Category: Deborah C. Tyler

Requiem for a Transsexualized Boy


Every society should be judged first and foremost on the way it treats innocent children.  The sexualization of children in any form is a deep stain upon the adults who commit it.

In recent years, there has been concern about the media sexualization of little girls, especially for the purpose of entertainment or advertising.  This form of exploitation is psychological child abuse.  It involves dressing and making up girls in a manner inappropriate to their age and detrimental to their healthy psychological development.  In addition to drawing unwholesome, psychologically damaging attention to the child, a side-effect is that sexualized attire – heeled shoes, tight clothes, heavy makeup – prevents girls from experiencing unselfconscious joys like running, jumping, and playing games with other children.

Now there is an up and coming form of child psychological abuse in the service of the complex psycho-political delusional system summarized in the “LGBT” amalgamation: the transsexualization of young boys, which directly parallels the sexualization of young girls.  Sara Gilbert, executive producer of the Roseanne show, who is a lesbian, claims responsibility for the nine-year-old transsexualized character on that show named Mark.

Mark could have been written as a young man doing things boys are good at.  He could have been a computer prodigy leading his working-class family into the new world or a young savior of the planet building solar contraptions in the backyard, or perhaps an athlete with a shelf full of trophies, with all the financial struggles of his family to support his training.  But a lesbian executive producer is not going to tolerate a vital masculine character.  While such a character would be a beneficial model for other fatherless boys, he will not serve the LGBT spiritual malady as a transsexualized boy does.  It rings true that Gilbert, who will not produce a son with a man she loves, is politically if not erotically gratified to transform a vibrant boy into a tutued female simulant.  Gilbert typifies the entertainment business mindset that it is progress to give America a listless, sedentary, socially isolated, transsexualized nine-year-old boy imprisoned in a thick, sequined choker.

The commitment of the American entertainment industry to lesbian, “gay,” bisexual, and “transgender” cultural and political dominance cannot be overestimated.  No dank, priest-ridden church could be more  dogmatic, no cult more intolerant of non-believers than LGBT doctrinaires.  The affirmative transsexualization of girls, the Shiloh Jolie-Pitt syndrome – girls dressed like miniature men in dark, rough clothing, beautiful hair hacked short around grim-set faces – is tragic.  It leads to sex identity confusion and plants seeds of rage watered by justifying the impossible demand to be honored as one’s identity du jour.  The transsexualization of male children is a battlefront in the war on boys.  Draining away the masculine vitality and smudgy playfulness of boys is attempted psychological homicide.

Mark is literally marginalized in the show’s cast photo, off to the side and unrecognizable as a boy.  This marginalization will be hard to overcome as long as he is a manikin for frocks and frills.  The amount of psychological energy used up by any form of transsexualization and the paralyzing psychosocial ambiguity it introduces into every human connection necessarily makes Mark a one-dimensional character.  Adult transsexuals who have turned away from the strongest challenges and deepest joys of their natural sex, but who cannot reach those depths of experience in the opposite one, suffer that same one-dimensionality.

The character Mark is not just a boy who paints his fingernails for a hoot.  He is transsexualized from the top of his pixie-style haircut to the bottom of his fringed skirt, sometimes decked out like a miniature RuPaul.  Since nine-year-olds cannot shop for themselves, or describe their preferred hairstyle at a salon, it is assumed that his mother encourages his female appearance.

In the 1950s, American women and girls escaped the limitations imposed by skirts and dresses.  Women did not have to live life side-saddle anymore.  LGBT politics, which produced the hoax called gender theory, is eager to be validated by pushing enfeebled boys like Mark back into skirts.

Mark tells his mother that the other kids think he’s weird, and she replies that their whole family is weird.  That’s a cruel falsehood.  Only Mark is weird in an obvious, pathetic way.  Of course he is a liability to other children; his transsexualization is a barrier to the easy flow of friendship with either boys or girls.  He is never going to slide into second base or buy cheap perfume at the drug store for the girl he has a crush on.  He moves like a ghost, floating around in his fat, loud, living family.

Gilbert congratulates herself on introducing the transsexualized character because it “represents the world” today.  This boy in skirts represents the way rich lesbian Hollywood types want to imagine the world is today.  If children are raised by parents who admire deviancy, abnormalities will develop.  The inhabitants of Sara Gilbert’s world who buy tickets to listen to Hillary Clinton’s rambling hatred are so insular, so smug, that they don’t even know that the real world of American life exists.  In Gilbert’s world, parents can afford expensive private educations that resemble treatment centers for kids like Mark who parented themselves and never told themselves “no.”  In the real world, public schools and religious schools have dress codes that do not allow a student to dress in a distracting manner.

Sara Gilbert told the press the character of Mark is not “transgender,” not “transitioning,” and “he is too young to be gay.”  What?  The first commandment of LGBT dogma is that “gays” are born that way.  She preferred to depict a straight boy who dresses head to toe like a girl every day, rather than a “gay” boy who dresses normally.  Isn’t that homophobia?  Yes, but it’s lesbian homophobia, so it doesn’t count.  Regarding the character of Mark, Gilbert said, “We did a lot of research because we wanted to make sure and do it properly.”  This means that Gilbert and her writers turned to an extant body of knowledge for guidance.  What literature did the creators of Roseanne study to “properly” portray a nine-year-old cross-dresser?  Did they view this as a moral question and turn to the foundations of Judeo-Christian  morality; to the Bible; or, perhaps under Roseanne Barr’s influence, to commentary on the Torah? 

There is only one extant piece of literature that would normalize the transsexualization of this child.  It is a recent, utterly biased bit of pseudo-science, begun in the 1980s and written almost entirely by homosexual “researchers,” called “gender theory.”  Gender theory is high-toned psychobabble rationalization concocted wholly and solely in the service of LGBT politics.  I will donate $1,000 to the local domestic violence program if Gilbert provides the “research” she studied and the authors are not predominantly LGBT-oriented.

How many nine-year-old boys do you know who claim to be real boys “inside” but dress up like a girl for school every day?  If such a child existed, here’s some real psychology provided by the great Alfred Adler decades before the world went mad that would help such a boy.  Adler said that to help troubled children, it is important to discover not the cause of their behavior, but the purpose.  He identified four purposes of behavior such as exhibited by Mark: 1) to gain attention, 2) to gain power and control over others, 3) to express anger, and 4) because of a sense of inferiority of masculinity.  If such a child as Mark actually existed, if his parents believed they were responsible for his well-being and were honest about the severe psychological, social, and health difficulties transsexuality causes, this theory would be a good place to start.

Every society should be judged first and foremost on the way it treats innocent children.  The sexualization of children in any form is a deep stain upon the adults who commit it.

In recent years, there has been concern about the media sexualization of little girls, especially for the purpose of entertainment or advertising.  This form of exploitation is psychological child abuse.  It involves dressing and making up girls in a manner inappropriate to their age and detrimental to their healthy psychological development.  In addition to drawing unwholesome, psychologically damaging attention to the child, a side-effect is that sexualized attire – heeled shoes, tight clothes, heavy makeup – prevents girls from experiencing unselfconscious joys like running, jumping, and playing games with other children.

Now there is an up and coming form of child psychological abuse in the service of the complex psycho-political delusional system summarized in the “LGBT” amalgamation: the transsexualization of young boys, which directly parallels the sexualization of young girls.  Sara Gilbert, executive producer of the Roseanne show, who is a lesbian, claims responsibility for the nine-year-old transsexualized character on that show named Mark.

Mark could have been written as a young man doing things boys are good at.  He could have been a computer prodigy leading his working-class family into the new world or a young savior of the planet building solar contraptions in the backyard, or perhaps an athlete with a shelf full of trophies, with all the financial struggles of his family to support his training.  But a lesbian executive producer is not going to tolerate a vital masculine character.  While such a character would be a beneficial model for other fatherless boys, he will not serve the LGBT spiritual malady as a transsexualized boy does.  It rings true that Gilbert, who will not produce a son with a man she loves, is politically if not erotically gratified to transform a vibrant boy into a tutued female simulant.  Gilbert typifies the entertainment business mindset that it is progress to give America a listless, sedentary, socially isolated, transsexualized nine-year-old boy imprisoned in a thick, sequined choker.

The commitment of the American entertainment industry to lesbian, “gay,” bisexual, and “transgender” cultural and political dominance cannot be overestimated.  No dank, priest-ridden church could be more  dogmatic, no cult more intolerant of non-believers than LGBT doctrinaires.  The affirmative transsexualization of girls, the Shiloh Jolie-Pitt syndrome – girls dressed like miniature men in dark, rough clothing, beautiful hair hacked short around grim-set faces – is tragic.  It leads to sex identity confusion and plants seeds of rage watered by justifying the impossible demand to be honored as one’s identity du jour.  The transsexualization of male children is a battlefront in the war on boys.  Draining away the masculine vitality and smudgy playfulness of boys is attempted psychological homicide.

Mark is literally marginalized in the show’s cast photo, off to the side and unrecognizable as a boy.  This marginalization will be hard to overcome as long as he is a manikin for frocks and frills.  The amount of psychological energy used up by any form of transsexualization and the paralyzing psychosocial ambiguity it introduces into every human connection necessarily makes Mark a one-dimensional character.  Adult transsexuals who have turned away from the strongest challenges and deepest joys of their natural sex, but who cannot reach those depths of experience in the opposite one, suffer that same one-dimensionality.

The character Mark is not just a boy who paints his fingernails for a hoot.  He is transsexualized from the top of his pixie-style haircut to the bottom of his fringed skirt, sometimes decked out like a miniature RuPaul.  Since nine-year-olds cannot shop for themselves, or describe their preferred hairstyle at a salon, it is assumed that his mother encourages his female appearance.

In the 1950s, American women and girls escaped the limitations imposed by skirts and dresses.  Women did not have to live life side-saddle anymore.  LGBT politics, which produced the hoax called gender theory, is eager to be validated by pushing enfeebled boys like Mark back into skirts.

Mark tells his mother that the other kids think he’s weird, and she replies that their whole family is weird.  That’s a cruel falsehood.  Only Mark is weird in an obvious, pathetic way.  Of course he is a liability to other children; his transsexualization is a barrier to the easy flow of friendship with either boys or girls.  He is never going to slide into second base or buy cheap perfume at the drug store for the girl he has a crush on.  He moves like a ghost, floating around in his fat, loud, living family.

Gilbert congratulates herself on introducing the transsexualized character because it “represents the world” today.  This boy in skirts represents the way rich lesbian Hollywood types want to imagine the world is today.  If children are raised by parents who admire deviancy, abnormalities will develop.  The inhabitants of Sara Gilbert’s world who buy tickets to listen to Hillary Clinton’s rambling hatred are so insular, so smug, that they don’t even know that the real world of American life exists.  In Gilbert’s world, parents can afford expensive private educations that resemble treatment centers for kids like Mark who parented themselves and never told themselves “no.”  In the real world, public schools and religious schools have dress codes that do not allow a student to dress in a distracting manner.

Sara Gilbert told the press the character of Mark is not “transgender,” not “transitioning,” and “he is too young to be gay.”  What?  The first commandment of LGBT dogma is that “gays” are born that way.  She preferred to depict a straight boy who dresses head to toe like a girl every day, rather than a “gay” boy who dresses normally.  Isn’t that homophobia?  Yes, but it’s lesbian homophobia, so it doesn’t count.  Regarding the character of Mark, Gilbert said, “We did a lot of research because we wanted to make sure and do it properly.”  This means that Gilbert and her writers turned to an extant body of knowledge for guidance.  What literature did the creators of Roseanne study to “properly” portray a nine-year-old cross-dresser?  Did they view this as a moral question and turn to the foundations of Judeo-Christian  morality; to the Bible; or, perhaps under Roseanne Barr’s influence, to commentary on the Torah? 

There is only one extant piece of literature that would normalize the transsexualization of this child.  It is a recent, utterly biased bit of pseudo-science, begun in the 1980s and written almost entirely by homosexual “researchers,” called “gender theory.”  Gender theory is high-toned psychobabble rationalization concocted wholly and solely in the service of LGBT politics.  I will donate $1,000 to the local domestic violence program if Gilbert provides the “research” she studied and the authors are not predominantly LGBT-oriented.

How many nine-year-old boys do you know who claim to be real boys “inside” but dress up like a girl for school every day?  If such a child existed, here’s some real psychology provided by the great Alfred Adler decades before the world went mad that would help such a boy.  Adler said that to help troubled children, it is important to discover not the cause of their behavior, but the purpose.  He identified four purposes of behavior such as exhibited by Mark: 1) to gain attention, 2) to gain power and control over others, 3) to express anger, and 4) because of a sense of inferiority of masculinity.  If such a child as Mark actually existed, if his parents believed they were responsible for his well-being and were honest about the severe psychological, social, and health difficulties transsexuality causes, this theory would be a good place to start.



Source link

Donald Trump, the Very Stable Genius Psychiatrist


After President Trump posted the tweets shown below, the vast Trump vilification cosmos predictably sprang into outraged armchair psychiatry, citing the tweets as evidence that the 25th Amendment must be immediately invoked to remove Trump – a madman using insults to forge a path to nuclear Armageddon.

But a funny thing happened just weeks later – and it was not nuclear Armageddon.  Dear Leader Un arranged for the two Korean Olympic teams to march together in the imminent opening Olympic ceremony.  Even the New York Times called that decision “[t]he most dramatic gesture of reconciliation between them [North and South Korea] in a decade.”  And shortly after that, Kim Jong-un shocked the world by inviting President Trump to talk with him face to face.  Presumably, in that encounter, he will remove his Rocket Man suit and wear normal clothes.

President Trump says he will talk to anyone, that he will build a relationship with anyone from the humblest humanitarian to the cruelest dictator.  While he did not study in a psychoanalytic institute, and the terms about to be discussed may well be unfamiliar to him, Trump’s tweets masterfully employ communication techniques that are foundational to modern psychoanalysis.

