Big Bad Liberals "Bullying" Poor Little Wingnuts? Gimme A Break!

BWAAAAHAHA! Da bad bad libruls is bullyin' me! WAAAAHHH!

"The Constitution does not allow 13-year olds to become President and after last week we can see why." -  Garrison Keillor, 'What Mark Twain Killed, Donald Trump Has Revived', Denver Post, Feb. 12, p. 5D)

"The Trump resistance movement is stretching its wings, engaging its muscles and feeling its power. It is large and strong and tough. It has moved past debilitating grief and into righteous anger, assiduous organization and pressing activism. Welcome to the dawn of the fighting-mad majority: The ones who didn’t vote for Trump and maybe even some who now regret that they did....   This administration is already manifesting as the disaster we knew it would be; the stench of its rot surrounds us. What is there to wait and see? A rose will never bloom from a weed; you must snatch that thing up at first sight, by the root" - Charles M. Blow, NY Times today

Aa the hackneyed phrase "unhinged Left" is bandied about more and more in the fake news and Reich wing media, let us pause and bear in mind the perception of unhinged is relative. It is also reducible to facts and reality.  To an ardent Scientologist, Moonie or former follower of Jim Jones anyone pointing out their level of unreality would come across as "unhinged".   This is the way the perception works. The truly unhinged will always howl that the genuinely hinged (like Times columnist Charles M. Blow)  are unhinged, because to think otherwise would render them unhinged in their own minds.

So to ardent Trumpies and their fake news media, invested in nutso claims (like Trump lapdog Steven Miller, defending the "three to five million illegal voters"  nonsense yesterday) the rising scenes of protests around the nation would appear as the "unhinged Left"  on the rampage. But this is because, as comic John Oliver pointed out last night (see last link at bottom of this post), they are unable to see the total derangement of Trump, his blatant lies, his level of incompetence and inability to even put in a decent day's work. As referenced in a recent  report by Politico,  Trump can barely find the White House toilets without help and the only times he can remotely appear to be doing his job is when Bannon or Steven Miller gives him fake "executive orders" to sign. At least then he has a chance of appearing presidential - never mind he has no clue how to do the damned job.

So this is ultimately the reality basis, including Trump's recent ineffectual and chaotic actions, against which the Left's criticisms must be judged. As it turns out, nearly all are spot on justified, and in spades, as this sleaze bag continues to muddy the waters of polity by his ignorance and brash, bullying Hitler-ish nature which his groupies think is terrific.

How times change. Seems like barely 7 1/2 years ago fruitcake Tea baggers were coming to Obamacare rallies with funny hats and loaded guns. Hell, they even filled meeting halls with looneytunes carrying signs of Obama depicted in the ones below:

Look at these then tell me who is "unhinged".

But it appears these hard core Rightists when all is said and done, are just "whiny little bitches" - to use the words of comic Bill Maher- because now that the shoe is on the other foot and the Left has risen up against Trump, theyre all pitching hissy fits.  BWAAAAHAHAHA! Stop pickin' on Trump and let him do his job!" What job? The guy doesn't even know what the job is! He believes it's something like running his outside branding and bankruptcy businesses where he can bark orders, yells "Jump!" and everyone responds "How high?"

Seriously,  the Trump groupies are now all whining that the Left is "ganging" up on Trump and resorting to "petulant bullying"  Take the latest remarks of radio talk show shock jock Ross Kaminsky

In a recent whiny diatribe in The Denver Post,  Kaminsky fairly bawled about being "pushed" into doing things he otherwise wouldn't have. ('Democrats pushed me toward rooting for Donald Trump and Tom Brady", Denver Post, Feb. 12, p. 3D). He blabbered at the outset:

"since President Trump’s election, and particularly since his inauguration, the venom and bile directed toward him, the mindless obstruction of his nominees by Senate Democrats who do not understand their constitutional role in the process (hint: it is not co-equal with the president’s role), the endless attacks by self-righteous Hollywood leftists and late-night talk-show hosts, the overwhelming media bias against Trump has left me no choice but to support, even cheer, him almost each day since he moved into the White House."

