with further prevalent Marxist views (that radiate out from our finest universities) that the poor are nobler than the rich, and the American romanticization that immigrants are always hard working decent people who only want to live the American dream, it’s easy to see how the New York police went out of their way to sympathize with the accusations made by this poor black immigrant woman, and to assume that DSK was inherently guilty.
Of course, in a world of more competent police actions, they would’ve listened to the woman’s story, and then done a little bit of investigation and analysis before deciding to go full force with the prosecution. Another problem, I believe, is that the prosecution felt that it would be able to execute a high profile conviction which would bolster the ambitious career of the chief prosecutor. I think Vance Jr.´s imagination got carried away with dreams of prosecuting a famous successful case.
About the only good thing to come out of this is a realization that, when it comes to accusations of sexual crimes, even the rich and powerful are not protected. Sexual hysteria, feminism and the politics of racial identity triumph power and money. It’s too bad that in areas that are not related to sex, that the rich and powerful in America have pretty much carte blanche to do what they want. After all how many bankers have gone to jail for all their sleazy manipulative dealings, that helped drive the economy into the ground. When the Bush administration broke the law on wiretapping nobody went to jail. Our elites routinely flout the law-often in the most flagrant ways possible-with almost total impunity. But, when it comes to sex, women have the upper hand.
In reflecting on this case I have begun to realize more and more how those who are politically correct are so similar to religious fundamentalists:
Both are driven by blind faith in an absolute ideal. In the case of the religious fundamentalist it is a theological concept, and in the case of the politically correct true believer it is a belief about race, sex and class. They are not interested in facts or reality. They have become so consumed in an emotionally charged blind faith narrative and ideal, that they have basically become detached from reality. Religious fundamentalists deny evolution, and politically correct Marxists deny that the races exist in any biological way. Both beliefs quite frankly are silly, but to the true believer, who has distorted his worldview around his ideology, they make sense. They are not interested in the truth and they’re not interested in hearing the truth, because the only thing that they want to listen to are things that support their confirmation bias. That is why whenever they are confronted with evidence to the contrary of what they deeply believe, they tend to become emotional, agitated and aggressive, because such facts are impinging on the belief system that they cling to at a very emotional level. If you ever challenge the belief systems of religious fundamentalists, and even more so with politically correct believers, you will find that maintaining an honest, respectful and open discussion rapidly becomes increasingly difficult. If you challenge a religious fundamentalist, pretty soon he will start using words like “sin, abomination, heretic, evil, apostate, smite”, etc. If you challenge a person who is politically correct, expect to be called “racist, sexist, misogynist, hater, intolerant”, and every other name they can think of. These slurs are designed to emotionally intimidate one’s interlocutor, and put him on the defensive, and get him to shut up, and thus essentially short-circuit any open and rational debate with emotion laden epithets designed to shame and intimidates anyone who dares use them. The goal is to silence anyone who dares challenge the cherished belief systems of the group, whether they be religious beliefs or politically correct Marxists beliefs. The fact that both groups resort so quickly to name calling demonstrates just how weak their arguments are. After all, a system based on self evident truth is open to debate and inquiry, because it knows that ultimately it will win. A belief system that is detached and in denial of reality fears open debate and inquiry, because it runs the risk of being exposed for what it is-a fraud. Therefore, it needs to resort to psychological intimidation to keep everyone in line. This is the same whether it’s a religious fundamentalist organization (a cult), or the typical modern politically correct group.
As you know I have been talking recently to Mormon missionaries, and at the moment I have a couple of old-school heavy-duty multi-generational pioneer true believing Mormons. These guys are pretty hard-core once you scratch a little deeper below the surface. At first they seem pretty normal, but once I get into what they really believe, it’s quite amazing. They honestly believe that their “prophets” actually speak to God, and they’re essentially infallible. It would never occur to them to ever doubt or question anything that the Mormon leaders say. They’ve basically swallowed the entire ideology whole. When I challenged them on parts of Mormon history and theology, they tend to give me evasive answers, and the harder I push the more they keep coming back to restating their fundamental Mormon beliefs as a kind of foil. It is as if repeating their mantra of blind faith will somehow negate the uncomfortable realities that I have presented before them. I think it’s a defense mechanism to preserve their belief system when confronted with facts and arguments that they fundamentally can’t answer. In other words they have invested so much in the Mormon faith that anything that threatens it must be challenged by endlessly repeating their mantra of Mormon belief. I also notice that the become defensive and emotional when presented by historical facts that contradict the Mormon narrative that they have constructed for themselves.