Modern psychoanalysis has become an established method of “the talking cure,” having spread, like wildfire, from midtown Manhattan through the Upper West Side to New Jersey in a mere thirty years.  Introduced in the late 20th century by its founder, Hyman Spotnitz, modern psychoanalysis was radical in two fundamental ways.  First, Spotnitz believed that intransigent mental illnesses – even schizophrenia, which was generally believed by all therapists to be immune to any kind of psychoanalysis – could be successfully treated by getting patients “to just talk about everything.”  Second, unlike traditional Freudian analysis, modern psychoanalysis does not involve the analyst’s interpretation of the patient’s unconscious neuroses as a primary therapeutic technique.  In fact, in modern psychoanalysis, such analytic dronings are verboten.

In modern psychoanalysis, a patient makes progress through reciprocal streams of emotional communication with the analyst, some conscious, most unconscious.  Transference is the patient’s largely unconscious projection of narcissism onto the analyst, which Spotnitz understood not as the popular conception of self-love, but as repressed self-hatred that fuels mental illness.  Counter-transference refers to the analyst’s emotional responses to the patient.  A skilled modern analyst strives to be conscious of his counter-transference and uses it for the benefit of the patient through the communication techniques of joining the resistance and contact functioning.  This article examines how those two therapeutic techniques are used in the president’s tweets to Kim Jong-un.

Joining is a conscious, therapeutic form of empathy used by the analyst.  As explained metaphorically by one modern analyst, “[i]n fine woodworking, joinery is used to connect two pieces of wood (e.g., a leg to a table top, a drawer face to its sides) in a way that increases the amount of contact between the two, thereby strengthening the connection.  This is precisely what joining in therapeutic pursuits is designed to accomplish: to increase the contact and the connection between two individuals.  Joining can be the glue that helps two parties stay together long enough and tightly enough to accomplish something therapeutic.”

In the first tweet shown above, President Trump joins Kim Jong-un’s resistance by mirroring aggressive and bellicose language.  OK, if I’m old, then you’re fat and short.  His response is not immature baiting, as it is misunderstood to be by the legions of Trump-hating armchair analysts.  Rather, his tweet engages the little dictator in literal – and more importantly, emotional – terms that he can understand.  By neither analyzing nor judging the childishness of Kim Jong-un’s words, President Trump is allowing him to set the emotional tone.  His tweet implicitly gives Kim Jong-un permission “to just talk about everything.”  President Trump’s “tweet for tat” engages Kim Jong-un on his own emotional level and leavens the exchange with humor that communicates a lack of judgment and censure.

This is an excellent example of contact functioning.  The purpose of contact functioning is to reduce anxiety in a patient (or, in this case, a dictator).  This is accomplished by allowing the expression of any emotion or threat or even irrational idea while prohibiting the acting out of such destructive impulses.

In the second tweet, President Trump again joins Kim Jong-un’s resistance.  This time, though, as the “therapist,” he sets limits on the “patient.”  He is saying, “You are allowed to say anything, but understand that you may not do anything.”  The president is setting limits beyond which terrible and unavoidable consequences loom: “I too have a Nuclear Button but it is much bigger and more powerful… and my Button works!”

An analyst once told me how, after his very first session in psychoanalysis and many years before he became an analyst himself, he offered his hand to the analyst.  The analyst took it and said, “I’m shaking your hand to let you know that I trust you.  But this is the last time you will ever touch me.”

The above tweet is President Trump’s response to Kim Jong-un’s recent invitation to meet.  It is in the spirit of getting the patient to “just talk about everything” while making it clear who is the patient and who is the therapist.

On January 11, 2018, President Trump told the Wall Street Journal, “I probably have a very good relationship with Kim Jong-un.  I have relationships with people.  I think you people are surprised.”  For those who intuitively trust the president’s communication strategies, that assertion is self-evident.  The president does seem to have a knack for relationships, whatever the amalgam of calculation and instinct may be behind them.  And just as an analyst must traverse convoluted resistances from a patient, the president must harness his calculations and instinct.  When it comes to North Korea, we can all pray they will work.

Image: włodi via Wikimedia Commons.

After President Trump posted the tweets shown below, the vast Trump vilification cosmos predictably sprang into outraged armchair psychiatry, citing the tweets as evidence that the 25th Amendment must be immediately invoked to remove Trump – a madman using insults to forge a path to nuclear Armageddon.

But a funny thing happened just weeks later – and it was not nuclear Armageddon.  Dear Leader Un arranged for the two Korean Olympic teams to march together in the imminent opening Olympic ceremony.  Even the New York Times called that decision “[t]he most dramatic gesture of reconciliation between them [North and South Korea] in a decade.”  And shortly after that, Kim Jong-un shocked the world by inviting President Trump to talk with him face to face.  Presumably, in that encounter, he will remove his Rocket Man suit and wear normal clothes.

President Trump says he will talk to anyone, that he will build a relationship with anyone from the humblest humanitarian to the cruelest dictator.  While he did not study in a psychoanalytic institute, and the terms about to be discussed may well be unfamiliar to him, Trump’s tweets masterfully employ communication techniques that are foundational to modern psychoanalysis.

Modern psychoanalysis has become an established method of “the talking cure,” having spread, like wildfire, from midtown Manhattan through the Upper West Side to New Jersey in a mere thirty years.  Introduced in the late 20th century by its founder, Hyman Spotnitz, modern psychoanalysis was radical in two fundamental ways.  First, Spotnitz believed that intransigent mental illnesses – even schizophrenia, which was generally believed by all therapists to be immune to any kind of psychoanalysis – could be successfully treated by getting patients “to just talk about everything.”  Second, unlike traditional Freudian analysis, modern psychoanalysis does not involve the analyst’s interpretation of the patient’s unconscious neuroses as a primary therapeutic technique.  In fact, in modern psychoanalysis, such analytic dronings are verboten.

In modern psychoanalysis, a patient makes progress through reciprocal streams of emotional communication with the analyst, some conscious, most unconscious.  Transference is the patient’s largely unconscious projection of narcissism onto the analyst, which Spotnitz understood not as the popular conception of self-love, but as repressed self-hatred that fuels mental illness.  Counter-transference refers to the analyst’s emotional responses to the patient.  A skilled modern analyst strives to be conscious of his counter-transference and uses it for the benefit of the patient through the communication techniques of joining the resistance and contact functioning.  This article examines how those two therapeutic techniques are used in the president’s tweets to Kim Jong-un.

Joining is a conscious, therapeutic form of empathy used by the analyst.  As explained metaphorically by one modern analyst, “[i]n fine woodworking, joinery is used to connect two pieces of wood (e.g., a leg to a table top, a drawer face to its sides) in a way that increases the amount of contact between the two, thereby strengthening the connection.  This is precisely what joining in therapeutic pursuits is designed to accomplish: to increase the contact and the connection between two individuals.  Joining can be the glue that helps two parties stay together long enough and tightly enough to accomplish something therapeutic.”

In the first tweet shown above, President Trump joins Kim Jong-un’s resistance by mirroring aggressive and bellicose language.  OK, if I’m old, then you’re fat and short.  His response is not immature baiting, as it is misunderstood to be by the legions of Trump-hating armchair analysts.  Rather, his tweet engages the little dictator in literal – and more importantly, emotional – terms that he can understand.  By neither analyzing nor judging the childishness of Kim Jong-un’s words, President Trump is allowing him to set the emotional tone.  His tweet implicitly gives Kim Jong-un permission “to just talk about everything.”  President Trump’s “tweet for tat” engages Kim Jong-un on his own emotional level and leavens the exchange with humor that communicates a lack of judgment and censure.

This is an excellent example of contact functioning.  The purpose of contact functioning is to reduce anxiety in a patient (or, in this case, a dictator).  This is accomplished by allowing the expression of any emotion or threat or even irrational idea while prohibiting the acting out of such destructive impulses.

In the second tweet, President Trump again joins Kim Jong-un’s resistance.  This time, though, as the “therapist,” he sets limits on the “patient.”  He is saying, “You are allowed to say anything, but understand that you may not do anything.”  The president is setting limits beyond which terrible and unavoidable consequences loom: “I too have a Nuclear Button but it is much bigger and more powerful… and my Button works!”

An analyst once told me how, after his very first session in psychoanalysis and many years before he became an analyst himself, he offered his hand to the analyst.  The analyst took it and said, “I’m shaking your hand to let you know that I trust you.  But this is the last time you will ever touch me.”

The above tweet is President Trump’s response to Kim Jong-un’s recent invitation to meet.  It is in the spirit of getting the patient to “just talk about everything” while making it clear who is the patient and who is the therapist.

On January 11, 2018, President Trump told the Wall Street Journal, “I probably have a very good relationship with Kim Jong-un.  I have relationships with people.  I think you people are surprised.”  For those who intuitively trust the president’s communication strategies, that assertion is self-evident.  The president does seem to have a knack for relationships, whatever the amalgam of calculation and instinct may be behind them.  And just as an analyst must traverse convoluted resistances from a patient, the president must harness his calculations and instinct.  When it comes to North Korea, we can all pray they will work.

Image: włodi via Wikimedia Commons.



Source link

Everybody Knows


Everybody knows that the dice are loaded, that the fight is fixed.  Everybody knows there two kinds of “public servants” in America: those who are held accountable for their actions and those who are not.  The unaccountables are almost always Democrat.

Everybody knows that the king and queen of all unaccountables are Bill and Hillary Clinton.  Their careers have been a crescendo of criminality for which they have never been held to account.  The Clintons offend locally and globally.  They build from local crimes like rape, intimidation, corruption, and perjury (some say worse) to global ones like diverting tens of millions of dollars from the sickest and poorest people to their bank accounts.  Hillary tossed around top national secrets like a Caesar salad.

The pinnacle of their careers as global unaccountables is the Uranium One scandal.  It took four years of collusion with the Russians.  They were abetted by many, including Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller, who knew and looked the other way.  Uranium in Wyoming is like potatoes in Idaho: there’s a lot of it.  Hillary’s Russian reset meant that the Clintons sold all the uranium in Wyoming to the Russian government for at least $150 million to the Clintons’ foundation.

Everybody knows that Barack Obama is doubly unaccountable.  He is unaccountable by physiognomy and by exquisite hypocrisy.  Holder and Lynch, both also double-unaccountables, subverted the justice system as Obama’s attorneys general, criminally conspired in multiple ways for political ends.  Everybody knows that Obama knew about the illegally obtained FISA warrant to spy on Donald Trump.  National security adviser Susan Rice is a numbskull who was valued for race and for lying straight-faced.  Susan’s parting prose was a note to self: we did really good, and were very honest.  Now do I get my chocolates and long-stemmed rose?  Everybody knows.

Power corrupts.  Power plus unaccountability turns sophisticated people into incompetent criminals and the uneducated into destructive, foul-mouthed brats.  The Obama administration produced multitudes of both.  They enjoyed eight years of unparalleled unaccountability thanks to a lapdog legacy press.

The FBI, the DOJ, all the top-tier unaccountables, forgot that the deplorables existed and never doubted that Hillary Clinton could buy and lie her way into the presidency.  It was her turn.  Still, it can’t hurt to wiretap the opposing campaign.  Besides, it’s so much fun to do whatever you want.  It was Woodstock for the D.C. unaccountables.  The top DOJ-FBI administrators, meaning people who were not competent enough to be real agents and lawyers, had the time of their lives playing cops and spies.  Hillary’s $12 million passed through Nellie Ohr at Fusion GPS.  Her husband, Assistant Attorney General Bruce Ohr, met with Christopher Steele, the cover-story author of the pee-pee dossier on Trump.  Ohr, who still works at the Justice Department, reported all the fun to Sally Yates.  Everybody came out to play.  McCabe spied; Comey danced and lied; John McCain lent a hand.  Strzok and Page were special beaux, they took their meetings without their clothes.  Everybody knows: Carter Page is not a spy; he’s just the one they chose.

If they had kept their oath to defend the Constitution and accepted the results of a lawful election, all these misdeeds, and many others yet to be revealed, would not have come to light.  Everybody knows that Hell hath no fury like scorned politicos.  They molded their outrage into an absurd charge that Trump had colluded with the Russians to fix the election.  Rat Rosenstein brought in Mueller, who was given a fishing license that will never expire.

Collusion?  By personality, Donald Trump is the last person who would secretly collude with anybody.  Everybody knows that Trump would not collude with Christ Himself if the chance arose.  Collusion is for people who lack confidence in their ability to accomplish a purpose and turn to underhanded methods.  If there is one defining feature to Donald Trump’s personality, it is tremendous confidence in the belief that he can accomplish his goals. Collusion is sneaky behavior that gives the other collaborators great power.  Trump would not grant that kind of power to anybody.  He would never believe he has to.  Furthermore, collusion involves concealment.  Everybody wishes Trump would try a little concealment now and then.  Mr. President, hide something from us once in a while, please.

This is a psychological theory about Jeff Sessions’s removing himself from seeking justice for the American people regarding all the crimes of the Clinton-Obama regime: he has PTSD.  Unaccountables get to slander and insult accountable politicians in the most vile terms whenever they choose.  Accountables always calmly defend themselves, no matter how unreasonable or inflammatory the abuse, because they have honor and integrity.  Sessions is a first-rank accountable who has been unjustly vilified as a racist for decades.  Avoidance is a major cluster of symptoms in PTSD.  He may just be burned out from the abuse.

Everybody knows it’s now or never; everybody knows that it’s truth or lies.  That’s how it goes.  Everybody knows.

Everybody knows that the dice are loaded, that the fight is fixed.  Everybody knows there two kinds of “public servants” in America: those who are held accountable for their actions and those who are not.  The unaccountables are almost always Democrat.

Everybody knows that the king and queen of all unaccountables are Bill and Hillary Clinton.  Their careers have been a crescendo of criminality for which they have never been held to account.  The Clintons offend locally and globally.  They build from local crimes like rape, intimidation, corruption, and perjury (some say worse) to global ones like diverting tens of millions of dollars from the sickest and poorest people to their bank accounts.  Hillary tossed around top national secrets like a Caesar salad.