What utter fulsome codswallop!  First, the "venom" directed toward Trump was in no way worse than Ross and his wingnuts directed to Obama 7-8 years ago.  In fact, up to now NO left protestors have shown up with loaded weapons like the Right did at meetings back then.  Second, the venom heaped on Obama, i.e. that he was a "Nazi" and "socialist" had no basis in fact given all Obama did was get the ACA passed. Up to now, none of the Reeptards has proven the ACA is any different from an original GOP plan launched in the mid-1990s (later turned into Romneycare by Mitt Romney).

Third, this dunderhead has no clue that the opposition party is supposed to vet nominees. It is not "obstruction" to block or slow down the process IF the ones nominated (like Betsy DeVos, Scott Pruitt, Jeff Sessions, etc.) have major conflict of interest 'bombs' tucked away in their past that require exposure and debate. So clearly this imbecile isn't aware of basic constitutional processes, including advise and consent, and checks and balances.

The real howler is that all this resistance left the imp "with no choice".  Left him "no choice'? What is he a vegetable? An anencephalic mutant devoid of will or intellect? In fact, this dingbat had plenty of choices, he just preferred to make lame excuses to back Trump by blaming  those bad, nasty bullies on the left, for simply expressing their first amendment rights.

He then goes on:

"I have never been a New England Patriots fan. It’s probably the smugness of their fans more than anything else, and it didn’t help that they temporarily exported Josh McDaniels to Denver. But when tens of thousands of liberals shared a sportswriter’s column arguing that “Tom Brady has some explaining to do on Donald Trump,” insisting that one guy who has known another guy for many years should “expect to get some tough questions” about their friendship, Democrats actually pushed me toward rooting for Brady and the Patriots in the Super Bowl"

Again, bare bollocks. NO true fan of a given sports team can be "pushed" to back one he hates unless he's a sorry loser to begin with or just a forlorn putz who is compelled to invoke victimhood for his choices, as Kaminsky does.  So no, Dems and liberals didn't push poor little Ross into backing Brady and the Pats, he's just making excuses for doing so because he doesn't have the spine to admit he adores the bro-love between Trump, Brady, Bellichick and Kraft - and maybe wants' to be part of it.  No harm in that, I guess, but don't blame "bullying" by the Left or Dems for driving you there.

Ross bleats on, clearly oblivious to reality:

"And how about the idiocy of liberals boycotting Ivanka, the only liberal with real influence over the president of the United States?.... Standing up for Ivanka doesn’t make me feel nearly as ill as it does to stand up for her dad or for Tom Brady. But my changing view of each is the result of the mind-broadening brought to Americans daily by the mindless vicious petulant bullying of the tolerant left.Thanks, Democrats, for making me question my beliefs. Thanks, Democrats, for nothing."

Awwww, boo hoo hoo, poor widdo Ross! Miffed at Democrats and liberals for wrecking his miserable pissant political fancies, life and choices.  One clue here, you clueless imbecile:  Boycotting the Trump brand was not "idiotic" given it got the Donald to tweet about defending her brand barely 19 days after he swore he was going to divest from all Trump business entanglements. He was not to know what those businesses were up to, or whether doing well or not. That was the deal! What it exposed in fact is that Trump's divestment malarkey is pure bullshit.  And this is just one of the reasons (apart from incompetence) he ultimately is going to be impeached within 2 years as independent columnist Kathleen Parker predicts, e.g.

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/02/in_two_years_well_have_a_new_p.html


This butt brain yaps about "mindless vicious petulant bullying" but forgets or doesn't want to recall the form he and his breed let loose barely 6 years ago. (But with the proviso, that we are talking political chalk and cheese here. Obama, unlike Trump, actually worked  9-10 hours a day as President and got things done: passing the ACA, crafting a stimulus package to pull the nation back from a credit crisis and likely depression, generating jobs, and capturing Osama bin Laden. He was also sane - not getting up at 3 a.m. to tweet nonsense, or harass media, actors, world leaders or judges via twitter storms. Hence, it is evident the Trumpies are unhinged for failure to recognize that trait in their man.)

