Barbarians With High-tech Arms And With Humanistic Spokesmen On Their Behalf

Most of the toughers are born in conservative families in an atmosphere of “strict discipline”, and are rather psychologically repressed from childhood. Many of them were corporeally punished by their despotic fathers who as if, were constantly implying to be something like the Guardians of Creation. The toughers are in an articulate posture of fighting with other people (whom they perceive as full of wrongs and imperfections). Toughers are antagonistic to others not out of pragmatic reasons, but, so to speak, a metaphysical one – to people of other ideas, worldviews and life styles – to dissimilar others. For example, they irrationally resist competition in business – they prefer monopoly, full domination over the market and through propagandist (seducing) advertisement – over consumers. And, of course, they are afraid of saying the truth – that they are like the Soviet communists who were similarly afraid of the free market because they were afraid of losing their power of decision-making over the population. Toughers’ belligerent posture is irrational – it is built on beliefs, phobias and animosity – positions beyond the necessity to prove anything. Another feature of the toughers is the personal megalomania of putting themselves as a measure of all things – of course, megalomaniacal personality is not easy to see because it’s always camouflaged by loads of heavy duty authorities – gods, prophets, saints, great and established leaders, billionaire role models, in whose shadows megalomania of ordinary people hides like a military unit under the trees, bushes and camouflage.

Intolerance towards the otherness of others is a direct indicator of megalomania, like the primacy of the function of believing over that of thinking is an indirect indicator of it. Religious wars are clash of Gods (of absolute beliefs), and so in a substantial degree colonial, economic and global wars – the poor belong to their metaphysical idols as millionaires to their millions (rich unconsciously project on secular object: money-profit, metaphysico-theological aura, and this transforms them into idol-worshipers with all behavioral irrationality it implies). Even in the case of purely economic rivalry and the need for profit – the flags of wars are never empty of, as if, disinterested feelings justifying hate, anger and exterminating fury that are rooted in megalomaniacal sensitivity (intolerance to otherness’ very existence is now incarnated in the super-power of high-tech weaponry).

Psychological repression (destroying in the child the potential for initiatives and taste for alternatives to what is) simultaneously creates megalomaniacal compensation and psychological defense in a form of proclivity to be afraid of and suspicious towards the dissimilar others and expecting them to be hateful and dangerous to “us” (from here comes the tendency to be hyper-sensitive to any criticism of “us” – to see it as an act of animosity and even aggression). In short, toughers (permanently expecting to be attacked) become more and more aggressive individuals with more and more belligerent behavioral style. For example, the American neocons today think that only world domination will guarantee their peace of mind – a vain hope: master is never relaxed, and neither the slave.

On the other hand, most of the gentlers were psychologically much less repressed from childhood. As a rule, their parents were not authoritarian and were able to transfer to their children an interest for and openness to thinking about the world (while conservative style of perceiving the world is just intuitive guesses which come to mind ready-made from standardized intuitions). Gentlers’ thinking is allowing unbiased observation. They have their intuition but they don’t stop there and continue to think, not only to express what intuition told them. The ability to be dedicated to thinking as such gives a person the chance to assess his/her own thinking and tolerate one’s mistakes without feeling psychologically traumatized (while toughers are prone to blindly defend their mistakes). Without identification with despotic fathers the gentlers don’t have megalomania as developed as toughers’ and its attributes – over-passionate believes (idolatry of concrete worldviews) and proneness to authoritarian speech patterns – commands, orders, “preaching” and labeling and condemnation of opponents. Gentlers can be dedicated to humanistic education because it is study of human matters – history, society, patterns of social mutuality and conflicts and individual and social psychology where they feel at home. Humanistic education is psychologically very difficult – the toughers can’t tolerate it because they are too vulnerable in front of human otherness and very quickly become defensive.

Humanistic education teaches how to understand human behavior, not to judge it. It provides bridges between various human behaviors, prepares humans to perceive ideas about life regardless of who produce them and to learn the ability to change your views without feeling shame. It also teaches us to take into consideration the logic of inferring and coming to conclusion and by this collaborate with other thinkers instead of clashing with opposite ideas and people who state them. Gentlers are not belligerent and are able to negotiate and to develop “diplomatic” mediation between opposing views and beliefs. Because they in their childhood were much less psychologically repressed they have this precious ability not to be afraid of their own desires and to understand them better – they are not afraid of themselves (for example, their sexual curiosity – the ontogenetic heart of future creative ability), their own otherness. By knowing their own “other self” they are not phobic about dissimilarity of other people – the psychological fundament of democratic way of life.

Still, the problem of the gentlers who mainly come from liberal families (some from conservative ones but there they instinctively applied radical [schizoid] psychological defense – de-cathexis of not only identification with father’s despotism but mutiny against it), is that they didn’t have the experience that toughers had in a traumatizing excess – Oedipus type of psychological fight with the parents during childhood. Male-toughers typically are simultaneously conformist to and hateful of rational authority (they can identify only with irrational authority – with despots like their fathers were). But gentlers… cannot psychologically fight at all. Of course, it is good that they aren’t like toughers – scandalous, disrespectful, loutish, vengeful and nasty. But gentlers cannot stand their ideological ground, cannot defend humanistic ideas, cannot protect democracy against assaults from inside it. It is good that their liberal fathers didn’t teach them to hate otherness and, conversely, taught them how to respect different ideas. But respect for opinions contrary to your own doesn’t mean not to be able to openly criticize them, to publicly explain their anti-democratic essence and to refuse them in concrete political circumstances. Unable to fight hatefully and nastily many gentlers also cannot fight rationally, without hating, to defend issues they stand for, and attack politely but intensely what they consider harmful to our country and American people.

Democracy is very young. The Gentlers today are perhaps the second or third generation that came from a full-fledged liberal families, although amidst a cultural climate based on consumerism and taste for manipulating the world. In this atmosphere it is very difficult to be a decent person fighting for democratic cause. Democracy under democrats should have a strong military force but for defense purposes and not for manipulating, subduing and policing the world. It is the destiny of democrats by sensibility and not only by affiliation to be toughly reasonable and toughly rational in toughers’ world of emotional impulsivity and mean calculations, and be able to fight with the toughers’ twisted and morbid infantilism for democratic democracy not in the gentler’s (not in the gentle) but in gentleman’s manner.