The pinnacle of their careers as global unaccountables is the Uranium One scandal.  It took four years of collusion with the Russians.  They were abetted by many, including Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller, who knew and looked the other way.  Uranium in Wyoming is like potatoes in Idaho: there’s a lot of it.  Hillary’s Russian reset meant that the Clintons sold all the uranium in Wyoming to the Russian government for at least $150 million to the Clintons’ foundation.

Everybody knows that Barack Obama is doubly unaccountable.  He is unaccountable by physiognomy and by exquisite hypocrisy.  Holder and Lynch, both also double-unaccountables, subverted the justice system as Obama’s attorneys general, criminally conspired in multiple ways for political ends.  Everybody knows that Obama knew about the illegally obtained FISA warrant to spy on Donald Trump.  National security adviser Susan Rice is a numbskull who was valued for race and for lying straight-faced.  Susan’s parting prose was a note to self: we did really good, and were very honest.  Now do I get my chocolates and long-stemmed rose?  Everybody knows.

Power corrupts.  Power plus unaccountability turns sophisticated people into incompetent criminals and the uneducated into destructive, foul-mouthed brats.  The Obama administration produced multitudes of both.  They enjoyed eight years of unparalleled unaccountability thanks to a lapdog legacy press.

The FBI, the DOJ, all the top-tier unaccountables, forgot that the deplorables existed and never doubted that Hillary Clinton could buy and lie her way into the presidency.  It was her turn.  Still, it can’t hurt to wiretap the opposing campaign.  Besides, it’s so much fun to do whatever you want.  It was Woodstock for the D.C. unaccountables.  The top DOJ-FBI administrators, meaning people who were not competent enough to be real agents and lawyers, had the time of their lives playing cops and spies.  Hillary’s $12 million passed through Nellie Ohr at Fusion GPS.  Her husband, Assistant Attorney General Bruce Ohr, met with Christopher Steele, the cover-story author of the pee-pee dossier on Trump.  Ohr, who still works at the Justice Department, reported all the fun to Sally Yates.  Everybody came out to play.  McCabe spied; Comey danced and lied; John McCain lent a hand.  Strzok and Page were special beaux, they took their meetings without their clothes.  Everybody knows: Carter Page is not a spy; he’s just the one they chose.

If they had kept their oath to defend the Constitution and accepted the results of a lawful election, all these misdeeds, and many others yet to be revealed, would not have come to light.  Everybody knows that Hell hath no fury like scorned politicos.  They molded their outrage into an absurd charge that Trump had colluded with the Russians to fix the election.  Rat Rosenstein brought in Mueller, who was given a fishing license that will never expire.

Collusion?  By personality, Donald Trump is the last person who would secretly collude with anybody.  Everybody knows that Trump would not collude with Christ Himself if the chance arose.  Collusion is for people who lack confidence in their ability to accomplish a purpose and turn to underhanded methods.  If there is one defining feature to Donald Trump’s personality, it is tremendous confidence in the belief that he can accomplish his goals. Collusion is sneaky behavior that gives the other collaborators great power.  Trump would not grant that kind of power to anybody.  He would never believe he has to.  Furthermore, collusion involves concealment.  Everybody wishes Trump would try a little concealment now and then.  Mr. President, hide something from us once in a while, please.

This is a psychological theory about Jeff Sessions’s removing himself from seeking justice for the American people regarding all the crimes of the Clinton-Obama regime: he has PTSD.  Unaccountables get to slander and insult accountable politicians in the most vile terms whenever they choose.  Accountables always calmly defend themselves, no matter how unreasonable or inflammatory the abuse, because they have honor and integrity.  Sessions is a first-rank accountable who has been unjustly vilified as a racist for decades.  Avoidance is a major cluster of symptoms in PTSD.  He may just be burned out from the abuse.

Everybody knows it’s now or never; everybody knows that it’s truth or lies.  That’s how it goes.  Everybody knows.



Source link

T-Mobile and Leftism


The T-Mobile SuperBowl commercial #LittleOnes contains only 77 words. But those words summarize the divisiveness and dehumanization of the progressive left and unloads them onto babies. The voice-over monologue is godless political pablum served up to build anger and selfishness in the next generation. The ad shows a circle of nine infants of different races, all about three months old. A soft female voice says:

Welcome to the world, little ones. Yeah, it’s a lot to take in but you come with open minds and the instinct we are all equal.

Ashley Rae Goldenberg at the Media Research Center has written an essay entitled, “T-Mobile Super Bowl Ad Pushes Myth That Babies Don’t See Race or Gender.” The only mistake Miss Goldenberg makes in that piece is that she succumbs to the ill-advised term “gender” when the correct term is sex. The article briefly reviews the strong evidence that not only do babies distinguish and react differently to people according to race and sex, they do so before the age of one.

Tabula rasa, or the mind as a blank slate, is central to the progressive creation mythos. This fallacy asserts that everything human beings think, say, and do derives from what they learn in the environment, as controlled by society. For example, an application of tabula rasa trending now is that male babies become boys and female babies become girls mainly because society tells them they have to, and requires they be given “gendered” clothes and toys. This thesis is so at odds with natural phenomena it must be deemed insane. Tabula rasa is dear to the left because it minimizes individuality and personal responsibility, while emphasizing the differences among groups rather than within groups.

A corollary of the fundamental belief system of progressivism is that there is no such thing as sin before God, only social injustice among groups, according to the opinions of people. If the only evil is social evil, religion is irrelevant and politics are everything. Enlightened leaders such as the executives at T-Mobile get to decide which social conditions constitute injustice, to build those political opinions into their advertising, and to virtue-signal good on themselves by advertising their politics. After huddling for weeks, perhaps in the miserly light of curlicue enviro-lights above them, the creative minds working for T-Mobile corporation pinpointed racism, sexism, and homophobia as the preeminent and permanent evils in life. And they wrote a commercial to drum that into the heads of babies. The soft voice says:

Some people may see your differences and be threatened by them, but you are unstoppable.

Be warned little ones, American society has made scant progress towards interracial acceptance. You children, except maybe for whitey on the end there, will live in a world full of people who are threatened by you and who will hate you just for who you are. But it’s okay, the haters can’t stop you from getting what you want.

This message is devoid of the highest truth regarding the problem of enmity and strife among people. This generation must not hear that God is love, that the only remedy for hate is divine love. They will not hear the Golden Rule, or to love the enemy as the self. They have neither inspiration nor obligation to heal fear and misunderstanding. Their obligation is to themselves, to not be stopped in fulfilling their own desires. Next the soft voice says:

You’ll love who you want.

Here we go, the big lie, wrapped up in soothing falsehoods about human possibility. Forced marriages have never been a method of imposing the American Judeo-Christian religions, and unless such practices are brought by Islamic immigrants they never will be. Furthermore, there has been an unparalleled degree of social mobility and unregulated public interaction in America, which has resulted in a whole lot of self-directed love. Of course, “love who you want” is a dog whistle for the “LGBT” entitlement, and especially for same-sex marriage. What a waste! To encourage yet another generation to focus on the political partitioning of sexuality. (Interestingly, the only thing the left believes lies outside of the premise of tabula rasa is the predilection for variant sexuality. Apparently, babies have completely “open minds” except for that hardwiring.)

Let’s do the math. It is a well-established statistic accepted by both left and right wings that approximately 3% of the American population is accurately termed homosexual. The 3% statistic amounts to a strong prediction that none of the nine babies in the commercial will grow up to evidence predominant same-sex attraction. Suppose T-Mobile assembled a representative sample of thirty babies, and one grew up to be homosexual. What a burden to place on this one member of the group who belongs to a small minority. His needs will continue to be defined for him according to left-wing politics, his labeling will continue to bestow a priori virtue upon him, and his life will still be used as a weapon against the chimeric “homophobe,” i.e., anyone who thinks for themselves outside the progressive prison cell. Suddenly the voice is not soft any more, it covers the babies in angry tones:

You will demand equal pay, you will not allow where you come from to dictate where you’re going, you will be heard, not dismissed.

What a crock! The hoax of unequal pay has been discredited innumerable times. Ask any sample of the most successful people in America if they had the freedom to rise above the circumstances of their birth. The script is serving up the senseless anger characteristic of the left.

Regarding being heard, T-Mobile sees the babies as the next generation of foul-mouthed fools, cursing and screaming like the rest of the infantile left. The tragedy here is that the young are not being given the truth — that you have will be listened to if you get past yourself, use your God-given talents, work hard, and develop knowledge that is useful. Lastly, the voice says:

You will be connected and not alone.

Human beings need families; organized criminals and social justice warriors need connections. The destruction of the traditional family lies at the core of all left-wing politics. This is why the commercial emphasizes political connection rather than family. The young need to be prepared for the great opportunity to be the loving and grateful members of a family throughout life. Above all, they need to be taught that if you give love to all because all are one, and if you serve others even at the cost of your own comfort, you will never be alone.

The T-Mobile SuperBowl commercial #LittleOnes contains only 77 words. But those words summarize the divisiveness and dehumanization of the progressive left and unloads them onto babies. The voice-over monologue is godless political pablum served up to build anger and selfishness in the next generation. The ad shows a circle of nine infants of different races, all about three months old. A soft female voice says:

Welcome to the world, little ones. Yeah, it’s a lot to take in but you come with open minds and the instinct we are all equal.

Ashley Rae Goldenberg at the Media Research Center has written an essay entitled, “T-Mobile Super Bowl Ad Pushes Myth That Babies Don’t See Race or Gender.” The only mistake Miss Goldenberg makes in that piece is that she succumbs to the ill-advised term “gender” when the correct term is sex. The article briefly reviews the strong evidence that not only do babies distinguish and react differently to people according to race and sex, they do so before the age of one.

Tabula rasa, or the mind as a blank slate, is central to the progressive creation mythos. This fallacy asserts that everything human beings think, say, and do derives from what they learn in the environment, as controlled by society. For example, an application of tabula rasa trending now is that male babies become boys and female babies become girls mainly because society tells them they have to, and requires they be given “gendered” clothes and toys. This thesis is so at odds with natural phenomena it must be deemed insane. Tabula rasa is dear to the left because it minimizes individuality and personal responsibility, while emphasizing the differences among groups rather than within groups.

A corollary of the fundamental belief system of progressivism is that there is no such thing as sin before God, only social injustice among groups, according to the opinions of people. If the only evil is social evil, religion is irrelevant and politics are everything. Enlightened leaders such as the executives at T-Mobile get to decide which social conditions constitute injustice, to build those political opinions into their advertising, and to virtue-signal good on themselves by advertising their politics. After huddling for weeks, perhaps in the miserly light of curlicue enviro-lights above them, the creative minds working for T-Mobile corporation pinpointed racism, sexism, and homophobia as the preeminent and permanent evils in life. And they wrote a commercial to drum that into the heads of babies. The soft voice says:

Some people may see your differences and be threatened by them, but you are unstoppable.

Be warned little ones, American society has made scant progress towards interracial acceptance. You children, except maybe for whitey on the end there, will live in a world full of people who are threatened by you and who will hate you just for who you are. But it’s okay, the haters can’t stop you from getting what you want.

This message is devoid of the highest truth regarding the problem of enmity and strife among people. This generation must not hear that God is love, that the only remedy for hate is divine love. They will not hear the Golden Rule, or to love the enemy as the self. They have neither inspiration nor obligation to heal fear and misunderstanding. Their obligation is to themselves, to not be stopped in fulfilling their own desires. Next the soft voice says:

You’ll love who you want.

Here we go, the big lie, wrapped up in soothing falsehoods about human possibility. Forced marriages have never been a method of imposing the American Judeo-Christian religions, and unless such practices are brought by Islamic immigrants they never will be. Furthermore, there has been an unparalleled degree of social mobility and unregulated public interaction in America, which has resulted in a whole lot of self-directed love. Of course, “love who you want” is a dog whistle for the “LGBT” entitlement, and especially for same-sex marriage. What a waste! To encourage yet another generation to focus on the political partitioning of sexuality. (Interestingly, the only thing the left believes lies outside of the premise of tabula rasa is the predilection for variant sexuality. Apparently, babies have completely “open minds” except for that hardwiring.)

Let’s do the math. It is a well-established statistic accepted by both left and right wings that approximately 3% of the American population is accurately termed homosexual. The 3% statistic amounts to a strong prediction that none of the nine babies in the commercial will grow up to evidence predominant same-sex attraction. Suppose T-Mobile assembled a representative sample of thirty babies, and one grew up to be homosexual. What a burden to place on this one member of the group who belongs to a small minority. His needs will continue to be defined for him according to left-wing politics, his labeling will continue to bestow a priori virtue upon him, and his life will still be used as a weapon against the chimeric “homophobe,” i.e., anyone who thinks for themselves outside the progressive prison cell. Suddenly the voice is not soft any more, it covers the babies in angry tones:

You will demand equal pay, you will not allow where you come from to dictate where you’re going, you will be heard, not dismissed.

What a crock! The hoax of unequal pay has been discredited innumerable times. Ask any sample of the most successful people in America if they had the freedom to rise above the circumstances of their birth. The script is serving up the senseless anger characteristic of the left.

Regarding being heard, T-Mobile sees the babies as the next generation of foul-mouthed fools, cursing and screaming like the rest of the infantile left. The tragedy here is that the young are not being given the truth — that you have will be listened to if you get past yourself, use your God-given talents, work hard, and develop knowledge that is useful. Lastly, the voice says:

You will be connected and not alone.

Human beings need families; organized criminals and social justice warriors need connections. The destruction of the traditional family lies at the core of all left-wing politics. This is why the commercial emphasizes political connection rather than family. The young need to be prepared for the great opportunity to be the loving and grateful members of a family throughout life. Above all, they need to be taught that if you give love to all because all are one, and if you serve others even at the cost of your own comfort, you will never be alone.