Kaminsky's detachment from reality is even more pronounced with his belief Ivanka could have any influence on her mentally unstable excuse for an old man, when no one of any rationality can make an impact.  Apart from which, Ivanka - as a de facto appointee of Trump's alleged "blind trust" - had no business getting any help (or supportive tweets)  from daddy anyway. Again, there was to be no interplay between what a family member did in biz and Trump. Ross would have done better to read Post Editor Chuck Plunkett's words on the same page:

"now we’ve got a billionaire New Yorker selling his Richie Rich daughter’s jewelry and clothing lines on the White House lawn."

Plunkett went on to write:

"Hence my trouble understanding Trump’s base. Where is the loyalty to the U.S.A. in attacking the courts as Trump did all last week, and not on grounds of legal differences, but for the temerity of those judges who are working to do the jobs past presidents assigned them to do? Where is the integrity in trashing the founders’ separation of powers to protect individual liberty?"

But Chuck Plunkett can be forgiven for expecting the Trump base to act like adults as opposed to 3- year olds in wet nappies and without a clue.   In fact, all they want is a big bad daddy figure to take care of them, as surmised in a recent piece by George Lakeoff - showing how today's conservatives are in search of a powerful daddy figure to do their bidding. (The left is more in line with the template of the "nurturing parent" mold).

This childish authoritarian yen has serious consequences and gives rise to the real bullying now being noted in the press (Denver Post, Feb. 12, p. 7A) including enraged Trumpies tweeting death threats to Judge James Robart, for issuing a restraining order that halted enforcement of Trump's ban last week. As the cited article notes:

"Robart quickly became a target on social media. Someone on Twitter called him 'DEAD MAN WALKING'"

Another wanted Robart to be taken to Guantanamo and waterboarded. This is the level of bullying acrimony we see - REAL - not imagined- as evinced by the pro-Trumpie Nazis.

Because of this bullying, again real  - not imagined like the Trump dopes confect- there is fear among the judiciary.  Quoting John Muffler, a former U.S. marshal who reaches at the National Judicial College (ibid.):

"I know there is fear among the judiciary with what's being said"

Citing professional contacts and email exchanges with judges.  This is also of historical as well as current interest and ought to command the attention of every true citizen. As Steve Pizzo has written (see link below) there also occurred a Nazification of the German judiciary. elaborated in the document:  “THEY SHOOT LAWYERS DON’T THEY?: LAW IN THE THIRD REICH AND THE GLOBAL THREAT TO THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY” by Matthew Lippman. You can find the full paper here. 

This is sad, in fact deplorable. Because it reveals the Trumpkin deplorables don't even care about the fundamental checks and balances of our constitutional system.  We can't seem to fault the Trumpies based on their intellectual deficits - assuming they exist'- but in their upbringing, leading them to become authoritarians who need a demagogue like Trump to support their shaky identity.

In his landmark work, Cruelty and Kindness: A New Look at Aggression and Altruism, author Harvey A. Hornstein again paints the picture of these Trumpkins and their personality dysfunctions (p. 41) :

"Intolerant, prejudiced, authoritarian people are not at ease. The baggage of their youth is filled with inescapable hates and fears. Mistrusting their own impulses they are wary of others and the impulses that they might possess. Their world becomes a jungle which must be carefully scrutinized because it is filled with human beings who harbor the 'evil' that they painfully learn to deny in themselves"

This is the lot we will have to live with the next four years, or until we can throw off the yoke of Trump and his cabal, enabling the nation to return toward a path to liberty - as opposed to oppression and regression. 

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/cesar-chelala/71175/a-psychological-portrait-of-president-trump

And:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/stephen-pizzo/71155/why-you-should-care-a-lot-about-trump-s-attack-on-the-judiciary

And:

http://www.salon.com/2017/02/13/watch-john-oliver-connects-the-dots-to-find-pathological-liar-donald-trumps-news-sources/

Traumatized By Your Past? You May Have A ‘Methylated’ DNA Personality

Think of how many supposed  "psychos" go off in assorted incidents, especially those of violent shootings, knifings etc. where no clear mental health issues had been visible. What might have provoked these outbursts? Beyond that, why is it that some personalities evolve to be so paranoid, given to negativity or lashing out at others in sociopathic ways? According to the budding science of Epigenetics these behaviors may have origins in methyl groups attaching to our DNA – especially following traumatic events, incidents in one’s past- or one’s ancestors’ past.


