Projection, Denial, Groupthink, and the Left

The official logo of the Angry Mob!

Projection is a form of defense in which unwanted feelings are displaced onto another person, where they then appear as a threat from the external world. A common form of projection occurs when an individual, threatened by his own angry feelings, accuses another of harbouring hostile thoughts.

Encyclopedia Britannica

The above definition should be very familiar to Conservatives, as the left frequently accuses the right of doing what they themselves do. As of late, the left has been accusing the health care protesters of being a “paid, angry, and unruly mob.”  Are they angry?  Yes. Are they unruly?  Sometimes, but never to the degree of a typical leftist protest.  Paid? Obviously, the left has not presented a single shred of evidence to support that claim, yet the media continues to promote and exaggerate all of them as fact.  It would seem that the goal is to repeat these claims until they become the “truth.”  Ironically, the left has committed the only violence at these events, specifically, the union thugs.  No matter how baseless, this course of action has some potential benefits for the left:

1. The accusation clouds public opinion against the right.
2. The accusation takes the publics attention off the actual subject matter, and on to people. People can be discredited and their message therefore disregarded.  Ideas can be proven by observation.  If one cannot defeat an idea, as it can be proven, one can discredit the messengers, causing the idea to be never considered or tested.
3. The opposition then has to redirect time and resources to defending themselves, rather than advancing their agenda.
4. By accusing the right of being a “mob,” they hope to immunize themselves from being referred to as a mob, even when they actually act as one.

To illustrate this a bit further, let’s take a look at some images of leftist protesters, as well as some of the alleged “angry, unruly, and paid mobs.”

Real grassroots protesters have identical, professionally printed signs!

Identical shirts are a sign of a true "grassroots" protester!

Real grassroots protesters wear identical visors and identical signs!

Here are some of the Tea Party folks that are allegedly funded by the insurance companies, the RNC, big Pharma, and lobbyists:

The insurance companies apparently cannot afford signs!

The RNC's identical shirt fund must be broke!

Those pesky lobbyists forgot the uniforms!

As you can see, the protesters from the left have identically printed signs, and, in many cases, identical shirts!  The protesters on the right, have very few, or no printed signs (in fact, vendors have cropped up to sell signs-Capitalism!), nor to they appear to be in “uniform.” Obviously, the leftist protesters have to be subsidized and organized.  Signs have to be printed and printers have to be paid.  Tee shirts and other materials have to be purchased and prepared.  They leftist protesters are often bussed in from other locations.  This is easily observed, and has been caught on camera.  The left claims that their opposition is bussed in, yet offers no evidence of this.

One might ask, “why lie and invent these rumors when they are so easily disproven?”  For the answer to that question, we have to go to Saul Alinsky, the “original” community organizer.  Mr.  Alinsky’s book Rules for Radicals, has been the “playbook” for the left for decades.  For how Alinskyi deals with “truth,” here is an excerpt from an excellent article by blogger Jesse James at Western Front America:

Take for example the idea of “truth”. The conservative approaches truth as something that can be verified, tested and believed in and although they understand that “truth” may be flavored by a persons perspective they still believe that there is an independent truth that exist. Thus a conservative who approaches an issue, say the current manufactured lunacy that suggest America never landed on the moon will point to specific facts and provable reality. Like the fact that the Lunar Lander is sitting on the moon right where we left it and it should be viewable through the recent remote moon survey projects being conducted by a number of countries. So to a conservative for any question you should be able to establish some parameters for investigation that could be carried out and proven, one way or the other.

A “realistic radical” of the Alinsky school is completely unconcerned with the verification of “fact”. Alinsky states in respect to a community organizer, “he does not have a fixed truth-truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing. He is a political relativist.” Their concern would be first to determine which opinion would be the most useful to their immediate and long term agenda. That the Lunar Lander is still sitting on the moon or not is of no interest to them. What is critical is the usefulness of stating that the entire moon landing program was a lie by the government and further reason that you should not trust the status quo and to undermine your sense of national pride at having accomplished such a magnificent feat of human science and exploration. The radicals purpose would be to sow discontent, mistrust and shame for attempting to mislead the world so that they could use the moon landings as another wedge issue in the furtherance of their revolution. This willingness to arrogantly disregard verifiable truth in service of a greater revolutionary “truth” is a central aspect of Alinsky’s tactics.