Source link

Planned Parenthood Sells Hormone Poisoning, Genital Mutilation with Dangerous Lies


Planned Parenthood is cornering the artificial resexuation market by lying to young people, many of whom are mentally disordered, about the facts of sex and sexuality, and by selling unsound medical treatment to them.

Artificial resexuation, mislabeled “gender transition,” is a logical next step for PP’s business model.  It is offered in about sixty “clinics.”

Planned parenthood has always been in the anti-medical care business.  Abortion on demand is the opposite of medical treatment.  It causes a medical catastrophe – the loss of a healthy fetus from a healthy womb – due to psychological motives.  Artificial resexuation through manipulation with animal and synthetic hormones and surgeries is also the opposite of medical care.  It is the imposition of endocrinological disorder and physical malformation on a healthy body, also for psychological motives.

People who are suffering sex identity disorders or feel depressed, confused, hopeless, and want to believe that the problem is their body and not their mind, are understandably vulnerable to PP’s propaganda.  The tax-funded agency is exploiting the perverse heroicism associated with simply claiming sexual minority status.  When accredited victimhood is the new nobility, the jobless youth whose greatest achievement was coming out as “gay” can move up in status by ascending to “trans.”

Planned Parenthood’s marketing is based on two genres of falsity: 1) the chicanery called gender theory and 2) denial of the limitations and dangers of artificial resexuation.  Gender theory is political fanaticism dispensed as psychobabble by the vast left-wing conspiracy.  There are no genders, only two sexes, and it is not possible to change sex.

The following quotes are taken from the Planned Parenthood Raleigh, North Carolina Health Center website, What do I need to know about trans health care?  (It helpfully reminds that payment is expected at the time of services.)

The website appears to be targeting adolescents.  Planned Parenthood uses “informed consent” for medical services.  An 18-year-old with a credit card can self-refer to begin artificial resexuation.  Since PP is in obdurate denial about the risks and limitations of artificial resexuation, a purple-haired, profusely tattooed, phytoestrogen-drenched, and truth-starved 19-year-old has little chance of understanding what he is getting into.  The website refers to knowledge and facts.  You decide. 

From the website:

PP: What are the differences between [sic] sex, gender[,] and gender identity?  Sex is a label – male or female – that you’re assigned by a doctor at birth based on the genitals you’re born with[.]

This is not knowledge; it is idiocy.  Sex is genetically determined at conception and remains the most fundamental, immutable biological and psychological categorization of human beings throughout the lifespan.  Sex is not a label tacked onto babies according to how they look at birth.  The sex of many babies is known before birth.  The subtext of this nonsense is that your sex is picked after you’re born by some biased cis-hetero doctor.

PP: The assigned sex label that you’re given at birth is based on medical factors, including your hormones, chromosomes, and genitals.

Moronic.  Chromosomes are not a “medical factor.”  They are the fundamental biological determinants of every living organism on the planet.

PP: Instead of saying “biological sex,” some people use the phrase “assigned male at birth” or “assigned female at birth.”

Yes, some people might – if they’re insane.

PP: What is gender? … Gender is much bigger and more complicated than assigned sex.

How much “bigger” is gender than sex?  Twice as big?  Three times?

PP: Gender includes gender roles[,] which are expectations society and people have about behaviors, thoughts, and characteristics that go along with a person’s assigned sex.

Big fat lie. G ender theory is a political hoax cooked up by lesbian academics in the 1980s because they tired of saying there’s no difference between the two sexes and started saying there’s no such thing as two sexes at all.  It is ignorant to apply the term “gender” to any aspect of human nature, consciousness, or behavior.  Real scientists don’t need it.  Every human being is unique, a one-of-a-kind item in all creation.  Being male or female doesn’t diminish infinite individuality; it enriches it.  There are maleness and femaleness – no genderness.  Masculinity and femininity – no genderinity.  Manhood, womanhood, boyhood, girlhood – no genderhood. 

It is vast dehumanization to reduce the joys and challenges of manhood and womanhood to mere social expectations.  Planned Parenthood is taking ignorance to a new level by misleading vulnerable young people to believe they can experience the happiness and purposes of the opposite sex through “transition.”  To be father or mother, husband or wife is a fruit of the soul.  Planned Parenthood is in the business of destroying those gifts.

PP: What is gender identity? … Your gender identity is how you feel inside and how you express those feelings.

Nonsense.  There is no such thing as “inside” or “outside.”  The sex of an individual is continually expressed, recognized, and respected in a humane environment.  No one is perfectly masculine or feminine.  Celebrating one’s own unique pattern of talents and preferences is the highest gift of being American.

PP: A transgender person can be gay, lesbian, straight, bisexual, just like someone who is cisgender.

The prospective traveler on the magic carpet of transition can choose from PP’s catalog of “gender nonconforming” identities: MTF (male to female), FTM (female to male), genderfluid, genderqueer, intersex, pansexual, asexual, gray-a, demisexual, gender questioning, gender curious.  Planned parenthood reassures: “Once you claim a label, there’s no reason it can’t change as you change. Changing how you identify doesn’t mean you’re confused.”

Confused?  Certainly not!  Such crystalline wisdom confusing?

Identity pandemonium is dangerous.  Most young people are confused about something.  Sex identity disturbance is profound confusion about basic needs and the essential assumptions that enable human connection.  Constantly changing identity labels is a roadmap to despair.

The term “artificial” is used in medicine when synthetic anatomical parts or processes are substituted for natural ones.  When a doctor refers a couple for artificial insemination, he doesn’t say, “We’re going to transition you into pregnancy.”  “Artificial resexuation” is a more honest term than “transition” for treatments to simulate secondary characteristics of the opposite sex.  Planned Parenthood touts “trans care” provided by qualified doctors and nurses.  Ethical medical practitioners don’t offer a menu of dangerous treatments to patients without hard facts about benefit-to-risk outcomes.

Planned Parenthood claims that it offers hormone replacement therapy (HRT).  Wrong.  HRT is indicated when natural hormones are lacking.  Planned Parenthood provides unnatural hormones and hormone-blockers with unpredictable effects and dangerous side-effects.  Planned Parenthood’s website tempts the unwary with eleven plastic and reproductive organ surgeries, assuring readers: “Regardless of whether a transgender person chooses to [medically] transition [sic] … they’re [sic] no more ‘real’ than other trans people[.] … Someone’s gender identity must always be respected.”  Telling people they have a right to be respected as members of the opposite sex regardless of their body is inhumane medical malpractice.

Mental order is achieved when interacting elements of mind function in harmony.  Disorder arises when there is disharmony within mental processes.  All disturbance in sex identification is a mental disorder that deserves compassionate, keenly individualized care.  Transsexuality is a rare disorder for which the political construct of gender is irrelevant.  People compelled to live in replication of imaginings of the opposite sex must not take that step; they will never belong to the arrogated sex.  Such people are being exploited by being subsumed into the “LGBT” devastation.

Here is a simply written script for medical malpractice attorneys: “If you or a loved one became depressed or a loved one committed suicide after receiving ‘gender transition services’ at Planned Parenthood, call us.”

Planned Parenthood is cornering the artificial resexuation market by lying to young people, many of whom are mentally disordered, about the facts of sex and sexuality, and by selling unsound medical treatment to them.

Artificial resexuation, mislabeled “gender transition,” is a logical next step for PP’s business model.  It is offered in about sixty “clinics.”

Planned parenthood has always been in the anti-medical care business.  Abortion on demand is the opposite of medical treatment.  It causes a medical catastrophe – the loss of a healthy fetus from a healthy womb – due to psychological motives.  Artificial resexuation through manipulation with animal and synthetic hormones and surgeries is also the opposite of medical care.  It is the imposition of endocrinological disorder and physical malformation on a healthy body, also for psychological motives.

People who are suffering sex identity disorders or feel depressed, confused, hopeless, and want to believe that the problem is their body and not their mind, are understandably vulnerable to PP’s propaganda.  The tax-funded agency is exploiting the perverse heroicism associated with simply claiming sexual minority status.  When accredited victimhood is the new nobility, the jobless youth whose greatest achievement was coming out as “gay” can move up in status by ascending to “trans.”

Planned Parenthood’s marketing is based on two genres of falsity: 1) the chicanery called gender theory and 2) denial of the limitations and dangers of artificial resexuation.  Gender theory is political fanaticism dispensed as psychobabble by the vast left-wing conspiracy.  There are no genders, only two sexes, and it is not possible to change sex.

The following quotes are taken from the Planned Parenthood Raleigh, North Carolina Health Center website, What do I need to know about trans health care?  (It helpfully reminds that payment is expected at the time of services.)

The website appears to be targeting adolescents.  Planned Parenthood uses “informed consent” for medical services.  An 18-year-old with a credit card can self-refer to begin artificial resexuation.  Since PP is in obdurate denial about the risks and limitations of artificial resexuation, a purple-haired, profusely tattooed, phytoestrogen-drenched, and truth-starved 19-year-old has little chance of understanding what he is getting into.  The website refers to knowledge and facts.  You decide. 

From the website:

PP: What are the differences between [sic] sex, gender[,] and gender identity?  Sex is a label – male or female – that you’re assigned by a doctor at birth based on the genitals you’re born with[.]

This is not knowledge; it is idiocy.  Sex is genetically determined at conception and remains the most fundamental, immutable biological and psychological categorization of human beings throughout the lifespan.  Sex is not a label tacked onto babies according to how they look at birth.  The sex of many babies is known before birth.  The subtext of this nonsense is that your sex is picked after you’re born by some biased cis-hetero doctor.

PP: The assigned sex label that you’re given at birth is based on medical factors, including your hormones, chromosomes, and genitals.

Moronic.  Chromosomes are not a “medical factor.”  They are the fundamental biological determinants of every living organism on the planet.

PP: Instead of saying “biological sex,” some people use the phrase “assigned male at birth” or “assigned female at birth.”

Yes, some people might – if they’re insane.

PP: What is gender? … Gender is much bigger and more complicated than assigned sex.

How much “bigger” is gender than sex?  Twice as big?  Three times?

PP: Gender includes gender roles[,] which are expectations society and people have about behaviors, thoughts, and characteristics that go along with a person’s assigned sex.

Big fat lie. G ender theory is a political hoax cooked up by lesbian academics in the 1980s because they tired of saying there’s no difference between the two sexes and started saying there’s no such thing as two sexes at all.  It is ignorant to apply the term “gender” to any aspect of human nature, consciousness, or behavior.  Real scientists don’t need it.  Every human being is unique, a one-of-a-kind item in all creation.  Being male or female doesn’t diminish infinite individuality; it enriches it.  There are maleness and femaleness – no genderness.  Masculinity and femininity – no genderinity.  Manhood, womanhood, boyhood, girlhood – no genderhood. 

It is vast dehumanization to reduce the joys and challenges of manhood and womanhood to mere social expectations.  Planned Parenthood is taking ignorance to a new level by misleading vulnerable young people to believe they can experience the happiness and purposes of the opposite sex through “transition.”  To be father or mother, husband or wife is a fruit of the soul.  Planned Parenthood is in the business of destroying those gifts.

PP: What is gender identity? … Your gender identity is how you feel inside and how you express those feelings.

Nonsense.  There is no such thing as “inside” or “outside.”  The sex of an individual is continually expressed, recognized, and respected in a humane environment.  No one is perfectly masculine or feminine.  Celebrating one’s own unique pattern of talents and preferences is the highest gift of being American.

PP: A transgender person can be gay, lesbian, straight, bisexual, just like someone who is cisgender.

The prospective traveler on the magic carpet of transition can choose from PP’s catalog of “gender nonconforming” identities: MTF (male to female), FTM (female to male), genderfluid, genderqueer, intersex, pansexual, asexual, gray-a, demisexual, gender questioning, gender curious.  Planned parenthood reassures: “Once you claim a label, there’s no reason it can’t change as you change. Changing how you identify doesn’t mean you’re confused.”

Confused?  Certainly not!  Such crystalline wisdom confusing?

Identity pandemonium is dangerous.  Most young people are confused about something.  Sex identity disturbance is profound confusion about basic needs and the essential assumptions that enable human connection.  Constantly changing identity labels is a roadmap to despair.

The term “artificial” is used in medicine when synthetic anatomical parts or processes are substituted for natural ones.  When a doctor refers a couple for artificial insemination, he doesn’t say, “We’re going to transition you into pregnancy.”  “Artificial resexuation” is a more honest term than “transition” for treatments to simulate secondary characteristics of the opposite sex.  Planned Parenthood touts “trans care” provided by qualified doctors and nurses.  Ethical medical practitioners don’t offer a menu of dangerous treatments to patients without hard facts about benefit-to-risk outcomes.

Planned Parenthood claims that it offers hormone replacement therapy (HRT).  Wrong.  HRT is indicated when natural hormones are lacking.  Planned Parenthood provides unnatural hormones and hormone-blockers with unpredictable effects and dangerous side-effects.  Planned Parenthood’s website tempts the unwary with eleven plastic and reproductive organ surgeries, assuring readers: “Regardless of whether a transgender person chooses to [medically] transition [sic] … they’re [sic] no more ‘real’ than other trans people[.] … Someone’s gender identity must always be respected.”  Telling people they have a right to be respected as members of the opposite sex regardless of their body is inhumane medical malpractice.

Mental order is achieved when interacting elements of mind function in harmony.  Disorder arises when there is disharmony within mental processes.  All disturbance in sex identification is a mental disorder that deserves compassionate, keenly individualized care.  Transsexuality is a rare disorder for which the political construct of gender is irrelevant.  People compelled to live in replication of imaginings of the opposite sex must not take that step; they will never belong to the arrogated sex.  Such people are being exploited by being subsumed into the “LGBT” devastation.

Here is a simply written script for medical malpractice attorneys: “If you or a loved one became depressed or a loved one committed suicide after receiving ‘gender transition services’ at Planned Parenthood, call us.”



Source link

It's not a federal crime. It's just 'intrigue.'


On November 3, 2017, a man entered the private property of a sitting U.S. senator uninvited.  He snuck up behind and assaulted the senator with such violence that he broke six ribs and damaged the senator’s lungs, leading to pneumonia and severe pain.  These injuries prevented the senator from returning to Congress for a crucial debate in which he played a leadership role.