According to this Epigenetic theory (see, e.g. DISCOVER, May, pp. 50-55)any traumatic experience – even in the genetic past- is capable of leaving molecular “scars” adhering to our DNA. The form and kind of trauma can run the gamut: Jews with great grandparents confined to Auschwitz – who survived, Chinese Gen X’s whose grandparents lived through Mao’s horrific cultural revolution, immigrants from the Congo or Rwanda whose grandparents survived massacres- genocide, or adults of every ethnicity who grew up with alcoholic or emotionally-physically abusive parents. In each case, more than just toxic memories are in play which hamper future psycho-social development.

Like muck that gums up the cogs of a finely tuned machine, these past nasty events accumulate via chemical additions – methyl groups- as a molecular residue clinging to our DNA. While the DNA itself is unchanged, behavioral alterations are imposed by the addition of the chemical interloper. More to the point, these alterations can be genetically passed on. Hence, you might have not only inherited your grandpa’s knobby knees but also his predisposition to depression or negative outlook, or even paranoia. Maybe this was caused by the neglect he suffered as a newborn, but the addition of methyl groups resulting leaves its mark – to be passed on.


However, this is not a foregone conclusion. Maybe at some subsequent stage your grandpa was adopted by nurturing parents, in which case the adverse effects of the methyl groups from the original trauma were neutralized. In this case, grandpa grew up to be epigenetically sound - no methyl contamination-  with a healthy and outgoing personality, positive social tendencies. You are then the beneficiary of this, and thereby capable of passing the benefits on to your own offspring. The point is, the mechanisms of behavioral epigenetics underlie not only deficits, weaknesses but also strengths, resiliencies.


What model do we come away with here? Basically that there exists not only a genome but also epigenome. The first embodies the basic blueprint for life, but the matter is more akin to life’s ‘etch-a-sketch’ – altering in response to any external influences be they positive or negative. Ideally, mitigating methyl groups results in more positive, healthy personalities – but how can it be assured?


First, what is a methyl group? It’s basically an organic compound consisting of one carbon atom bonded to three hydrogen atoms, i.e. CH3. When such a methyl group becomes attached to the nucleotide base cytosine, then the DNA is said to be methylated. These methyl groups can then attach to DNA for life, effectively changing the activity of any gene involved. The behavioral traits then associated with those genes are changed and transmitted across generations.


Experiments done using mice, pups raised by bad mothers and good ones, disclose the rank effects of methylation. In the case of the bad mouse mothers, that is inattentive or detached ones, one finds the pups affected by methylation. In particular, the genes regulating the production of glucocorticoid receptors – which regulate sensitivity to stress hormones – are highly methylated resulting in pups that are highly agitated, skittish and asocial or anti-social. In the opposite case, the pups disclosed high levels of glucocorticoid receptors which enabled the pups to display calmness, outgoing and brave behavior. Most fascinating, in tweaks of these experiments - methylated mouse pups put in the care of good mouse mothers saw their deficient glucocorticoid receptors improve,  methyl attachments diminish and negative behaviors abate, while the opposite was observed in the case of the non-methylated mouse pups put in the care of inattentive mouse mothers.


Application to humans? Yes, we have the documentation too from the human experiments cited by Harvey A. Hornstein in his terrific book Cruelty and Kindness: A New Look at Aggression and Altruism, Prentice-Hall, 1976, 'We and They', p.13. He recounts and describes assorted mother-child alienation episodes-experiments, such as performed by John Bowlby with detached human mothers. These expose how chronic indifference by such mothers, say in caring for their newborns,  can generate socially alienated, skittish, easily suspicious and emotionally aroused people. Undoubtedly, if the mouse experiments are a reasonable guide, alienated humans are also saddled with methyl groups that deform behavior toward negative, anti-social ends.

