America's Re-education Camps May 8, 2001 by Wendy McElroy, mac@ifeminists.com
Political Correctness (PC) is a term coined by the New Left to describe their political and cultural ideology, which blends
radical traditions such as Marxism with gender feminism. A major PC goal on American campuses is to enforce "sensitivity"
through a re-education of students' values. Sensitivity is enforced through speech codes, propaganda in the classroom, and
diversity training sessions.
It's a Woman's World - The phasing out of men by John Derbyshire
Forty-five years ago the British science-fiction writer John Wyndham published a story titled "Consider Her Ways."
A woman of that time, Jane Waterleigh, volunteers to test a hallucinogenic drug. She wakes in the body of another woman some
generations in the future. That future is a woman's world; all men were killed off by a rogue virus, which also prevented
the birth of any more male babies. After a spell of disorder, the women got civilization going again, and erected a society
modeled on those of the ants (hence the title, from Proverbs 6.vi). Bloated, obese "mothers" are dedicated full-time
to childbearing it is in the body of one of these monsters that Jane's personality has lodged itself. The "mothers"
are attended by midget, sterile "servitors." Society's heavy lifting is done by muscular Amazon types, also sterile,
and the whole thing is presided over by a wise "Doctorate" of normal-looking women who can give birth if they wish
to. The medical specifics are left unclear, but some sort of parthenogenesis seems to be involved.
...mammalian embryos, regardless of their sex chromosome constitutions, have an inherent tendency to develop the female phenotype;
the mammalian male is essentially a female that has been exposed to androgenic steroid hormones. - S. Ohno
Catch - FILLET - and Release by Humberto Fontova
"The moment a women finds herself confronted by an antagonist she displays a bellicosity which stops at nothing, however
outrageous....any man who is so unfortunate as to have a serious controversy with a woman, must inevitably carry away from
it a sense of having passed through a dangerous and hair-raising experience. No attack is so desperate that they will not
undertake it, no device is so unfair or horrifying that it stays them."
Whatever Happened To . . . "Manly" Virtues? by Michael D. Shaw
Virtue: A habitual and firm disposition to do the good. Cardinal virtues are prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance.
Traditional male virtues are strength, courage, independence, heroism in combat, and sexual initiative.
It is characteristic of all movements and crusades that the psychopathic element rises to the top. - Robert Lindner
The American Mind in Denial
1/27/99 RLK
So-called conservatives, who should more properly be referred to as the increasingly few remnants
of sane people in this country, share a number of similarities with the inmates of Auschwitz or similarities of position of
abused women.
In both cases there was and is a condition where people are forced to treat insane and cynically
dishonest arguments as if they were credible, and treat the people making those arguments as if those people were honest or
were amenable to logic or moral suasion when it is not so.
Any attempts to negotiate with the SS, or with Himmler,
or with Hitler was an exercise in self delusion. Regardless of the rationality of arguments presented, those arguments would
be rejected. The counter-arguments would be completely irrational, but there would be a desperate need for development of
more arguments and pleas by the oppressed as if the Nazi counter-arguments were legitimately based in reasoning.
This
is the same condition we have at the present in America.
To begin with, we are facing a situation that is obvious
and obviously insane. Does anyone really believe that it is not, at the very least, inappropriate for the president of this
country to be receiving oral sex in the Oval Office at the very moment he is on the phone arranging for the American military
to be sent to a war zone? Not on the sane side of the boundary between sanity and profound mental disorder. But, the evidence
is clear that it happened and there is no denial of it by the president. It is obvious that Bill Clinton lied to the American
people and the courts with an open defiance that approached contempt and ridicule.
Bill Clinton's deceptions are
not characterized as the masterful work of superior intelligence. The stuff he is pulling is the type of stuff any third grader
would get slapped for. Any child could see the obvious lies and manipulations. In fact, Bill Clinton's manipulations are based
not so much upon clever deception, but upon the unspoken confidence that no one can, or will, now do anything about it.
