Debate Psychosis

"Public Personality Condemnation Disorder"
 
"Public Personality Defense Disorder"

I said to a fellow yesterday who was spewing a false narrative about a national leader, who could not handle me giving that deceased leader credit for some very good actions he had taken, which were contrary to his oft stated philosophy . . . the fellow was literally cursing me for daring to say something REAL - and to relate REAL events in history . . . I told him that he had taught me much. AND he did. He helped me identify something that heretofore has been obvious but not really perceived my ME, clearly, leaving me scratching my head asking myself, "Why do people not dispassionately view the facts of history, or a person's real actions, and let them speak for themselves?"  I've always perceived their reactions as "emotional" and not reasoned.  But the WHY eluded me. 

I think I have discovered literally (not joking) a new mental disorder having two faces, like two sizes of the same coin. I call it “DEBATE PSYCHOSIS”

I call one face "Public Personality Condemnation Disorder" marked by a teenaged-level moral comprehension of people as all "black or white" all "right or wrong" all, "good or evil" un-irredeemable from any error or sin, worthless, dangerous, false, demonically cunning, etc . . with the obsessive, even pathological need to condemn the person IF their name is mentioned, and the total inability to view any moral nuance concerning the "condemned one."

The other face I've named "Public Personality Defense Disorder" making of the Public Person an Ikon, perfect, unflawed, without error or mistake, etc., unable to brook the mention of any fact of history or action that might expose a flaw, an obsessive, even pathological need to defend them, even to the point of denying commonly known history. 

I have written much about how dangerous it is to be a "fan" of Public Personalities, especially Politicians. That we should judge them clearly and not upon their high sounding rhetoric but by their true ACTIONS and be willing to accept as REAL their flaws and mistakes. 

Marxist Dialectics, by the Saul Alinsky process of “demonizing” people, a tactic NOW openly used by both the right and the left – create people who are “polarizing”.

What does that mean? Polorizing? - have you thought about what that really mean?

Literally it means that manipulators have tied THE DEBATE PSYCHOSIS to the very mention of their name. Case in point: Martin Bashir's psychotic dialogue about Sara Palin, where he actually in calm but passionate prose, suggested that someone should defecate in her mouth and urinate on her!  Here is an NBC ANCHOR, caught in a purely psychotic moment, absent ALL judgement. HOW COULD THAT BE?  Because for a living as a commentator, he constantly engages in the DEBATE PSYCHOSIS, and PALIN triggered deeply within his soul the "Public Personality Condemnation Disorder" where Sara could only be viewed as evil and without morally redeeming factor, sub-human, demonic, etc. 

All Polorizing People are view through the DEBATE PSYCHOSIS: viewed either through the eyes of “Public Personality Condemnation Disorder” or “Public Personality Defense Disorder.”   For instance, Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and a host of other conservative personalities are viewed 99% of the time through the Debate Psychosis, by BOTH the right and the left.  There are a list of left leaning personalities who are also viewed 99% of the time through the Debate Psychosis, also. If you mention one of these names, they are unreasonably condemned or defended.  And IF you try to define the person by their actions that are nuanced, you are accused of being on the polar opposite side.  For instance "yours truly" who is philosophically an Orthodox Christian and politically a Christian Conservative, was accused many times of being a commie, a lefty, a marxist, etc, for daring to say something complimentary about Nelson Mandela upon his repose. Daring to speak of the personal reform he had made, abandoning his youthful Marxism, etc.  People kept saying things like, “you are trying to make him a saint” etc., when NO, in fact I was relating some remarkable events in history in which he played a pivotal roll, seeking, not to canonize him, or whitewash his errors, but upon his repose to give credit where credit was due.  But even at 95 years old and laying a corpse, Nelson Mandela is a “polarizing figure” and evoked the DEBATE PSYCHOSIS, and people found an obsessive need to "lionize him" or “condemn him.” 

Political campaigns and the fake memes created for us by the media to distract us, to divide opposition and frankly to mentally control us, Martin v Zimmerman for instance, are predicated upon creating both sizes of this disorder in the public, and nearly all political conversation and debate, reeks of this disorder. It truly IS a psychosis. It deafens the participants, and makes perception of truth nearly impossible.

Archpriest Symeon Elias