In the case of the mice, the injection of trichostatin A into the brain removed the methyl groups and the behavioral deficits. It was almost like rebooting a computer that had seized up. While a pharmaceutical solution sounds ideal, it isn’t clear that injections of trichostatin A into the brain can be as efficacious as for mice, or as harmless. No wonder then that many pharmaceutical firms are diligently searching for compounds to remove methylation and deliver more integrated, healthy personalities. If they succeed, and that’s still a big if, one could theoretically be liberated from all the negativity of one’s past or one’s ancestors’ pasts. Instead of being an asocial, schizoid personality untrusting of nearly everyone, one might then have a much richer life with broader social connections and satisfaction.

Fundamentalism: An Offshoot of Poor Education Or Infantile Personality?

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg" - Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson's sage quote is well to ponder, because it may well - once put to someone- indicate whether they are semi-educated, or pathologically immature. That is specifically in terms of whether the person betrays himself-herself as a fundamentalist, or has progressed enough to no longer see reality in black and white.

First let's consider the semi-educated or poorly educated proposition: that his (KJV) bible holds 100% of the absolute truth in every passage. However, Scott Soames in his monograph "Understanding Truth” clarifies the issue of more and less general schema to arrive at truth, and what is “materially adequate”, p. 69:

“The characterization of individual instances of (different) schema has consequences for more general definitions of truth. If such instances (e.g. L1 statements) are thought of as partial definitions, then the task of defining truth for an entire language may be seen as finding a way of generalizing the partial definitions so as to cover every sentence of the language.”

He goes on to note (ibid.) Tarski’s definition, which is to say that if an earlier iterate allows for additions without contradiction to the original proposition (truth statement) then it may be called “materially adequate”. If not, then it is not materially adequate, and hence no literal interpretation is possible.  Let me give examples of statements purported to describe the same event (a solar flare) to show what I mean:

1) A class X-7 solar flare occurred last Tuesday.

2) A class X-7 solar flare occurred at 22h 33m GMT Tuesday.

3) A class X-7, optical class 2B solar flare occurred at 22h 33m Tuesday.

4) A class X-7, optical class 2B solar flare occurred at 22h 33m GMT last Tuesday, and lasted 1440 seconds.

5) A class X-7, optical class 2B solar flare occurred at 22h 33m GMT last Tuesday, peaked 543 seconds after inception, and lasted a total of 1440 seconds.

 One can inquire Are all of the above statements (referencing the same event) true? Or better, are they all equally true? If not, why not? Can one therefore have true statements which do not express the entire truth but rather only a partial truth? If a partial truth only is expressed can it be said to be “the truth” without any reservations?

Obviously, the statements are successively true by degrees, but none of the statements are wholly and completely true unto themselves. Each statement, as one moves in ascending order, contains “more truth” than its predecessor. Thus (5) is more true than (4), (4) is more true than (3) and so forth. Is (5) the last word? Consider this description of the event:

"A class X-7, optical class 2B solar flare, occupying an area 1800 millionths of a solar hemisphere and located at heliographic longitude 90 degrees, and latitude 22 degrees, occurred at 22h 33m GMT last Tuesday, peaked 543 seconds after inception, and lasted a total duration of 1440 seconds. "

Thus, one cannot (in casual conversations) deliver all the truth on the solar flare at once, certainly about a physical event. In the course of normal conversation, and particularly teaching, one will therefore be forced to lie by omission. In the case of teaching, even attempting to convey the full basis of Newton’s laws of motion would take 100 times longer than the standard classical mechanics course if all details and exceptions were included. In the interest of time and convenience, therefore, one must “subvert” the whole truth. “The whole truth and nothing but the truth” may well be a fine courtroom fiction but it doesn’t make the reality cut.

All of which implies that any given biblical quotation  (each a false partial statement) falls under the same rubric and is at best only a partial truth - which explains why so many biblical contradictions abound. (Over 1,000 in the books of the New Testament alone!)  In a false partial truth statement we always have a proportion of pure fable or myth mixed in with the actual facts. Such degraded L1 statements are plausibly impossible to plumb to get even a partial truth statement. These sort of realities ought to alert us to be much more careful when we bandy about the word “truth” and cause us to acknowledge it’s much more difficult to isolate than many think.

Related to this is the seldom mentioned fact is that certain religious orientations are strongly associated with a lack of education.  The educational deficit is often such that the believers enthralled by fundamentalism are unable to consider truth in any kind of a nuanced format. Susan Jacoby has actually documented this education deficit for American fundamentalists, in terms of the “high correlation between poor education and biblical literalism" ('The Age of American Unreason', p. 189).