If a right-wing assailant had broken the bones of Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Shumer, sending either of them to a pain-filled hospital bed, the outcry from both sides of Congress would have been ear-shattering.  The left-wing media would have blared about the hateful, violent right wing.  Felony charges appropriate to an indubitable federal crime would have been filed immediately.  But in this case, the attacker, Dr. Rene Boucher, is an outspoken Democrat, and his victim, Senator Rand Paul, is a prominent Republican.

The Republican congressional leadership have shown little interest in the case, and Democrats have had nothing to say.  Within hours of the injurious attack, the fake news magisteria cooked up a bogus narrative about an ongoing dispute between the two men regarding landscaping.  The media concocted the “lawn care dossier” to trivialize the crime.  The lawn care dossier serves the larger purpose that the assault be prosecuted as a misdemeanor in state law rather than a federal offense, which it is.  This shift in narrative parallels changing “gross negligence” to “extreme carelessness” on behalf of Hillary Clinton.  On December 6, 2017, the Washington Post polished up and pushed the lawn care dossier in an article, “Intrigue grows over what sparked the attack on Rand Paul.”  The narrative of intrigue between Drs. Boucher and Paul is 100% fake and 1,000% irrelevant.

Following the assassination of President Kennedy, Congress passed 18 U.S. Code 1751 in 1965, making it a federal crime to kill, kidnap, or assault the president or vice president of the United States.  Due to an extraordinary tragedy of American history, Congress expanded those protections to congressmen following the 1968 assassination of President Kennedy’s brother, Senator Robert Kennedy.  Congress passed 18 U.S. Code 351 in 1971 establishing the precedence of federal law above state law in cases of serious crimes committed against congressmen and other high-ranking federal officials.

“Congressional, Cabinet and Supreme Court assassination, kidnapping and assault penalities,” 18 U.S. Code Section 35, states: “Whoever assaults any person designated in subsection (a) of this section [a Member of Congress or a Member-of-Congress-elect] shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year or both; and if the assault involved the use of a dangerous weapon, or personal injury results, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

Neither USC 1751 nor 351 refers to or gives importance to the grievances assailants may hold against the official they attack.  The statutes do not separate personal from political hatred held by the perpetrators.  This is wise, because hate cannot be cut up like fudge, and such boundaries in mental states of hatred do not exist.  It may not be coincidental that congressmen are mentioned first in the expanded list of protectees.  Congressmen are especially vulnerable.  They maintain homes in their districts and must stay in touch with their constituents.  Furthermore, it would be costly to assign full, permanent secret service detail to 535 congressmen across the nation.

The American people are watching the Mueller investigation into Trump-Russia collusion decompose like a corpse.  The worst fumes wafting from the special counsel’s workplaces are the high stink of extreme pro-Democrat, anti-Republican bias, which is also present in the media’s portrayal of the crime against Senator Paul.  Immediately after the assault, Dr. Boucher’s lawyer provided a psychoanalysis of motivation and declared that the attack “[h]ad nothing to do with politics.”  Left-wing news media jumped on that irrelevancy and started asking, If the assault was not about politics, what was it about?

As with James Comey’s decriminalizing Hillary’s e-mail malfeasance by psychoanalyzing her absence of intent, the fake news has been pushing unknowable and legally immaterial theories about Dr. Boucher’s motivation.  And as with the collusion-delusion, their flim-flammery involves intoning that “there’s a lot of smoke here.”  The left-wing media bring in their own smoke machines, and when they’ve created enough smoke, they conclude there must have been something going on between the neighbors to explain the assault because there’s so much smoke.

After the assault, the senator’s wife, Dr. Kelley Paul, spoke poignantly about her husband’s severe pain and about the left-wing media’s victim-blaming in the case: “It is incredibly hurtful that some news outlets have victimized Rand a second time as he struggles to recover, delighting in hateful headlines like ‘Not A Perfect Neighbor,’ and concocting theories about an ‘ongoing dispute,’ based on nothing more than speculation from an attention-seeking person with no knowledge of anything to do with us.”  She added that her husband had not spoken to that neighbor in a decade and did not provoke any kind of violent behavior.

Nevertheless, the Washington Post recently declared, “Intrigue has deepened in the weeks since the Nov. 3 assault as Paul and Boucher have remained largely quiet about what prompted it.”  Intrigue is deepening just as it did when Hillary ponied up for the pee-pee dossier against Trump, while her friends at the Justice Department shook off any remaining bodily fluid and carried it over to the FISA court for her.  The lawn care dossier includes suppositions about lawn-mowing, composting, errant pine needles, and a Jackie Gleason impersonation uttered ten years ago – “One of these days, pow – right in the kisser.” – conveniently remembered a decade later by a nosy neighbor.  The Post seems to blame the alleged perpetrator and his victim for this deepening “intrigue” because their silence has created “a vacuum.”  Rand Paul has already stated, “If someone mugs you, is it really justified for any reason?,” and Boucher has to keep his mouth shut because he’s been charged with a misdemeanor and is under investigation for the federal crime he certainly committed.

The Post blows smoke thusly: “Into the vacuum, competing theories for the assault have been floated, like so many Washington trial balloons. They range from the mundane, such as bad blood over spoiled views of a lake, to the outlandish – an Antifa plot.”  The Post doesn’t source these the theories.  They can’t because there was no spoiled view of a lake, no Antifa plot, just left-wing irrelevant fakery.

It may seem disproportionate to compare the machinations of media like the Washington Post regarding a de facto coup against the president to the assault on a sitting senator.  But it is not.  The shooting of Representative Steve Scalise by a left-winger, like the assault on Senator Paul, constitutes a grave attack on this Republic and on the freedoms of the American way of life.  It is vital to our nation that Dr. Boucher be convicted of the federal crime he committed and serve federal time.

Here’s a psychological theory, tragic if true.  Perhaps the left-wing press doesn’t care, or is emotionally gratified when a leading Republican is injured and disabled.  Perhaps that is why these reporters manufacture irrelevant “intrigue” to minimize the crime.

On November 3, 2017, a man entered the private property of a sitting U.S. senator uninvited.  He snuck up behind and assaulted the senator with such violence that he broke six ribs and damaged the senator’s lungs, leading to pneumonia and severe pain.  These injuries prevented the senator from returning to Congress for a crucial debate in which he played a leadership role.

If a right-wing assailant had broken the bones of Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Shumer, sending either of them to a pain-filled hospital bed, the outcry from both sides of Congress would have been ear-shattering.  The left-wing media would have blared about the hateful, violent right wing.  Felony charges appropriate to an indubitable federal crime would have been filed immediately.  But in this case, the attacker, Dr. Rene Boucher, is an outspoken Democrat, and his victim, Senator Rand Paul, is a prominent Republican.

The Republican congressional leadership have shown little interest in the case, and Democrats have had nothing to say.  Within hours of the injurious attack, the fake news magisteria cooked up a bogus narrative about an ongoing dispute between the two men regarding landscaping.  The media concocted the “lawn care dossier” to trivialize the crime.  The lawn care dossier serves the larger purpose that the assault be prosecuted as a misdemeanor in state law rather than a federal offense, which it is.  This shift in narrative parallels changing “gross negligence” to “extreme carelessness” on behalf of Hillary Clinton.  On December 6, 2017, the Washington Post polished up and pushed the lawn care dossier in an article, “Intrigue grows over what sparked the attack on Rand Paul.”  The narrative of intrigue between Drs. Boucher and Paul is 100% fake and 1,000% irrelevant.

Following the assassination of President Kennedy, Congress passed 18 U.S. Code 1751 in 1965, making it a federal crime to kill, kidnap, or assault the president or vice president of the United States.  Due to an extraordinary tragedy of American history, Congress expanded those protections to congressmen following the 1968 assassination of President Kennedy’s brother, Senator Robert Kennedy.  Congress passed 18 U.S. Code 351 in 1971 establishing the precedence of federal law above state law in cases of serious crimes committed against congressmen and other high-ranking federal officials.

“Congressional, Cabinet and Supreme Court assassination, kidnapping and assault penalities,” 18 U.S. Code Section 35, states: “Whoever assaults any person designated in subsection (a) of this section [a Member of Congress or a Member-of-Congress-elect] shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year or both; and if the assault involved the use of a dangerous weapon, or personal injury results, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

Neither USC 1751 nor 351 refers to or gives importance to the grievances assailants may hold against the official they attack.  The statutes do not separate personal from political hatred held by the perpetrators.  This is wise, because hate cannot be cut up like fudge, and such boundaries in mental states of hatred do not exist.  It may not be coincidental that congressmen are mentioned first in the expanded list of protectees.  Congressmen are especially vulnerable.  They maintain homes in their districts and must stay in touch with their constituents.  Furthermore, it would be costly to assign full, permanent secret service detail to 535 congressmen across the nation.

The American people are watching the Mueller investigation into Trump-Russia collusion decompose like a corpse.  The worst fumes wafting from the special counsel’s workplaces are the high stink of extreme pro-Democrat, anti-Republican bias, which is also present in the media’s portrayal of the crime against Senator Paul.  Immediately after the assault, Dr. Boucher’s lawyer provided a psychoanalysis of motivation and declared that the attack “[h]ad nothing to do with politics.”  Left-wing news media jumped on that irrelevancy and started asking, If the assault was not about politics, what was it about?

As with James Comey’s decriminalizing Hillary’s e-mail malfeasance by psychoanalyzing her absence of intent, the fake news has been pushing unknowable and legally immaterial theories about Dr. Boucher’s motivation.  And as with the collusion-delusion, their flim-flammery involves intoning that “there’s a lot of smoke here.”  The left-wing media bring in their own smoke machines, and when they’ve created enough smoke, they conclude there must have been something going on between the neighbors to explain the assault because there’s so much smoke.

After the assault, the senator’s wife, Dr. Kelley Paul, spoke poignantly about her husband’s severe pain and about the left-wing media’s victim-blaming in the case: “It is incredibly hurtful that some news outlets have victimized Rand a second time as he struggles to recover, delighting in hateful headlines like ‘Not A Perfect Neighbor,’ and concocting theories about an ‘ongoing dispute,’ based on nothing more than speculation from an attention-seeking person with no knowledge of anything to do with us.”  She added that her husband had not spoken to that neighbor in a decade and did not provoke any kind of violent behavior.

Nevertheless, the Washington Post recently declared, “Intrigue has deepened in the weeks since the Nov. 3 assault as Paul and Boucher have remained largely quiet about what prompted it.”  Intrigue is deepening just as it did when Hillary ponied up for the pee-pee dossier against Trump, while her friends at the Justice Department shook off any remaining bodily fluid and carried it over to the FISA court for her.  The lawn care dossier includes suppositions about lawn-mowing, composting, errant pine needles, and a Jackie Gleason impersonation uttered ten years ago – “One of these days, pow – right in the kisser.” – conveniently remembered a decade later by a nosy neighbor.  The Post seems to blame the alleged perpetrator and his victim for this deepening “intrigue” because their silence has created “a vacuum.”  Rand Paul has already stated, “If someone mugs you, is it really justified for any reason?,” and Boucher has to keep his mouth shut because he’s been charged with a misdemeanor and is under investigation for the federal crime he certainly committed.

The Post blows smoke thusly: “Into the vacuum, competing theories for the assault have been floated, like so many Washington trial balloons. They range from the mundane, such as bad blood over spoiled views of a lake, to the outlandish – an Antifa plot.”  The Post doesn’t source these the theories.  They can’t because there was no spoiled view of a lake, no Antifa plot, just left-wing irrelevant fakery.

It may seem disproportionate to compare the machinations of media like the Washington Post regarding a de facto coup against the president to the assault on a sitting senator.  But it is not.  The shooting of Representative Steve Scalise by a left-winger, like the assault on Senator Paul, constitutes a grave attack on this Republic and on the freedoms of the American way of life.  It is vital to our nation that Dr. Boucher be convicted of the federal crime he committed and serve federal time.

Here’s a psychological theory, tragic if true.  Perhaps the left-wing press doesn’t care, or is emotionally gratified when a leading Republican is injured and disabled.  Perhaps that is why these reporters manufacture irrelevant “intrigue” to minimize the crime.



Source link

Benign Violation Theory: An Explanation for 'Pocahontas' Outrage


When I was six years old and my brother was eight, each of us was given a quarter to spend in a candy store before seeing a movie.  I thought my quarter was a fortune, but not so my brother.  The third-grader was unhappy with the quantity of popcorn he could get for his coin and complained to the shopkeeper.  The impatient shopkeeper asked my brother, “What do you want for 25 cents, the Brooklyn Bridge?”  My brother said, “Yeah, ya got any in stock?”

This exchange happened in the late 1950s on Staten Island.  The TV show Impractical Jokers is also a creation of Staten Islanders: four guys who stage embarrassing hidden camera pranks around New York City.  It is no coincidence that this show features New Yorkers pulling weird, sometimes humiliating and disgusting pranks on other New Yorkers.  It’s the only place they could get away with it.  Humor, sarcasm, laughing at yourself and others, acerbic name-calling, and “ranking out” are essential coping mechanisms for life in New York – especially so for the mensches, the real people in the streets, stores, and neighborhoods.

New Yorkers have what psychologists call a large capacity for benign violation.  In other words, they can take it, and they can dish it out, too.  When the New Insensitive Male in the White House calls the identity-hoaxer Senator Elizabeth Warren “Pocahontas” – punctuated by adding that the only apology he makes is to the real Pocahontas for comparing her to goofy Liz – Trump is being an archetypal guy from Queens. He is deploying humorous mockery, a powerful coping mechanism in conflict situations, which, like my brother, he learned to use as a child.