It often infuriates and confuses conservatives that socialist claims and projects are so often obviously fraudulent and verifiably so and yet maddeningly treated as fact by the media, academia and other socialist organs but that is exactly the point. The revolutionary SEEKS to create an environment of unreality exactly so that by obscuration and fantasy thinking they can influence the generally ignorant population to support political goals that would otherwise be unsupportable in the face of fact.

As you can see, the truth holds no relevance to the left.  Perception does.  It matters little if something can be verified, proven, or observed-the end game goal must be achieved.  If observable facts interfere with this goal, it must be denied, attacked, portrayed as a conspiracy, and those that profess it must be discredited and vilified.  In creating this sense of “unreality,” the left is able to deny observable fact, and attempt to craft public perception in a way that denies observation and verification, substituting the perception of the “now” in place of fact.  The current example is the current White House position that the POTUS has never said he was in favor of single payer.  The fact that there are multiple videos of the POTUS saying that he does support it is irrelevant.  Instead, those that post said videos are written off as people that have “time on their hands,” or are “selectively edited” The fact that the left has violent, organized protests and regularly shout down anyone that disagrees with them is to be ignored.  They will instead claim that their opposition does the same thing.  Facts or reality have no place here, only the perception that the left seeks to manufacture.

So, is this projection?  For some, it probably is.  It’s more comforting to attribute one’s negative characteristics upon another.  That, and one can always claim the moral high ground. For others, groupthink is a factor.

William H. Whyte coined the term in 1952, in Fortune magazine:

Groupthink being a coinage—and, admittedly, a loaded one—a working definition is in order. We are not talking about mere instinctive conformity—it is, after all, a perennial failing of mankind. What we are talking about is a rationalized conformity—an open, articulate philosophy which holds that group values are not only expedient but right and good as well.

Irving Janis, who did extensive work on the subject, defined it as:

A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.

Our “leaders” spend much of their time in Washington DC. Their staffs are likely filled with sycophants that will parrot the views of the status quo.  They meet and dine with each other, as well as their supporters.  At each step-at each function or speech, they are met with the accolades of power, and are fawned over by the media.  Then, they go home and expect to be met with more supporters.  They are in an environment that supports and reinforces the thinking, no matter how flawed, that their policies are overwhelmingly supported by the public.  Given that assessment, their shock and surprise that there would be any dissent from the public is understandable.  This of course, explains why many are now having “invitation only” town hall meetings, or just barring any dissenting opinions by filling halls with union thugs or community organizers. In so doing, they seek to bring their DC  “hugbox” with them. Denial then sets in, and a way must be found to explain this dissent. Since “it could not possibly be” that there is actual opposition to them, a rationalized explanation must be found.  Firing false accusations against their own constituents, no matter how outlandish, is far more comforting than actually contemplating the failure of the policies they support.  In addition, their electoral victories and resulting majorities caused them to think that they have a mandate to do as they please.  In this environment of “unreality,” it is easy to see that some cannot grasp the fact that the protests against them are real.

There are those members of the left, completely cynical in their view of humanity, who will intentionally craft this type of manipulation and fabrication upon the people.  For many, especially the POTUS, that TAUGHT Alinky’s tactics during his time as a community organizer, this is a tool to achieve an end.  They know that the “public option” will lead to single payer.  They know that Cap and Trade will destroy the economy, and that the underlying premise if false.  They know that the tax increases will cost jobs.  Their end game goal is socialism, and their tools are deceit and the created crisis.  They count on the public to be compliant and easily coerced.  When that fails, they attempt to discredit their opponents.    What better way to discredit their opposition than by accusing said opposition of doing what they themselves do?