In some respects Clinton is like the class clown who is supported by other smirking students in a conspiracy to ridicule
a hated teacher. In this case Clinton was elected to ridicule a society and a philosophy of mature responsibility that an
infinitely rebellious and polarized generation has hated since the 60s. The Clinton coalition is made up of various alienated
racial and cultural groups who elected him to dramatize their hostility and rebellion. The more irrational and warped the
Clintons are, the more it serves that purpose.
There is no Clinton deception. There is no need for deception. The
Clinton lies are transparent and not utilized so much for deception but to ridicule opposition's powerlessness within a concurrent
message that the time has arrived when the angry radicalism of the 60s has achieved seniority. The Clinton lies are more an
act of triumphant generational sadism than deception. - And who other than the kid who 30 years ago went to Moscow as a committed
declaration of his support of those seeking failure of the American effort in Viet Nam has better credentials to lead the
triumph?........
....... Bill Clinton is a somewhat charming manipulative narcissistic psychopath who is capable
of showmanship. Beneath the showmanship, over a nearly 35 year period he has shown an infinite capacity to lie and betray
others without embarrassment. He has shown few other capacities in any depth. Bill Clinton's present passing troubles are
not, and should not be looked upon, as having been the result of a relationship with Monica Lewinsky, or even Paula Jones.
The Bill Clinton problem is a consistent pattern of remorseless predation, callousness, manipulation, contempt, ridicule,
hostility toward morality, and irresponsibility going back more than 30 years of which the Jones and Lewinsky matters are
but a small symptom. In all the years of his adult, or nearly adult, life, anyone associated with Bill Clinton has suffered
or been betrayed. That includes everyone from cabinet officials to his own daughter.
Perhaps both we, and Bill
Clinton, should be introduced to the previously unexplored concept that if one believes that criticism of, or prohibitions
against, oral penile and anal sexual stimulation with comparative strangers in the Oval Office are an unbearable hardship,
then one really ought not campaign for the presidential office because one doesn't really have the prerequisites in terms
of maturity, toleration of reasonable adult discomfort, or anything else to qualify for the position. This is an issue that
has never been brought up.
Perhaps there should also be serious concern about the state of mind of a man running
for the presidency who has state troopers bring a strange woman into a hotel room and who contemptuously sticks his penis
in her face as an act of naked cruel ridicule and contempt.
Hillary Clinton's purpose can be summed up in one sentence.
Her angry agenda is a constant attack to bring the rest of the country down to the state of bitter empty degeneracy seen in
her own marriage and her own life. She began with a rebellious refusal to take her husband's name as part of their marriage.
Throughout her career she has made repeated barely concealed sarcastic comments or attacks regarding the family and the traditional
role of women as mothers. Concurrently, she has seldom missed an opportunity to side with organizations or ideologies that
directly or indirectly attack or subtly undermine the position of women in those roles. In Hillary's view "It Takes a
Village" to raise children and the importance of a warm nurturing mother is deemphasized or marginalized. Conspicuously
absent from Hillary in her selectively militant crusade for the social welfare of children are criticisms of people such as
pornographer and Clinton supporter Larry Flint who forced upon his own daughters at an early age what Bill Clinton did with
Monica Lewinsky.
The Clintons are living what they believe. If they didn't believe in it, they wouldn't be living
it. What they believe is what they believe others should live. They demand to live in a world where there is no challenge
or contradiction to that belief. Hillary's life is one of revenge upon those who do not share her incapacitates.
The
Clintons are too immature, too psychopathic, too megalomaniacal, too paranoid, too aggressively pathological, too uncontrolled
by any sense of personal limits upon behavior, and too dangerous to be in positions of responsibility and authority in a sane
country that wants to remain sane. That is the real issue before the American people that has been completely obscured.