President Trump is liberating Americans from the mental prison of political correctness and allowing them to laugh again.  But the sourpuss left wing doesn’t get the joke.  On the contrary, left-wing media are all panty-wadded about Trump’s Pocahontas jibe, and of course, they are wailing about racism.  Senator Warren herself wrote that Trump showed “the very worst of gutter politics.”  The senator thinks nothing in politics could be worse than her being called a sarcastic name?  She must consider herself a supremely important person.

Psychologists have advanced many theories to understand the dynamics of humor and what makes people laugh.  Benign violation theory is a recent addition to this literature by Caleb Warren and A. Peter McGraw.  It is particularly robust in explaining why many people find Trump’s Pocahontas moniker amusing while others are greatly offended.  Benign violation theory posits that humor is experienced when a circumstance is simultaneously perceived as a violation but also as being benign.  Most violations do not amuse, but a violation that is perceived as OK, acceptable, or safe produces amusement and laughter.  The theory explains that major forms of humor such as puns, sarcasm, punch lines, practical jokes, slapstick, and horseplay make people laugh because they involve violations of linguistic, physical, or cultural conventions (“Take my wife – no, please, take her.”) yet at the same time are benign and therefore acceptable to the recipient of the humorous attempt.

Because sarcasm involves saying one thing but meaning the opposite, it violates conversational norms of meaning.  When it is perceived as safe, such as the proverbial sale of the Brooklyn bridge, it can be funny.  Trump gives Senator Warren the name of a Powhatan Indian princess who died in 1617 because he believes that the senator is not an American Indian as she has claimed to be.  The senator and others of the far left not only don’t find the sarcasm amusing, but splutter that it is a racist outrage.  BVT theory neatly accounts for this: “Sarcasm isn’t funny to people who don’t detect the speaker’s true intention.  Nor is it funny to people who don’t approve of the speaker’s true intention.”

The left wing strongly disapproves of the president’s intention to call out Senator Warren’s hoax.  This is because classical liberalism is gone, replaced by dogma focused on oppressions of the distant past and sustained by bitter delusions that seek the worst in the human heart – politics founded upon the purported original and eternal sin of American white racism.  The priestcraft of the cult that replaced liberalism is driven by an obsessive search for innovative examples of white racism to confirm itself, enlarging upon loony white privilege theory and sniffing around every sombrero for signs of “cultural appropriation.”  This season’s fashion-forward term on the bigotry runways is “white supremacy.”  Regarding the knee-jerk outrage at the president’s jokes, blind dogmatists are not known for their sense of humor.

Trump’s humor will prevail against the left’s addiction to racism-spotting because his sarcasm is benign to people who love America as she is.  Calling Warren Pocahontas resonates with the wish of Americans for the restoration of a meritocracy and equal opportunity in academia.  In her (unsuccessful) outrage, Senator Warren is hoping that people who really are of American Indian ancestry will continue to burn in the long banked fires of historic victimization.  But she is also stoking a non-benign attitude toward America.  Leftists can’t laugh at themselves or anything else anymore, and everybody needs a good laugh sometimes.

When I was six years old and my brother was eight, each of us was given a quarter to spend in a candy store before seeing a movie.  I thought my quarter was a fortune, but not so my brother.  The third-grader was unhappy with the quantity of popcorn he could get for his coin and complained to the shopkeeper.  The impatient shopkeeper asked my brother, “What do you want for 25 cents, the Brooklyn Bridge?”  My brother said, “Yeah, ya got any in stock?”

This exchange happened in the late 1950s on Staten Island.  The TV show Impractical Jokers is also a creation of Staten Islanders: four guys who stage embarrassing hidden camera pranks around New York City.  It is no coincidence that this show features New Yorkers pulling weird, sometimes humiliating and disgusting pranks on other New Yorkers.  It’s the only place they could get away with it.  Humor, sarcasm, laughing at yourself and others, acerbic name-calling, and “ranking out” are essential coping mechanisms for life in New York – especially so for the mensches, the real people in the streets, stores, and neighborhoods.

New Yorkers have what psychologists call a large capacity for benign violation.  In other words, they can take it, and they can dish it out, too.  When the New Insensitive Male in the White House calls the identity-hoaxer Senator Elizabeth Warren “Pocahontas” – punctuated by adding that the only apology he makes is to the real Pocahontas for comparing her to goofy Liz – Trump is being an archetypal guy from Queens. He is deploying humorous mockery, a powerful coping mechanism in conflict situations, which, like my brother, he learned to use as a child.

President Trump is liberating Americans from the mental prison of political correctness and allowing them to laugh again.  But the sourpuss left wing doesn’t get the joke.  On the contrary, left-wing media are all panty-wadded about Trump’s Pocahontas jibe, and of course, they are wailing about racism.  Senator Warren herself wrote that Trump showed “the very worst of gutter politics.”  The senator thinks nothing in politics could be worse than her being called a sarcastic name?  She must consider herself a supremely important person.

Psychologists have advanced many theories to understand the dynamics of humor and what makes people laugh.  Benign violation theory is a recent addition to this literature by Caleb Warren and A. Peter McGraw.  It is particularly robust in explaining why many people find Trump’s Pocahontas moniker amusing while others are greatly offended.  Benign violation theory posits that humor is experienced when a circumstance is simultaneously perceived as a violation but also as being benign.  Most violations do not amuse, but a violation that is perceived as OK, acceptable, or safe produces amusement and laughter.  The theory explains that major forms of humor such as puns, sarcasm, punch lines, practical jokes, slapstick, and horseplay make people laugh because they involve violations of linguistic, physical, or cultural conventions (“Take my wife – no, please, take her.”) yet at the same time are benign and therefore acceptable to the recipient of the humorous attempt.

Because sarcasm involves saying one thing but meaning the opposite, it violates conversational norms of meaning.  When it is perceived as safe, such as the proverbial sale of the Brooklyn bridge, it can be funny.  Trump gives Senator Warren the name of a Powhatan Indian princess who died in 1617 because he believes that the senator is not an American Indian as she has claimed to be.  The senator and others of the far left not only don’t find the sarcasm amusing, but splutter that it is a racist outrage.  BVT theory neatly accounts for this: “Sarcasm isn’t funny to people who don’t detect the speaker’s true intention.  Nor is it funny to people who don’t approve of the speaker’s true intention.”

The left wing strongly disapproves of the president’s intention to call out Senator Warren’s hoax.  This is because classical liberalism is gone, replaced by dogma focused on oppressions of the distant past and sustained by bitter delusions that seek the worst in the human heart – politics founded upon the purported original and eternal sin of American white racism.  The priestcraft of the cult that replaced liberalism is driven by an obsessive search for innovative examples of white racism to confirm itself, enlarging upon loony white privilege theory and sniffing around every sombrero for signs of “cultural appropriation.”  This season’s fashion-forward term on the bigotry runways is “white supremacy.”  Regarding the knee-jerk outrage at the president’s jokes, blind dogmatists are not known for their sense of humor.

Trump’s humor will prevail against the left’s addiction to racism-spotting because his sarcasm is benign to people who love America as she is.  Calling Warren Pocahontas resonates with the wish of Americans for the restoration of a meritocracy and equal opportunity in academia.  In her (unsuccessful) outrage, Senator Warren is hoping that people who really are of American Indian ancestry will continue to burn in the long banked fires of historic victimization.  But she is also stoking a non-benign attitude toward America.  Leftists can’t laugh at themselves or anything else anymore, and everybody needs a good laugh sometimes.



Source link

New York to ISIS: Keep Killing Us! We're Resilient!


The press conference that NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio and NY Governor Andrew Cuomo held after the ISIS-directed mass murder by “Diversity Scratch-Off” winner Sayfullo Saipov was a master class in inculcating a gullible urban herd to helplessness, passivity, insane misattribution of danger, and un-American government dependence in response to murderous jihad.

De Blasio and Cuomo essentially said to ISIS: We request the honor of your presence in our state.  To prove the sincerity of our invitation, we promise to conceal your identity and lie for you within minutes of your slaughtering us in the street.

There’s a Southern saying for hypocrites like Bill de Blasio: he’s slimier than a bowl of boiled okra.  The mayor began with a phony request to be allowed “to be frank” and, with a mask-like expression, stated the obvious: “It was an act of terror.”  He used the word “terror” once, and never said “Islamic,” “ISIS,” “terrorist,” “terrorism,” or “war,” but he employed the vague, minimizing terms “tragedy” and “loss” for the rest of his remarks.  Cue the firm resolve face: “We know that this action was intended to break our spirit.”  No, Billy, your words are intended to break our spirit; Saipov intended the glory of killing as many infidels as possible.

De Blasio continued, “But we also know New Yorkers are strong.  New Yorkers are resilient.  Our spirit will never be moved by an act of violence, an act meant to intimidate us.”  Remaining unmoved when religious fanatics are slaughtering you is not resilience; it is mental illness.  His face reset again as he regurgitated the cynical cliché about worthless watchfulness, termed vigilance.  “Be vigilant,  Live by ‘If you see something, say something.'” This is the snake oil of security measures, because vigilance without profiling equals conditioned helplessness.

Under de Blasio’s direction, and the demands of the vile Linda Sarsour, the informed, skilled vigilance of the NYPD was stopped, and the responsibility to say something was diffused among diversity-addled shleppers terrified of being labeled Islamophobic.  In 2014, de Blasio shut down the Demographics Unit, which secretly surveilled places suspected of fostering weaponized Islamism.  By “be vigilant,” de Blasio means that New Yorkers should live in helpless trepidation everywhere, all the time.  And if they focus attention on the relevant demographic, young Islamic males, then they are bigots.

When historians label the Obama administration, they should call it the Great Treason.  The Great Treason has been a comprehensive assault on the sovereignty and safety of the United States.  As the years pass, the doctrines of this era of anti-Americanism become more insupportable, evil, and blatantly insane.  A central tenet of the Great Treason de Blasio and Cuomo artfully promote is that there is no such thing as Islamic terrorism.  ISIS, no – ISIL, maybe, because ISIL is the justified retaking of the Levant from the interloper Jews.

A subtext in the denial of Islamic terrorism is that fiends like Saipov are “home-grown” or “lone wolves.”  There is no such thing as American homegrown Islamic terrorism.  Homegrown ISIS is like American homegrown kangaroos.  Islamic terrorism and kangaroos always come from overseas, which is why merit-based immigration is essential to our national defense – and not to keep the kangaroos out.

Cuomo also never uses the word “Islamic.”  He said, “The new terrorist tactic which they’ve called for publicly are these lone wolves who commit an act of terror.”  Who are they?  The lone wolf meme of the Great Treason serves two purposes.  It gratifies “blame America first” because all evil starts here.  It also serves border elimination, because if terrorism is homegrown, it doesn’t matter who comes in or from where.

In his haste to minimize Saipov’s evil, Cuomo said, “This is all very preliminary.  It’s only been a couple of hours, but at this point, there’s no evidence to suggest a wider plot or a wider scheme, but the actions of one individual who meant to cause pain, and harm and probably death[.]”  Probably death?  This is not a sane description of the incident.  Furthermore, aren’t the facts that Saipov wrote a statement of allegiance to ISIS and wanted an ISIS flag in his cell even subtle hints of a wider scheme?

Cuomo seized on one of the benefits of terrorism: a reason to strengthen the power of the police state over law-abiding citizens.  “We will be vigilant.  More police everywhere.  You’ll see them in airports.  You’ll see them in tunnels.  It is not because there’s any evidence of any ongoing threat; it is just out of vigilance and caution.”

Cuomo then articulated the fundamental principle of the Great Treason: there is no such thing as Islamic terrorism.  He said, “And the truth is New York is an international symbol of freedom and democracy.  That’s what we are and we are proud of it.  That also makes us a target for those people who oppose those concepts.”  You see, Saipov was involved in a political protest against Jeffersonian democracy, not in Islamic terrorism.  That’s because, according to the likes of de Blasio and Cuomo, there is no affirmative ideology of Islamic terrorism from the Quran or a mosque or ISIS, or even the dreadful shadow that may pass over the human heart, blocking out Light.

Cuomo concluded, “We’ve lived with this before, we’ve felt the pain before, we feel the pain today, but we go forward together, and we go forward stronger than ever.”  He closed with “Don’t let them change us or deter us in any manner, shape, or form.”

In other words, change nothing; do nothing.  The golden invitation to the next Saipov still stands, the tenets of the Great Treason go unchallenged, and while the streets are still crimson with the blood of innocents, we are magically stronger because we are so resilient.

The press conference that NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio and NY Governor Andrew Cuomo held after the ISIS-directed mass murder by “Diversity Scratch-Off” winner Sayfullo Saipov was a master class in inculcating a gullible urban herd to helplessness, passivity, insane misattribution of danger, and un-American government dependence in response to murderous jihad.

De Blasio and Cuomo essentially said to ISIS: We request the honor of your presence in our state.  To prove the sincerity of our invitation, we promise to conceal your identity and lie for you within minutes of your slaughtering us in the street.

There’s a Southern saying for hypocrites like Bill de Blasio: he’s slimier than a bowl of boiled okra.  The mayor began with a phony request to be allowed “to be frank” and, with a mask-like expression, stated the obvious: “It was an act of terror.”  He used the word “terror” once, and never said “Islamic,” “ISIS,” “terrorist,” “terrorism,” or “war,” but he employed the vague, minimizing terms “tragedy” and “loss” for the rest of his remarks.  Cue the firm resolve face: “We know that this action was intended to break our spirit.”  No, Billy, your words are intended to break our spirit; Saipov intended the glory of killing as many infidels as possible.

De Blasio continued, “But we also know New Yorkers are strong.  New Yorkers are resilient.  Our spirit will never be moved by an act of violence, an act meant to intimidate us.”  Remaining unmoved when religious fanatics are slaughtering you is not resilience; it is mental illness.  His face reset again as he regurgitated the cynical cliché about worthless watchfulness, termed vigilance.  “Be vigilant,  Live by ‘If you see something, say something.'” This is the snake oil of security measures, because vigilance without profiling equals conditioned helplessness.

