Further in the vein of searching for root causes for collective denial and obfuscation, (aka self-delusion, lying to oneself, psychological protection mechanisms) David Kupelian writes with bold, thoughtful clarity in WND:

…a certain percentage of us, when we’re intimidated and upset, start to emotionally gravitate toward and agree with whatever is intimidating us. Not just superficially, as a temporary tactic of placating a bully so he won’t hurt us, but more profoundly, deep down in the inner sanctum of our being where our thoughts and feelings germinate and our loyalties bloom.

Intimidation – that is, causing others to react with upset and fear – is a fundamental principle of mind control, fully capable of causing the victim’s loyalties to shift toward the intimidator, whether a schoolyard bully, gang leader, child molester, hostage-taking bank robber or Islamic radical.

“Political correctness” – which is basically a low-grade Stockholm syndrome playing out on a broad societal stage – is actually a subtle form of brainwashing. Even establishment mouthpiece Newsweek, in its famous Dec. 24, 1990, cover story on the then-new phenomenon of political correctness on college campuses (titled “Thought Police”) conceded this truth when it reported: “PC is, strictly speaking, a totalitarian philosophy.”

Bottom line: We’re intimidated, bullied, threatened, terrorized – and so we capitulate, not just in word and deed, but in thought. Get it?

Most of the time, of course, this occurs below the radar of our own consciousness. We don’t understand what’s really happening. So we interpret our growing sympathy and affinity for whatever intimidated us as evidence of our loving, open-minded, enlightened nature. In reality, it’s the result of craven weakness on our part.

Various ‘psych bloggers’ with stellar credentials (e.g., Dr. Sanity) have written in this vein for some time. Yet the fact that the shooter himself had earned such credentials and been accepted by the psychological establishment is something I’ve not seen widely discussed. It should give us pause. (Kupelian relates a startling scene along these lines towards the end of his piece.)

It should drive us to ask the question: On what grounds have we placed faith in modern psychological theories and techniques? Where is the evidence that they lead to the same kind of fullness of life and recognition of purpose (both here and everlasting) that Jesus promises? When the principles of the psychological profession (which has done and does many good things) is able to assimilate someone whose worldview centers on the antithesis of truth, what are we to make of that bizarre marriage other than seeing it as yet another expression of the totalitarian ‘PC’ mindset run amok? Is it not a worthwhile question, in light of Fort Hood?

Moving on…

I was listening to a sermon from Cornerstone Simi last night on my way to small group and the preacher (not Francis Chan) asked the question: How would you know if you were deceived/deluded? (And by implication, how would you know if you were systematically working to deceive yourself and avoid the truth.)

His simple point was that you wouldn’t. None of us could. The only rational response would be: It’s possible that I could be deceived. I’d be surprised if I were. I don’t think that I am. But it’s possible. Lest anyone take that as an argument for moral relativism, note that it’s a response of humility, or to put it in Christian terms: fear of God. As in “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.”

In other words, when we’re told we’re deluded, i.e., when our worldview is challenged, where we turn to check on the validity (or non-validity) of that accusation determines everything. And one thing unique about our current age is that there are more places to turn than ever before. Want a patently insane opinion validated? Not hard at all. They are legion.

The thrust of history, the teachings of scripture (which, quite excitingly, can be internally validated as having come from outside our time domain) and the great weight of wisdom provided by our forbears (who, up until very recently, saw islam as a deadly threat to all things civilized) should provide a bulwark against the  moth-to-a-flame attraction Kupelian describes — our inexorable craving for latest fashionable opinions and for the ‘PC’ idea that all religions are basically the same, that they all point to the same deity and that they all basically help people to be nice to one another and obey the Golden Rule.

Anyone who would argue (for example) that gut feelings, mainstream opinion, popular culture and/or the news media should be the benchmark for delusion vs. clarity needs to make something more than an emotional case for why that is so. “But it seems right to me” plays directly into the worst kind of idolatrous examples from sacred history.

A more sophisticated answer might draw from scripture out of context, noting that we are to love and pray for our enemies, yet that valid construct presupposes identifying them as such. Scripture does not say: you have no enemies; all people are basically good and want the best for you. Instead it admonishes us to love and pray for them.

Why are we seeing this powerful (and, I might add, deadly) delusion sweep our civilization now? By many other prophetic signs and measures it is clear we are in the end times (e.g., among other things, Russia poised, with Iran and other allies, for the Magog invasion of Ezekiel 38/39). Since we are quickly approaching if not already experiencing the first phase of the 70th week of Daniel (the end of the end times), it only makes sense that other passages that refer to it would apply now as well, e.g., 2nd Thessalonians 2:9-12, in which Paul writes:

The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

One of the implications seems to be that, after extreme patience, long-suffering and mercy on God’s part, a dynamic eventually develops among those who refuse to love the truth (who is Christ) and that that dynamic takes on the character of a kind of unrecoverable tailspin.

In other words, there is a point of no return, and it begins with individuals choosing not to love and embrace the truth.

I’m not saying I know where that event horizon is, however I find it hard to read this passage as saying that delusion is OK if everyone else is doing it, or that God holds the door open indefinitely, even in the face of people rejecting Him and his laws en masse. It surely applies individuals, however the rest of scripture would seem to suggest that God also looks at societies. Eventually even His patience runs out when it is clear that a threshold of rejection and idolatry has been passed. Are we there yet? Time will tell. When I look at Fort Hood though, I can’t help thinking all hell broke loose.