The counter-arguments by the Clintons and their supporters range the spectrum from the insulting and ridiculing, to the
insane. Clinton claimed he was never alone in a room with Monica Lewinsky. He was never asked how many other people were in
the room when he ejaculated on Monica's dress. Clinton denied remembering whether he had been with a woman he was periodically
having various highly intimate oral and anal sexual activity with. The explanations of this could be one of three things.
He was lying. There was such a superabundance of such women that it became difficult to remember any one of them, in
which case it absolutely confirmed the point being argued by the plaintiff. Or perhaps there was organic brain disorder causing
memory loss. At the first sign of evasion, there should have been a court-ordered psychiatric examination to determine the
degree of organic brain impairment or deliberate lying.
It is argued that it was about sex, and everybody lies
about sex. But, it isn't about sex. Bill Clinton doesn't engage in sex in the erotic or passionate sense. The persistent pattern
is one in which Bill Clinton shoves his penis in women's faces in an act of contempt and ridicule while he remains emotionally
distant. No woman has ever reported anything remotely resembling a romantic or warm interlude with Bill Clinton. There is
no evidence of robust healthy eroticism in the Clinton background. Rather than romance and sex, there is more a pattern approaching
the introduction to the deranged character in a psychological horror movie. Clinton is supported in this by various woman's
groups because it provides them with a visible counterpoise to repel off of in their continuing campaign of hatred of the
male enemy.
Before it was declared to be about sex, Clinton denied that there ever was sex or that a 52 year
old Rhodes Scholar and law school graduate even knew what a sexual relationship was. Sex had to be rigidly defined in court.
Under the tortuous definition, Clinton denied having a sexual relationship. Under the same definition, a description of his
actions under later revelation absolutely qualified as sex.
It is argued that the Clinton matters concern consensual
sex which if forgiven by Hillary are not the proper concern of outsiders. But dragging a strange woman into a hotel room and
pushing a penis into her unwilling face is not consensual or within Hillary's province to either permit or forgive and declare
to be dead-ended at that point. Hillary Clinton has no legitimate say in anything. The issue is the seriously and highly questionable
mental state of someone characterized by a pattern of such activity. This was never about consensual sex or Monica Lewinsky
or Hillary. It was, and is, about sanity. The primary issue is the mental condition of a man running for the presidency who
more properly belongs in a psychiatric textbook.
I am not having an affair or sex with that woman means, not at
this exact moment I am sitting in this chair. It doesn't mean he wasn't five minutes before, or won't be five minutes afterwards.
The arguments are simply not believable and defy the conventionally agreed upon meaning and use of language employed
both in ordinary verbal discourse, in written form, or in court. We, and members of the judicial system, are asked to believe
the Clintons don't understand that.
Clinton argues that his answers in court were legally correct. They were not
legally, or in any other way, correct. His answers were improperly allowed in court by marginally competent opposing counsel
with an incompetent corrupt judge who was Clinton's former student. Anywhere else those answers would be insulting and cause
for legitimate indignation. That common standard should be just cause for their being viewed as perjury in a court of law.
We further find that FBI files are commandeered and disappear with no chain of custody, with arrogant resistance
to any attempt at accountability or explanation of their use. We are asked to believe important papers regarding fraudulent
business activities disappear or suddenly later partially reappear sitting openly on tables depending upon personal convenience.
Does anyone seriously believe the Clinton arguments and positions? Does anyone in his right mind believe Clinton's
assertion that didn't know whether he was in a room alone with a woman when he put semen on her dress? Of course not. No sane
person would in any circumstances. They are so absurd as to be little more than an insult, an expression of ridicule, and
an arrogant expression of contempt toward the people to whom they are directed.
Yet, we are attempting to discuss
and refute the Clinton assertions and arguments as though they were sincerely ventured, credible, and as if the assertions
and people making them were amenable to logic or to moral/ethical persuasion. There is no honesty or sincerity to the Clinton
arguments, or on the part of the people making them. The only and best refutation to the assertions is their own insanity.