Under de Blasio’s direction, and the demands of the vile Linda Sarsour, the informed, skilled vigilance of the NYPD was stopped, and the responsibility to say something was diffused among diversity-addled shleppers terrified of being labeled Islamophobic.  In 2014, de Blasio shut down the Demographics Unit, which secretly surveilled places suspected of fostering weaponized Islamism.  By “be vigilant,” de Blasio means that New Yorkers should live in helpless trepidation everywhere, all the time.  And if they focus attention on the relevant demographic, young Islamic males, then they are bigots.

When historians label the Obama administration, they should call it the Great Treason.  The Great Treason has been a comprehensive assault on the sovereignty and safety of the United States.  As the years pass, the doctrines of this era of anti-Americanism become more insupportable, evil, and blatantly insane.  A central tenet of the Great Treason de Blasio and Cuomo artfully promote is that there is no such thing as Islamic terrorism.  ISIS, no – ISIL, maybe, because ISIL is the justified retaking of the Levant from the interloper Jews.

A subtext in the denial of Islamic terrorism is that fiends like Saipov are “home-grown” or “lone wolves.”  There is no such thing as American homegrown Islamic terrorism.  Homegrown ISIS is like American homegrown kangaroos.  Islamic terrorism and kangaroos always come from overseas, which is why merit-based immigration is essential to our national defense – and not to keep the kangaroos out.

Cuomo also never uses the word “Islamic.”  He said, “The new terrorist tactic which they’ve called for publicly are these lone wolves who commit an act of terror.”  Who are they?  The lone wolf meme of the Great Treason serves two purposes.  It gratifies “blame America first” because all evil starts here.  It also serves border elimination, because if terrorism is homegrown, it doesn’t matter who comes in or from where.

In his haste to minimize Saipov’s evil, Cuomo said, “This is all very preliminary.  It’s only been a couple of hours, but at this point, there’s no evidence to suggest a wider plot or a wider scheme, but the actions of one individual who meant to cause pain, and harm and probably death[.]”  Probably death?  This is not a sane description of the incident.  Furthermore, aren’t the facts that Saipov wrote a statement of allegiance to ISIS and wanted an ISIS flag in his cell even subtle hints of a wider scheme?

Cuomo seized on one of the benefits of terrorism: a reason to strengthen the power of the police state over law-abiding citizens.  “We will be vigilant.  More police everywhere.  You’ll see them in airports.  You’ll see them in tunnels.  It is not because there’s any evidence of any ongoing threat; it is just out of vigilance and caution.”

Cuomo then articulated the fundamental principle of the Great Treason: there is no such thing as Islamic terrorism.  He said, “And the truth is New York is an international symbol of freedom and democracy.  That’s what we are and we are proud of it.  That also makes us a target for those people who oppose those concepts.”  You see, Saipov was involved in a political protest against Jeffersonian democracy, not in Islamic terrorism.  That’s because, according to the likes of de Blasio and Cuomo, there is no affirmative ideology of Islamic terrorism from the Quran or a mosque or ISIS, or even the dreadful shadow that may pass over the human heart, blocking out Light.

Cuomo concluded, “We’ve lived with this before, we’ve felt the pain before, we feel the pain today, but we go forward together, and we go forward stronger than ever.”  He closed with “Don’t let them change us or deter us in any manner, shape, or form.”

In other words, change nothing; do nothing.  The golden invitation to the next Saipov still stands, the tenets of the Great Treason go unchallenged, and while the streets are still crimson with the blood of innocents, we are magically stronger because we are so resilient.



Source link

Swamp-Shrink Rising at the Crack of Don


There are two kinds of ethical offenses a psychologists might commit: objective and subjective.  An objective transgression happens when a psychologist is knowingly dishonest to other people, and a subjective error occurs when a psychologist succumbs to being dishonest with himself.  Objective errors of omission happen when a psychologist fails to meet minimal standards of care while performing professional activities; objective errors of commission occur when a personal motive leads a psychologist to misuse his position for personal gratification.

Subjective errors occur when psychologists are dishonest with themselves about how their own biases, beliefs, and interests might affect professional judgment.

Psychologist John Gartner has committed all three ethical offenses in psycho-diagnosing the current president as an out-of-control “malignant narcissist” and in declaring President Trump psychologically unfit to serve.  It has been widely noted that Gartner committed an objective error of omission by applying a clinical diagnosis without directly interviewing the subject of his assessment.  Regarding an objective error of commission, Dr. Gartner is seeking fame and wealth in malpracticing against the most famous person in the world.  Gartner is fundraising based on his diagnosis.  He also refers to himself as “a maverick” for vilifying Trump.

A left-wing psyclopsian thinks he’s a maverick (like his gynecist mommy) because he has the courage to pathologize Trump?  Just who is out of touch with reality?

John Gartner’s dishonesty with himself is his most serious offense, and it typifies the imprisonment of the entire field of clinical psychology in self-imposed anti-God, left-wing captivity.  This subjective offense violates the American Psychological Association (APA)’s code of professional conduct:

Psychologists refrain from taking on a professional role when personal, scientific, professional, legal, financial, or other interests or relationships could reasonably be expected to (1) impair their objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in performing their functions as psychologists[.]

Ethics guides the application of moral consciousness to technical problems.  Cults cannot inspire morality, and the APA is an anti-moral cult that exhibits little or no scientific objectivity regarding political or moral questions.  John Gartner’s voodoo diagnosis of a political leader is the priest-craft of that cult.

Dr. John Gartner practices psychology in the wealthy, fetid swamp waters of Towson, Maryland.  He smeared President Trump with one of the ugliest labels in the psychiatric nomenclature: malignant narcissism.  The clinical features of this personality disorder include persistent sadism, aggression, and anti-sociality.  It is a ludicrous label for the president, who is a law-abiding teetotaler.  No lawyered up lady or gentleman has ever even attempted to rifle through Trump’s extremely deep pockets secondary to allegations of aggression or abuse.  Most importantly, he is a successful father, grandfather, leader, and CEO, which is not possible for people with malignant personality disorders.

Dr. Gartner is campaigning to have the president removed from office based on senseless incantations about Mr. Trump’s mental incapacity.  Perhaps Gartner suspects that 62 million flyover Americans, whom his favored candidate labeled deplorable, have mental problems or are so stupid that they would be duped by a cruel, deranged incompetent.  He knows nothing about them, either.

Regarding Dr. Gartner’s clinical acumen, psychiatrist Allen Frances, who authored the standard criteria for narcissistic personality, dismissed people like Gartner who use the label against the president.  “I don’t see them as knowing much about diagnoses.”

The evidence Gartner offers that President Trump is paranoid and grandiose is that Trump believed that his campaign was being secretly surveilled, and that the huge crowds at his rallies were a sign of his popularity.  Again, it is Gartner who suffers from grossly impaired reality testing.  It is an established fact, reported by CNN among other outlets, that Trump’s staff was electronically surveilled by the Obama administration during the campaign.

In addition to not interviewing his diagnostic subject, it is unlikely Dr. Gartner attended Trump rallies.  If he had, even he might have observed that those enormous rallies were not focused on Trump’s personality, but rocking with love for America, the Constitution, and the preservation of freedom.

Dr. Gartner casts himself as “a rebel with a cause,” as, he believes, was his mother.  His pride in his mother’s early National Organization for Women (NOW) activism explains why he is intolerant of diversity of political opinion today.  It also parallels how the American Psychological Association lost moral relevance in American life.  In 1969, when our swamp-shrink was a lad of ten, his mother Diana Gartner tricked her way into the last bastion of sex-based exclusivity – male-only hours at a New York bar.  Was she fighting for equal rates of alcoholism between men and women?

Like many psychologists, Gartner seems incapable of respecting viewpoint diversity regarding what they term feminism, which is why he is replicating his mother’s toxic inhumanity.  In truth, Diana Gartner is grandmother of 100 million tiny corpses.  By1969, American women and girls had all the rights they needed to live godful, joyful lives.  NOW undermined that freedom because it was about not feminism, but gynecism.  Gynecism promotes the radical dehumanization of women by reducing them to soulless objects of biological functionalism.  The primal cause of gynecism and the central focus of NOW is the bio-functionalist doctrine of the disposability of the unborn.  Mrs. Gartner believed that little Johnny in her womb was precious, but little Johnny in another womb was waste product.

At the end of her life, NOW founder Betty Friedan lamented that the organization was dominated by abortion rights.  Mrs. Friedan did not understand the mental imprisonment of submitting to the absolute fallacy of denying human identity to a human individual.

The APA descended from being a scientific body to a blood cult by composing mind-numbing chants and spells to inculcate abortion theory while calling them scientific research.  Through the decades, that spiritual regressivism was followed by relative fallacies such as homosexual supremacy.  Speaking of ethics, to their shame, there will be not a peep from the American or California Psychological Associations regarding that state’s recent decriminalization of the intentional spreading of HIV, including to children.

Absolute ignorance demands absolute mental obedience.  It destroys objectivity, reason, and compassion.  The American left wing, the Democratic Party, the APA, and its member John Gartner crouch in that narrow cell of absolute and relative fallacies that perpetuate the unremitting hate of their closed minds.  It is why they cannot rationally debate issues, but rage about nonexistent racism, sexism, homophobia, blah, blah, blah.  It is why John Gartner violated the ethical principles of his profession to psychobabble against Donald Trump.

There are two kinds of ethical offenses a psychologists might commit: objective and subjective.  An objective transgression happens when a psychologist is knowingly dishonest to other people, and a subjective error occurs when a psychologist succumbs to being dishonest with himself.  Objective errors of omission happen when a psychologist fails to meet minimal standards of care while performing professional activities; objective errors of commission occur when a personal motive leads a psychologist to misuse his position for personal gratification.

Subjective errors occur when psychologists are dishonest with themselves about how their own biases, beliefs, and interests might affect professional judgment.

Psychologist John Gartner has committed all three ethical offenses in psycho-diagnosing the current president as an out-of-control “malignant narcissist” and in declaring President Trump psychologically unfit to serve.  It has been widely noted that Gartner committed an objective error of omission by applying a clinical diagnosis without directly interviewing the subject of his assessment.  Regarding an objective error of commission, Dr. Gartner is seeking fame and wealth in malpracticing against the most famous person in the world.  Gartner is fundraising based on his diagnosis.  He also refers to himself as “a maverick” for vilifying Trump.

A left-wing psyclopsian thinks he’s a maverick (like his gynecist mommy) because he has the courage to pathologize Trump?  Just who is out of touch with reality?

John Gartner’s dishonesty with himself is his most serious offense, and it typifies the imprisonment of the entire field of clinical psychology in self-imposed anti-God, left-wing captivity.  This subjective offense violates the American Psychological Association (APA)’s code of professional conduct:

Psychologists refrain from taking on a professional role when personal, scientific, professional, legal, financial, or other interests or relationships could reasonably be expected to (1) impair their objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in performing their functions as psychologists[.]

Ethics guides the application of moral consciousness to technical problems.  Cults cannot inspire morality, and the APA is an anti-moral cult that exhibits little or no scientific objectivity regarding political or moral questions.  John Gartner’s voodoo diagnosis of a political leader is the priest-craft of that cult.

Dr. John Gartner practices psychology in the wealthy, fetid swamp waters of Towson, Maryland.  He smeared President Trump with one of the ugliest labels in the psychiatric nomenclature: malignant narcissism.  The clinical features of this personality disorder include persistent sadism, aggression, and anti-sociality.  It is a ludicrous label for the president, who is a law-abiding teetotaler.  No lawyered up lady or gentleman has ever even attempted to rifle through Trump’s extremely deep pockets secondary to allegations of aggression or abuse.  Most importantly, he is a successful father, grandfather, leader, and CEO, which is not possible for people with malignant personality disorders.

Dr. Gartner is campaigning to have the president removed from office based on senseless incantations about Mr. Trump’s mental incapacity.  Perhaps Gartner suspects that 62 million flyover Americans, whom his favored candidate labeled deplorable, have mental problems or are so stupid that they would be duped by a cruel, deranged incompetent.  He knows nothing about them, either.

Regarding Dr. Gartner’s clinical acumen, psychiatrist Allen Frances, who authored the standard criteria for narcissistic personality, dismissed people like Gartner who use the label against the president.  “I don’t see them as knowing much about diagnoses.”

The evidence Gartner offers that President Trump is paranoid and grandiose is that Trump believed that his campaign was being secretly surveilled, and that the huge crowds at his rallies were a sign of his popularity.  Again, it is Gartner who suffers from grossly impaired reality testing.  It is an established fact, reported by CNN among other outlets, that Trump’s staff was electronically surveilled by the Obama administration during the campaign.

In addition to not interviewing his diagnostic subject, it is unlikely Dr. Gartner attended Trump rallies.  If he had, even he might have observed that those enormous rallies were not focused on Trump’s personality, but rocking with love for America, the Constitution, and the preservation of freedom.

Dr. Gartner casts himself as “a rebel with a cause,” as, he believes, was his mother.  His pride in his mother’s early National Organization for Women (NOW) activism explains why he is intolerant of diversity of political opinion today.  It also parallels how the American Psychological Association lost moral relevance in American life.  In 1969, when our swamp-shrink was a lad of ten, his mother Diana Gartner tricked her way into the last bastion of sex-based exclusivity – male-only hours at a New York bar.  Was she fighting for equal rates of alcoholism between men and women?

Like many psychologists, Gartner seems incapable of respecting viewpoint diversity regarding what they term feminism, which is why he is replicating his mother’s toxic inhumanity.  In truth, Diana Gartner is grandmother of 100 million tiny corpses.  By1969, American women and girls had all the rights they needed to live godful, joyful lives.  NOW undermined that freedom because it was about not feminism, but gynecism.  Gynecism promotes the radical dehumanization of women by reducing them to soulless objects of biological functionalism.  The primal cause of gynecism and the central focus of NOW is the bio-functionalist doctrine of the disposability of the unborn.  Mrs. Gartner believed that little Johnny in her womb was precious, but little Johnny in another womb was waste product.

