A Letter to Trumps' Critics--with a Psychoanalytic Approach

To whom this may concern,

In the psychoanalytic topographic model, a precursor of the Freudian structural one, deep within the substratum of the unconsciousness of your mind, you are, deep down, a Trump supporter.

However, your overinflated superego and underdeveloped ego have trapped you in the nonsense of your ideological subcultural norms, lest you become ostracized, a social pariah. Your Thanatos, your death instinct, has driven you to vote Democrat, which leads to logical self-destruction. You project this death instinct as a form of aggressiveness--namely your daffy dismissiveness of nonambiguous, substantiated truth. Your anti-Trump rhetoric stems from a peculiar neurotic anxiety, for although you support Trump, you cannot express such sentiments

To deal with these sentiments, and reduce your anxiety, your ego has utilized certain defense mechanisms. One of these psychological devices is repression, whereby your ego has pushed pro-Trump thoughts out of a studied consideration. This has required the expenditure of a lot of psychic energy from an already underdeveloped ego; and as a contemporary personality psychologist has noted, "Without a strong ego, the battle for a stable personality can be lost." Another device is denial. You have denied the great things Trump has done, such as catalyzing a great economy and defeating our enemies abroad, such as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, whom the Washington Post disgracefully deemed an "austere religious scholar."

This whole anti-Trump charade on your part is nothing short of reaction formation. You mask your love and support for Trump by acting in a polar opposite way that betrays your true feelings about the man.

Sincerely and with love, your friend forevermore, Xyce

 

It is rare for an OP to make it so clear from the outset that they are committed to avoid any kind of intellectually honest debate or discussion.

 

I disagree. Heh.

 

Then I'll simply follow the OP's example and declare that you seeeeeecretly do agree and your desire to express the opposite of what you seeeeeecretly believe is the result of a psychological imbalance

 

I'm gonna stop you right there.

You are not qualified to make such determinations, and other circumstances don't warrant it. You cannot seriously and faithfully determine this man's thoughts from a string of three words. The basis for your conclusion is unsubstantial and thus nothing short of frivolity. Now, instead of trying to mask your true feelings with mendacious sardonicism, perhaps you can argue in a proper fashion with a claim and your supporting evidence, as is academically proper.

 

Apply this statement to the OP.

 

Another defense mechanism that comes from the psychoanalytic approach is projection. In your original reply to this thread, you stated, and I quote, "It is rare for an OP to make it so clear from the outset that they are committed to avoid any kind of intellectually honest debate or discussion." Yet you are doing that which you implicitly condemn. Instead of engaging in "any kind of intellectually honest debate or discussion" with Nemesis, arguing against their point with examples, you use sarcasm, which runs counter to the qualities of "intellectually honest debate or discussion." You are projecting. You are attributing qualities to others that you yourself possess. You are the one, in fact, that is not up for "any kind of intellectually honest debate or discussion."

 

Your entire argument fails the moment we apply the same sort of scrutiny that you suggested in post #5.

Your entire argument is based on badly-applied armchair psychology aimed at millions of people whom you have never met or examined in any "academic" way.

And to top it all of you badly, badly misrepresent a statement by the Washington Post and demonstrate a lack of economic knowledge by crediting Trump for an economic recovery that started years before he even announced he was running.

 

Baghdadi was an austere religious scholar. Americans should give up reading altogether.

 

So you support this:


Or you have a overinflated superego and underdeveloped ego?




Hey @Xyce, tell us, what portion of our brain secretly loves the massive amount of debt and dangerous fiscal policy trump is using to prop up his policies?

 

If he had actually read the Washington Post article, he'd know that it only characterized him as "an austere religious scholar with wire-frame glasses and no known aptitude for fighting and killing" back when he took control of ISIS back in 2009, but that he had since then masterminded ISIS's transformation into "the most notorious, vicious and — for a time — successful terrorist groups of modern times . . . an organization that would seize control of entire cities in Iraq and Syria and become a byword for shocking brutality."

 

He even supports the man who wrote THIS!

 

What do they call this? Faux intellectualism? It is the same kind of tripe that comes from the likes of Jordan Peterson, Dennis Prager, Dennis Miller, and of course that now dead little twit, Charles Krauthammer.

Ever wonder why colleges don’t hire conservative professors? Could it be that the conservative line does not hold up under scrutiny? When one is peddling BS, it really doesn’t matter if one dresses it up to look like intellectual writing, those with intelligence will see right through it.

 

Baghdadi was an austere religious scholar from the time he was a chubby teen-ager who scolded and chastised his peers.

If not for the invasion of Iraq, he wouldn't even have been a blip on the radar.

 

Baghdadi was an austere religious scholar from the time he was a chubby teen-ager who scolded and chastised his peers.

If not for the invasion of Iraq, he wouldn't even have been a blip on the radar.

 

LOLOL.. Well said. When critical thinking takes a back seat this is what you get. Tripe.

 

That was a fun bit of psychobabble. Close to being medically sound, but incorrrect in conclusion.

Trump hatred is simply a hip new religion. When you have a generation of kids without tribe or faith (the dissolution of family/community/identity), they'll mainline anything that has the appearance of same. And as with anything the cool kids embrace, privileged middle-aged flakes will tag along.

 

Garbage is garbage. I don’t have to be told poop stinks, and I don’t have to be told what Trump is. I can see with my own eyes and hear with my own ears. Garbage is garbage.

 

Some people here don't catch sarcasm.

 

Hence the emoji

 

Very nice. You're too good for this forum.

 

Does plain talk and direct language always freak out the lefties? Seems to.

 

This is great. I can't stop laughing. You put some work into this joke. Bravo. It's a good one.

 

Where can I find such???

 

Trump true believers' missives are returned as undeliverable because they are misdirected to the majority of Americans who, consistently and relentlessly, disapprove of their messiah, and for rational reasons, not the emotional ones that drive hardcore Trump zealots.

Do you approve or disapprove of this impeachment inquiry?"

Approve: 54% // Disapprove: 42%
​

"In his dealings with Ukraine, do you think that President Trump was pursuing the national interest or his own personal interest?"

National Interest: 36% // Personal Interest: 54%
​

"Do you think that the impeachment inquiry is a legitimate investigation, or a political witch hunt?"

Legitimate: 50% // Witch Hunt: 43%
​

"Do you think that the Trump administration should fully cooperate with the impeachment inquiry, or don't you think so?"

Think it should: 76% // Don't think so: 18%
​

"Do you think asking a foreign leader to investigate a political rival is or is not a good enough reason to impeach a president and remove them from office?"

Is good enough: 48% // Is not good enough: 42%
​

"Do you believe President Trump held up military aid to Ukraine because he wanted the Ukrainian president to announce investigations that would benefit Trump politically, or don't you believe that?"

Believe he did: 48% // Don't believe that: 40%
​

http://pollingreport.com/trump_ad.htm​

Obviously, some fear the dispassionate pursuit of truth, but it is a worthy endeavor, an overwhelming majority agreeing that cooperation is the best policy.

That means releasing the relevant documents being concealed, and removing the gags from those in-the-know such as Mulvaney, Bolton, Perry, and Pompeo so that they can share their privileged information.

Could that be exculpatory? We won't know until we know.

Hiding is not a viable defense.