There is no more valid refutation possible. We are attempting to reason with a man who cynically and ostentatiously marches
to church with a bible displayed under his arm on an Easter Sunday and returns to nearly immediate extramarital sexual liaisons,
as if he were a person of serious integrity rather than someone without serious intent, morality, or ethics.
Why
do we do it? We do it because it is the only remaining method of dealing with the Clintons who should be summarily dismissed
and expelled, but like the inmates of Auschwitz who could not expel the SS, we have no power or leverage. So we persist in
vain attempts at arguing the inarguable before psychopaths who not only do not care and who look upon the discourse with amused
contempt and ridicule.
In treating their denial and arguments as rational, we have been reduced to the same level
of insanity as the people making the arguments. We have validated and dignified insanity. What has evolved is a theater of
the absurd in which what has been lost is basic contact with reality and sanity. We plead and grovel in vain attempts to get
minute concessions of what obviously constitutes basic reality and sanity.
But Bill Clinton does not have a sex
addiction problem. He does not engage in passionate attention or sex in the ordinary erotic sense. He doesn't have love affairs
in the erotic, romantic, or any other ordinary sense. If anything, he has a massive hostility problem just beneath the outer
surface of his personality that is channeled into sexual symbolism within a pattern in which a vaguely sexual action becomes
a vehicle for contempt and reducing others to a position of acknowledging his aloof superiority. The so-called affair with
Lewinsky was not one of mutual eroticism. Much of it was spent with Lewinsky down on her knees in controlled submission before
an emotionally detached superior Bill Clinton. In many of their episodes Clinton demonstrated his superiority by withholding
ejaculation and masturbating into the sink adjacent to the Oval Office in an act of further emotional distance and contempt
devoid of passion. The act of demanding Paula Jones kiss his penis was not an act of consensual eroticism or passion. Clinton's
personality is more closely oriented in the direction paralleling the mentality of serial woman killer Ted Bundy who imposed
the ultimate subjugation of death upon women. Certainly, if there were incidences of violence upon women somewhere in Clinton's
background, it would not be surprising. However, Bill Clinton's brutality is more mentally destructive than physical. Women
feel dead inside when he is through with them.
The Clinton mental profile extends well into areas that should legitimately
alarm the broader society. Bill Clinton exhibits a wide spectrum of characteristics strongly diagnostic of very serious psychiatric
disorder. It's not a matter of sex, but of chronic lying without inhibition or hesitation, lack of rational behavioral control,
lack of insight, absence of remorse or conscience, feeling of special personal entitlement, shallowness of personal relationships,
and absence of any sense of relative importance in personal priorities. Forty-five years ago before sociopathic narcissism
and irresponsibility became interpreted as social liberation, Bill Clinton would have been written up in journals as a bizarre
and extreme case history.
The Clintons show barely concealed contempt and ridicule for the people of this country.
No one who respected me personally would lie to me in the bold fashion as the Cintons have. Both exhibit profound paranoia.
When their obvious contempt, pathology, and malfeasance is observed, they attribute such observations to vast right wing conspiracies
or other conspiratorial persecution. The Clintons conceive of themselves as persecuted victims of that entire portion of the
world possessing personal character and mental health. They are on a paranoid crusade and the limits to which they will use
violence to subjugate others to their paranoia is limited only to the extent they are temporarily immobilized or lacking in
power. This is true of the political left in general. Anyone who is not blind, not psychotic, and has an IQ above 95 is considered
is an intractably vicious enemy.
Over the years, the descriptive or diagnostic categories of mental dysfunction
have been softened. Bill Clifton exhibits what was once called a psychopathic personality and megalomania in the form of delusions
about his own superiority and specialness. Those delusions confer a contempt for other people conceived of by him as so far
below him as to be expendable in their insignificance or inferiority. He furthermore believes his mental superiority is so
great as to confer an infinite ability to manipulate other people, and he feels licensed to do so. Consequence, he exhibits
a contemptuous attitude toward other people, toward law, toward reason, and toward any and all societal institutions which
thwart his sense of his special significance. Beneath a mask of sanity the Clintons are psychotic and dangerous because they
have no internal moral or rational limits governing their behavior or their intent. Activities such as deliberate misuse of
FBI files easily fail to become a matter for serious introspection within their self-anointed imperial superiority.