At the end of her life, NOW founder Betty Friedan lamented that the organization was dominated by abortion rights.  Mrs. Friedan did not understand the mental imprisonment of submitting to the absolute fallacy of denying human identity to a human individual.

The APA descended from being a scientific body to a blood cult by composing mind-numbing chants and spells to inculcate abortion theory while calling them scientific research.  Through the decades, that spiritual regressivism was followed by relative fallacies such as homosexual supremacy.  Speaking of ethics, to their shame, there will be not a peep from the American or California Psychological Associations regarding that state’s recent decriminalization of the intentional spreading of HIV, including to children.

Absolute ignorance demands absolute mental obedience.  It destroys objectivity, reason, and compassion.  The American left wing, the Democratic Party, the APA, and its member John Gartner crouch in that narrow cell of absolute and relative fallacies that perpetuate the unremitting hate of their closed minds.  It is why they cannot rationally debate issues, but rage about nonexistent racism, sexism, homophobia, blah, blah, blah.  It is why John Gartner violated the ethical principles of his profession to psychobabble against Donald Trump.



Source link

200994.jpg

Morality, Anti-Morality, and the Left-Wing Great Hate-Hustle


The fashionable watchword this political season is morality.  Left-wing voices, especially, are heard providing moral instruction.  Here a moral, there a moral, everywhere the left is moral.  In listening closely to the subject matter of left-wing moral discourse, one notices only political issues – not real problems of everyday life – and one mental sin: hate.

Left-wing moral theory seems uninterested in the quandaries presented by human weakness – greed, lust, anger – which affect everyone.  Instead, left-wing moral proclamations address transgressive political attitudes, which in turn are alleged to make their right-wing adversaries “haters.”  The ACLU no longer defends political speech that its members’ morality deems hate.  And they are finicky about hate.  Particular hates, however old and irrelevant, such as Nazism, are now so intolerable as to supersede the First Amendment for those hard-left defenders of liberty.  Apple Corporation CEO Tim Cook has directed millions of dollars to the all-time superstar hate-hustlers at the Southern Poverty Law Center, while he travels the country lecturing about morality.  President Obama sermonizes that his flagrantly unconstitutional special rights directive called DACA must be preserved because its morality supersedes the rule of law.  Deporting illegals is immoral because it is hate.

Why are the lefties speechifying and air-poking about morality?  Because they are morally naked.  They have no moral code at all.  They have rejected the Judeo-Christian code, which guides the totality of action based in faith in God, and have exalted political dogma, which addresses good and evil only in political thought codes.  As the left wing collapses into anti-American lawlessness and the Democratic Party turns the corner into unvarnished, suicidal socialism, it becomes increasingly difficult not to notice that the left has no fixed moral principles – which is why squawking about morality is de rigueur.  For the last sixty years, the spasmodic remains of legacy liberalism have attacked and dismantled Judeo-Christian morality.  The left wing has filled the moral void of post-Christianism with one rule: groupthink unto others as you are commanded.

Because the American identity statement asserts that every person has God-given freedom to pursue happiness, bigotry that interferes with that defining affirmation has been a perpetual focus of American consciousness.  The shift from religiously based moral principles guiding action to politically based codes identifying iniquitous viewpoints is a fundamental transformation of American psychology.  The profound transformation from struggling against actual oppression, such as the Civil War, to focusing on iniquitous thinking, developed because advances in science and technology created so much sustenance, wealth, and comfort that actual subjugation and oppression based on race, sex, and religion became unprofitable and obsolete.  As actual persecution of minorities ended, political elites reoriented their rule over the American mind by proffering theories about hateful thinking against minorities, and by punishing anyone who challenged their theories of “privileging” and “marginalization.”  The left-wing great hate hustle was hatched.  The dogma that conservatives, Christians, and traditionalists are haters is the psychodynamic of hate projection by which the ruling class intimidates, triangulates, and maintains mental control.

Mind is the greatest force in shadow creation.  Beyond time and space, the mind travels across the universe in an instant, connecting memories of so-called reality to those of imagination. The plumes and fumes of the mind are less than smoke until they gather the force of action.  Morality, therefore, refers to actions, not the spinning infinitudes of thought.  The highest moral achievement is service rendered from an appreciation of the divinity of the soul, in spite of the perverseness of thought.

Morality is comprehensive in scope, providing the true challenge to bigotry. Moral consciousness benefits all equally regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, or any category.  Politically based valuation is inherently anti-moral. It worsens the stink of anger and division. The psychodynamic of faith-based morality is ego effacement, which is the opposite effect of politically based anti-moral hate calling.

Contemporary left-wing political dogma did not develop as an extension of faith-based morality, as did, for example, 19th-century abolitionism.  The anti-morality of left-wing hate-hustling arose in passionate opposition to Judeo-Christian morality, the tenets of which are, of course, labeled hate.  Blinded by self-satisfaction, left-wingers travel on the fumes of religion-based morality to keep chaos out of their own lives.  They take care that the unsourced and malleable hate-calling they invoke against others does not exact self-control or self-sacrifice.  In fact, what the left mislabels as moral issues – climate change, statue removal, multifarious hate-policing – is cherished because these issues are cheap exhortations devoid of personal moral sacrifice.

Left-wing anti-morality is not about doing good unto others, but rather about mouthing sensitivity to the marginalized.  Politically correct messaging is sufficient for salvation: anti-moralist voodoo mind-readers, wailing about nonexistent mental states called phobias and sniffing about “white supremacy.”  American citizens have sufficient legal rights to take responsibility for their happiness (an inconvenient truth to the left wing).  Therefore, politically based anti-moral dogma does not focus on actual persecution or subjugation.  Instead, it identifies transgressive mental hate states – homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, xenophobia, white privilege, white supremacy, climate change denial – allegations that don’t require evidence of actions of abuse against anyone.  These are providential psychodiagnoses because it is impossible to prove or disprove mental states.  This is why political activism of the left amounts to showy symbolism, like rich athletes plopping on cushy kneepads or Antifa/BLM types pitching poopie-diaper tantrums in the streets.  Much more fun than actually helping anyone.

The moral impulse originates in the unconscious as identification with infinite divinity.  Moral consciousness is knowledge of one’s own true nature and the true nature of all others as infinite and divine.  Moral principles apply knowledge of the true self to questions of everyday life.  Universal and eternal, they provide resistance to all forms of bigotry.  Morality is the marriage of thought and action.  And because morality is socio-culturally mediated, “nonbelievers” can conform behavior to moral principles.  Righteous moral choice conserves mental energy, establishing a cycle of greater and greater actualization of the true self throughout life.  Immorality used to be called dissipation.  This is apt because immorality is the wasting of energy on unworthy purposes.

Psychology has not, as a field, contributed much to the understanding of morality because psychologists are themselves the clergy of secular humanism, albeit served with a side dish of spirituality.  The defining purpose of the psychological enterprise has been to help people place faith in themselves above faith in God and to be driven by their own feelings, passions, opinions, and desires.  This philosophy is the wellspring of anti-morality.  Most of psychological theory is man-made replacement morality that answers questions heretofore answered in America by Judeo-Christian religion.  Under the purloined imprimatur of science, psychology promotes entitlements and choices that are spiritually dangerous and dissipating.

Anti-morality operates as rationalization of one’s own viewpoint, as opposed to following moral principles.  The prisoners of self-informed egoism reject their likeness to God and desperately look to find their likeness in political fellow travelers.  This is why the left wing clings together in echo chambers of self-appointed virtue, violently rejecting diversity of viewpoint.  Political dogma is their faith; finding hate in “the other” is their proof of orthodoxy.  Left-wing hate-hustling is reminiscent of selling dispensations to the gullible.

The fashionable watchword this political season is morality.  Left-wing voices, especially, are heard providing moral instruction.  Here a moral, there a moral, everywhere the left is moral.  In listening closely to the subject matter of left-wing moral discourse, one notices only political issues – not real problems of everyday life – and one mental sin: hate.

Left-wing moral theory seems uninterested in the quandaries presented by human weakness – greed, lust, anger – which affect everyone.  Instead, left-wing moral proclamations address transgressive political attitudes, which in turn are alleged to make their right-wing adversaries “haters.”  The ACLU no longer defends political speech that its members’ morality deems hate.  And they are finicky about hate.  Particular hates, however old and irrelevant, such as Nazism, are now so intolerable as to supersede the First Amendment for those hard-left defenders of liberty.  Apple Corporation CEO Tim Cook has directed millions of dollars to the all-time superstar hate-hustlers at the Southern Poverty Law Center, while he travels the country lecturing about morality.  President Obama sermonizes that his flagrantly unconstitutional special rights directive called DACA must be preserved because its morality supersedes the rule of law.  Deporting illegals is immoral because it is hate.

Why are the lefties speechifying and air-poking about morality?  Because they are morally naked.  They have no moral code at all.  They have rejected the Judeo-Christian code, which guides the totality of action based in faith in God, and have exalted political dogma, which addresses good and evil only in political thought codes.  As the left wing collapses into anti-American lawlessness and the Democratic Party turns the corner into unvarnished, suicidal socialism, it becomes increasingly difficult not to notice that the left has no fixed moral principles – which is why squawking about morality is de rigueur.  For the last sixty years, the spasmodic remains of legacy liberalism have attacked and dismantled Judeo-Christian morality.  The left wing has filled the moral void of post-Christianism with one rule: groupthink unto others as you are commanded.

Because the American identity statement asserts that every person has God-given freedom to pursue happiness, bigotry that interferes with that defining affirmation has been a perpetual focus of American consciousness.  The shift from religiously based moral principles guiding action to politically based codes identifying iniquitous viewpoints is a fundamental transformation of American psychology.  The profound transformation from struggling against actual oppression, such as the Civil War, to focusing on iniquitous thinking, developed because advances in science and technology created so much sustenance, wealth, and comfort that actual subjugation and oppression based on race, sex, and religion became unprofitable and obsolete.  As actual persecution of minorities ended, political elites reoriented their rule over the American mind by proffering theories about hateful thinking against minorities, and by punishing anyone who challenged their theories of “privileging” and “marginalization.”  The left-wing great hate hustle was hatched.  The dogma that conservatives, Christians, and traditionalists are haters is the psychodynamic of hate projection by which the ruling class intimidates, triangulates, and maintains mental control.

Mind is the greatest force in shadow creation.  Beyond time and space, the mind travels across the universe in an instant, connecting memories of so-called reality to those of imagination. The plumes and fumes of the mind are less than smoke until they gather the force of action.  Morality, therefore, refers to actions, not the spinning infinitudes of thought.  The highest moral achievement is service rendered from an appreciation of the divinity of the soul, in spite of the perverseness of thought.

Morality is comprehensive in scope, providing the true challenge to bigotry. Moral consciousness benefits all equally regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, or any category.  Politically based valuation is inherently anti-moral. It worsens the stink of anger and division. The psychodynamic of faith-based morality is ego effacement, which is the opposite effect of politically based anti-moral hate calling.

Contemporary left-wing political dogma did not develop as an extension of faith-based morality, as did, for example, 19th-century abolitionism.  The anti-morality of left-wing hate-hustling arose in passionate opposition to Judeo-Christian morality, the tenets of which are, of course, labeled hate.  Blinded by self-satisfaction, left-wingers travel on the fumes of religion-based morality to keep chaos out of their own lives.  They take care that the unsourced and malleable hate-calling they invoke against others does not exact self-control or self-sacrifice.  In fact, what the left mislabels as moral issues – climate change, statue removal, multifarious hate-policing – is cherished because these issues are cheap exhortations devoid of personal moral sacrifice.

Left-wing anti-morality is not about doing good unto others, but rather about mouthing sensitivity to the marginalized.  Politically correct messaging is sufficient for salvation: anti-moralist voodoo mind-readers, wailing about nonexistent mental states called phobias and sniffing about “white supremacy.”  American citizens have sufficient legal rights to take responsibility for their happiness (an inconvenient truth to the left wing).  Therefore, politically based anti-moral dogma does not focus on actual persecution or subjugation.  Instead, it identifies transgressive mental hate states – homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, xenophobia, white privilege, white supremacy, climate change denial – allegations that don’t require evidence of actions of abuse against anyone.  These are providential psychodiagnoses because it is impossible to prove or disprove mental states.  This is why political activism of the left amounts to showy symbolism, like rich athletes plopping on cushy kneepads or Antifa/BLM types pitching poopie-diaper tantrums in the streets.  Much more fun than actually helping anyone.

The moral impulse originates in the unconscious as identification with infinite divinity.  Moral consciousness is knowledge of one’s own true nature and the true nature of all others as infinite and divine.  Moral principles apply knowledge of the true self to questions of everyday life.  Universal and eternal, they provide resistance to all forms of bigotry.  Morality is the marriage of thought and action.  And because morality is socio-culturally mediated, “nonbelievers” can conform behavior to moral principles.  Righteous moral choice conserves mental energy, establishing a cycle of greater and greater actualization of the true self throughout life.  Immorality used to be called dissipation.  This is apt because immorality is the wasting of energy on unworthy purposes.

Psychology has not, as a field, contributed much to the understanding of morality because psychologists are themselves the clergy of secular humanism, albeit served with a side dish of spirituality.  The defining purpose of the psychological enterprise has been to help people place faith in themselves above faith in God and to be driven by their own feelings, passions, opinions, and desires.  This philosophy is the wellspring of anti-morality.  Most of psychological theory is man-made replacement morality that answers questions heretofore answered in America by Judeo-Christian religion.  Under the purloined imprimatur of science, psychology promotes entitlements and choices that are spiritually dangerous and dissipating.

Anti-morality operates as rationalization of one’s own viewpoint, as opposed to following moral principles.  The prisoners of self-informed egoism reject their likeness to God and desperately look to find their likeness in political fellow travelers.  This is why the left wing clings together in echo chambers of self-appointed virtue, violently rejecting diversity of viewpoint.  Political dogma is their faith; finding hate in “the other” is their proof of orthodoxy.  Left-wing hate-hustling is reminiscent of selling dispensations to the gullible.



Source link