So, as discussions have deepened, and I have presented new evidence that challenges their religion, the conversation has become increasingly circular. I will point out some embarrassing fact of Mormon history, and they will respond with an invasive rationalization, and state once again that they believed in the Mormon church, as if simply reiterating their theology will make these uncomfortable facts go away. I believe that they find these revelations to be troubling, so they fall back on the belief mantra to reassure them.
The more I talk to the Mormon missionaries and understand their fundamentalist mindset, and the more that I learn about how they politically think and act, the more I see tremendous similarities between the two groups. Their way of going about denying reality is essentially the same. They just believe in different things. The Mormons don’t want to have to recognize or accept certain uncomfortable facts about their church, and people who are politically correct also deny reality.
In the DSK case the accuser doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Her case is about as weak as it could possibly be. The only evidence to convict DSK is her word, and she has been shown to be a serial liar, and to be involved in various other this honorable and shady dealings. She has zero credibility as a witness. Despite this, so many feminists and those on the left, are absolutely convinced the DSK is guilty as sin, and the woman must be a true victim. There’s no evidence for this, but their worldview is so rigidly ideological, that when they see a poor black woman accuse a rich white man of the crime of rape, in their minds it’s absolutely decided, black and white, cut and dried. They’re not interested in the facts or the nuances or the realities of the case. They made up their minds once they found out the race, the sex and the social class of both the accuser and the accused. Once the situation was squeezed into their preconceived notions of guilt and virtue, nothing could change their minds, and nothing will change their minds in the future. The woman could probably confess under oath that she made up the whole rape charge, and the feminists would still believe the DSK raped her.
That is what I call a fundamentalist belief system. People emotionally buy into a belief system that is so strong and absolute that there is no room for reality to get in the way. My Mormon missionary friends cannot contemplate the fact that their Mormon leaders might be misleading them. And, feminists cannot contemplate that DSK´s accuser might be anything other than a noble victim.
And, intelligence often doesn’t have anything to do with it. Many Mormons, who believe the most ridiculous things, are plenty smart. And among those who are politically correct true believers there is a never ending supply of intellectuals and academics with very high IQs, who are nonetheless in total denial of reality.
This gets to my final realization that discovering truth generally has a lot less to do with being the smartest person around, and a lot more to do with simply being honest about the facts around this. Understanding reality at a basic level is usually not that complicated. If people can be sufficiently open-minded and honest enough to face the truth, then they will usually figure it out. Being highly intelligent certainly is an asset, but it is no guarantor of being right. The world is full of very bright smart people, who are completely wrong on all kinds of things, because their minds are too closed to recognize the truth which is staring them in the face. In other words they are too biased and prejudiced and invested into a certain ideology to admit what is really going on. Some of the craziest periods in human history were driven by people with very high IQs. Many of the worst abuses in human history (religious wars, witch hunts the Inquisition, the horrors of World War II, communist regimes gone crazy) were driven by very intelligent people. Many of them were simply ambitious people sucking up to the power establishment, but many of these highly intelligent people actually believed in the madness that they were pursuing.
The human mind developed out of evolution, and was formed to promote the survival and prosperity of its owners. People have evolved to survive and prosper within tribal power structures. In other words we are designed to play politics. We are not particularly designed to be objective and open to truth, when politics is more important. In that case we are programmed to place reality aside, and play politics to promote our personal well-being. It is rare to find the individual who is truly objective and honest in dealing with reality. The vast majority of people are so full of biases and hang-ups that are so enmeshed with their tribal ideologies that trying to be truthful is a challenge to say the least. This comes so naturally for humans, but most of us are not aware of our biases and their inability to recognize the truth. We honestly believe we’re open-minded and rational, when so much of the time we are anything but.
It is this need to conform to the beliefs of the dominant social group-for the tribe-that makes us automatically defend our group and attack the other. I actually see a lot of parallels between Mormonism, a fundamentalist cult like religion, and the religion of political correctness. Both tend to see things in black and white with a real us versus them overtone, both tend to use special terms to evoke emotional responses and short-circuit rational thought (sinful, apostate, racist, sexist, offensive, inflammatory), both conveniently and constantly change the rules of logic and reason to suit the argument of the moment (one moment they are Universalists and the next they are relativists), both are based more on emotion than objective reasoning, both suppress open debate and only admit “correct” opinions, both use shaming and fear to coerce people into conformity, both invoke morality to justify their actions, both have a special “priesthood” that cannot be questioned (Obama, the global warming climate scientists), and finally both appear to have a very neurotic view of sexuality tending towards the puritanical (both hate pornography and hate it when women do not dress “modestly”).
In the end, we are never going to overcome our biases and prejudices, and really solve problems, if we cannot overcome our innate instincts to automatically conform to the exigencies of the tribe.