The Clintons are dangerous. They, those around them, and their supporters, are the greatest threat to this country in
its history. They are manipulative ice people bent on power and revenge. They are capable of rationalizing anything. They
are capable of doing anything. Like many in their generation who have, and still have, an antipathy toward the country and
toward rational self-discipline, they have an agenda.
The arguments defending the Clintons must necessarily be
as psychotic as the behavior they are defending. Indeed, for the Clintons to survive, the Clintons and their defenders must
pathologize the nation. No sane mind would accept the arguments being given. No sane country would accept the arguments being
given.
Serious psychopathology is being given a very hard sell in the service of selling and defending Clinton.
The Clinton defense has become progressively divorced from any structure of reason or reality. The most rational of refutations
falls upon contemptuous and ridiculing ears.
Like the inmates of the Nazi concentration camps, we argue with the
Clintons and the forces of liberalism as if they are amenable to rationality when they are not. The countercultural destructiveness
they represent is not the result of intellectual oversight, but of deliberate intent. Attempts at reason are looked upon as
a weakness that confer time and passivity that allows them to complete their task. That is what must be understood.
Reasoning with the Clintons, the Carvilles, the Dershewitzes et al will not make you free.
...the first man to use abusive language instead of his fists was the founder of civilization. - Sigmund Freud
There is no great concurrence between learning and wisdom.
The only index by which to judge a government or a way of life is by the quality of the people it acts upon. No matter how
noble the objectives of a government, if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion
- it is an evil government.
Culture is the widening of the mind and of the spirit.
Jawaharlal Nehru
Universalism, Justice and Identity Politics:
This article takes the unsatisfying debates over political correctness as the starting point for a discussion of a set of
fundamental philosophical and political assumptions about life, justice and knowledge. I argue that the debate over political
correctness was so intense precisely because it was about more than the content of reading lists, or the rules governing Confederate
flags on campus. It was about a way of life, a mode of knowledge, an idea of the university, a vision of morality. In fact,
though the debate on PC was shallow by anyone's standards, at its centre was a profound philosophical clash over the idea
of "the universal" in morality, knowledge and existence. This clash is remarkable for more than merely epistemological
reasons. It casts new light on one of the most remarkable political shifts of the twentieth century: the wholesale adoption
by conservatives of the rhetoric of formal equality. That adoption, in turn, casts light over a series of otherwise inexplicable
shifts in American constitutional law.
Quantifying America's Decline by: William J. Bennett
Is our culture declining? I have tried to quantify the answer to this question with the creation of the Index of Leading Cultural
Indicators.
In the early 1960s, the Census Bureau began publishing the Index of Leading Economic Indicators. These
11 measurements, taken together, present the best means we now have of interpreting current business developments and predicting
future economic trends.
The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, a compilation of the Heritage Foundation and Empower
America, attempts to bring a similar kind of data-based analysis to cultural issues. It is a statistical portrait (from 1960
to the present) of the moral, social and behavioral conditions of modern American society--matters that, in our time, often
travel under the banner of "values."
Perhaps no one will be surprised to learn that, according to the
index, America's cultural condition is far from healthy. What is shocking is just how precipitously American life has declined
in the past 30 years, despite the enormous governmental effort to improve it.
Since 1960, the U.S. population has
increased 41%; the gross domestic product has nearly tripled; and total social spending by all levels of government (measured
in constant 1990 dollars) has risen from $143.73 billion to $787 billion - more than a fivefold increase. Inflation - adjusted
spending on welfare has increased by 630%, spending on education by 225%.