This is particularly exxtreme in the Deep South (e.g. Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama) where high school graduation rates “lag as many as ten points” behind the Northeast and West. (Ibid.). Richard Hofstadter carries this even further to the extent of associating fundamentalism with a whole mindset of prejudice. He writes ('Anti-Intellectualism in American Life', p.  133 ):


"There seems to be such a thing as the generically-prejudiced mind. Studies of political tolerance and ethnic prejudice have shown that zealous church-going and rigid religious faith are among the most important correlates of political and ethnic animosity."

The profound absence of critical thinking ability (tied to poor education) and the inability to see moral gray areas are part and parcel of the same phenomenon, As Hofstadter notes (op. cit., p. 135):

"The fundamentalist mind will have nothing to do with all this: it is essentially Manichean, it looks upon the world as an arena for conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, and accordingly it scorns compromises (who would compromise with Satan) and can tolerate no ambiguities."


Thus illustrates why those like Ms. Jacoby (and many humanists, atheists) disdain the use of the vanilla catchall term “evangelical” to describe fundamentalists. As she points out, this bland generic term can encompass “both theological liberals and conservatives". Hence, it is a disservice to forward thinking evangelicals to conflate them with a regressive cultist group that – in its own way – would dispatch them to “hell” as it does Jews, Roman Catholics, Mormons, and non-fundie Protestants. It is also important not to be so cowardly in the use of terms, because in order to recognize the reach of the Religious Right one needs to know exactly what part of the ideological spectrum is subsumed and pandered to….by the likes of Ralph Reed, R. Albert Mohler, Jr. Pat Robertson and others.

Ms. Jacoby's proposition - and to a large extent Richard Hofstadter's - is that fundamentalists suffer notoriously from such a severe lack of education that they are unable to approach any concept or idea imbued with nuance. For this reason I consider the god-concept attributed to fundamentalists to be at the lowest end of the nuanced-God concept scale, more in the realm of a cartoon than a credible deity. But as my religious friend John Phillips once put it (see e.g.  http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/05/conversation-about-spirituality-with.html  ), this is what happens when people latch onto a book (King James Bible) “using only eight thousand different words in all” in order that its publishers achieve mass consumption. The problem is that book content that promotes mass consumption is usually inversely proportional to mature understanding.  

This leads into the derivative proposition that the American fundamentalist may actually be like an overgrown infant in his black and white outlook of the world, reality.  In the 1970s, Barbadian therapist Pat Bannister employed a technique which was made popular at the time, called "transactional analysis" (developed by Dr. Eric Berne). In this thematic, the ego was regarded as partitioned between three forces or alter-personas, known as" "Parent", "Child" and "Adult". It was also made popular by a number of paperback books, including the famous 'I'm Okay- You're Okay' by Amy and Thomas Harris.  

The title basically reflected the rationalist position of the adult ego - that it regards all other humans as "okay" as oneself and unconditionally - irrespective of their beliefs, so long as they don't incite or induce harm to others. One might even think of the words as a logical takeoff on Jefferson's words. Obviously, if one's fellows' exhibit beliefs that "neither pick one's pocket" or "break his legs" - than that other fellow or fellows are okay. Whether they want to engage in Wicca worship, Science of Mind, Eckanckar, ordinary spiritual scholarship, Islam or no belief at all.


The aim of therapy in Bannister's transactional analysis sessions (which sometimes included group therapy) was to entice religiously officious, self-righteous people to depress or reduce the role of their "parent". This part of the psyche is the finger-wagging, preachy, authoritarian, sanctimonious, 'know it all' that dictates what's best for all others and won't accept or tolerate any differences. "My way or the highway" is its byword, never mind they themselves are borderline psychotics or sociopaths.

Most relationship conflicts occur when one partner is overweighted with his "Parent" and the other has more of the "Child" - the uninhibited, playful and spontaneous self that likes to play games, joke, and not take life overly seriously. "Crossed transactions" denoted by P<-> C for example, are those for which two personas are constantly in conflict. It can also be: A<->P, as when a rationalist constantly goes against an authoritarian (e.g. in state of the world debates) who only knows how to quote his bible, but can't think.