But during the same 30-year period there
has been a 560% increase in violent crime; a 419% increase in illegitimate births; a quadrupling in divorce rates; a tripling
of the percentage of children living in single-parent homes; more than a 200% increase in the teenage suicide rate; and a
drop of almost 80 points in SAT scores.
Clearly many modern-day social pathologies have gotten worse. More important,
they seem impervious to government's attempts to cure them. Although the Great Society and its many social programs have had
some good effects, there is a vast body of evidence suggesting that these "remedies" have reached the limits of
their success.
Perhaps more than anything else, America's cultural decline is evidence of a shift in the public's
attitudes and beliefs. Social scientist James Q. Wilson writes that "the powers exercised by the institutions of social
control have been constrained and people, especially young people, have embraced an ethos that values self-expression over
self - control." The findings of pollster Daniel Yankelovich seem to confirm this diagnosis. Our society now places less
value than before on what we owe to others as a matter of moral obligation; less value on sacrifice as a moral good; less
value on social conformity and respectability; and less value on correctness and restraint in matters of physical pleasure
and sexuality.
Some writers have spoken eloquently on these matters. When the late Walker Percy was asked what concerned
him most about America's future, he answered: "Probably the fear of seeing America, with all its great strength and
beauty and freedom . . . gradually subside into decay through default and be defeated, not by the Communist movement, demonstrably
a bankrupt system, but from within by weariness, boredom, cynicism, greed and in the end helplessness before its great problems."
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, in a speech earlier this year, put it this way: "The West . . . has been undergoing an erosion
and obscuring of high moral and ethical ideals. The spiritual axis of life has grown dim." John Updike has written: "The
fact that, compared to the inhabitants of Africa and Russia, we still live well cannot ease the pain of feeling we no longer
live nobly."
Treatises have been written on why this decline has happened. The hard truth is that in a free
society the ultimate responsibility rests with the people themselves. The good news is that what has been self-inflicted can
be self-corrected.
There are a number of things we can do to encourage cultural renewal. First, government should
heed the old injunction, "Do no harm." Over the years it has often done unintended harm to many of the people it
was trying to help. The destructive incentives of the welfare system are perhaps the most glaring example of this.
Second,
political leaders can help shape social attitudes through public discourse and through morally defensible social legislation.
A thoughtful social agenda today would perhaps include: a more tough-minded criminal justice system, including more prisons;
a radical reform of education through national standards and school choice; a system of child support collections, whereby
fathers would be made to take responsibility for their children; a rescinding of no-fault divorce laws for parents with children;
and radical reform of the welfare system.
But even if these and other worthwhile efforts are made, we should temper
our expectations of what government can do. A greater hope lies elsewhere.
Our social and civic institutions--families,
churches, schools, neighborhoods and civic associations--have traditionally taken on the responsibility of providing our children
with love, order and discipline- of teaching self-control, compassion, tolerance, civility, honesty and respect for authority.
Government, even at its best, can never be more that an auxiliary in the development of character.
The social regression
of the past 30 years is due in large part to the enfeebled state of our social institutions and their failure to carry out
their critical and time honored tasks. We desperately need to recover a sense of the fundamental purpose of education, which
is to engage in the architecture of souls. When a self-governing society ignores this responsibility, it does so at its peril.
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.
Edward R. Murrow
A Theory Of Civilisation by Philip Atkinson
What Is Political Correctness?
Political Correctness (PC) is the communal tyranny that erupted in the 1980s. It
was a spontaneous declaration that particular ideas, expressions and behaviour, which were then legal, should be forbidden
by law, and people who transgressed should be punished. It started with a few voices but grew in popularity until it became
unwritten and written law within the community. With those who were publicly declared as being not politically correct becoming
the target of persecution by the mob, if not prosecution by the state.
As a general rule the most successful man in life is the man who has the best information. - Benjamin Disraeli
Nothing is more revolting than the majority; for it consists of few vigorous predecessors, of knaves who accommodate themselves,
of weak people who assimilate themselves, and the mass that toddles after them without knowing in the least what it wants.