Bannister's job (to assist  recovered bible beaters)  was to get them to reduce the "Parent" and upload more of the playful Child. At the same time, she sought to interject more of the rational adult in each partner - which would act as a bridge between parent and child. As Amy and Thomas Harris put it (‘Staying Okay', p. 16):

"The Child includes our instincts and biological urges, genetic recordings, our physical selves, curiosity and intuition. It contains joy as well as sadness. Whereas the Parent is filled with demands, directions and slogans, the Child is filled with desire. The Child is where the 'want to' motivation is"

The key about the Parent part of the psyche is that it's externally derived, while Adult and Child and internally manifested over time. The "Parent" is basically the ineradicable recording of one's early life history and it will be hyper-critical or nurturing or both, to the extent one's parents or primary caretakers were. It's created, in other words, via assimilation over time - mainly from the parents - but other external authorities may play their own role (say if the person went into the military and was subject to extreme military authority or even abuse to impose that authority - e.g. Marine boot camp at Parris Island being forced to clean latrines with their tongues, etc.) In this case, the "Parent" can devolve  into a pathological child, or negative mirror image of the healthy, free-spirited child in transactional analysis.

Meanwhile, the "Adult" is the ally and expediter of the rational and scientific mindset. The Adult reasons, thinks, predicts and figures out how to do things - and over a time, must use this template to consider the consequences of actions. In Bannister's therapy, the empowerment of the Adult was key to negotiating successful interactions between Parent and Child. As the authors note (p. 18):

 

"The Adult is not only a functional part of the personality but a state, observable by others in the present. A person in the Adult state appears thoughtful, rational and in the here and now. ...One of the important functions of the Adult is to update the Parent".

Part of this updating entails ridding the Parent of its overbearing demands and negativities, criticisms, so one can come to greater self-acceptance. For some personalities, almost taken over by their Parent, this is extremely difficult.


In his landmark work, Cruelty and Kindness: A New Look at Aggression and Altruism, author Harvey A. Hornstein hones in on some of the major personality dysfunctions and how they arise. Most enlightening is how he reveals the behaviors of what he calls "Authoritarians" - which would be extreme Parent-dominated types. One major defect? These people almost automatically discriminate between people - and reject those they consider as unworthy or not on their level, morally or in other ways. To these people: "Not all humans are created equal".

Hornstein further notes(p. 40):

 "Authoritarians are socially exclusive. Their prematurely definitive and harshly judgmental distinctions between ingroups and outgroups are fruitless attempts to resolve their own intra-psychic conflict. Their prejudice is an almost indelible aftermath of the quality of their childhood attachment to their principal cartetakers".

Thus, if the little person was often beaten with a ping pong paddle to nearly an inch of his life - say by a nursery school caretaker- he'd likely grow up in this mold. Add on some military training hazing and abuse, and you have almost the perfect anti-social personality, who not only believes HE is right, but condemns those who don't believe as he does. For example, to this person, 90% of those who don't believe as he does are destined for "hell".

We arrive then at an unsavory image of the American fundamentalist:   part uneducated boor, explaining his penchant and obsession for biblical literalism,  and part regressive brat, abounding in reactive prejudice. This also helps to account for his profound inability to cope with uncertainty or ambiguity, and why it's easier to see the world in terms of 'good guys' (the "saved') or "enemies" (those disgusting 'radical atheists') 

More important is to understand that these poorly educated, child-personality dominated infants are more and more fueling the ideology of the Whig-approaching Right in this country. Jacoby in her book (pp.185-86) shows the parallel growth of the Right Wing and  fundamentalist sects. Hence, as mainstream Protestant membership has shrunk, so also has conservative moderation. (In 1960, 59% of Americans belonged to "mainline Protestant" denominations, while only 43% did by 2003 - with the bulk fleeing into radical fundamentalism.

When we look at the deranged Right then, we need to understand that we ought to also fear the looneytune religious fundamentalists - mainly from the South - who fuel the extremist Right's insanity, and ultimately, the political-economic destruction of this nation.