Article 01: The American Mind in Denial

The American Mind in Denial

by Robert L. Kocher

So-called conservatives, who should more properly be referred to as the
increasingly few remnants of sane people in this country, share a number
of similarities with the inmates of Auschwitz or similarities of
position of abused women.

In both cases there was and is a condition where people are forced to
treat insane and cynically dishonest arguments as if they were credible,
and treat the people making those arguments as if those people were
honest or were amenable to logic or moral suasion when it is not so.

Any attempts to negotiate with the SS, or with Himmler, or with Hitler
was an exercise in self delusion. Regardless of the rationality of
arguments presented, those arguments would be rejected. The
counter-arguments would be completely irrational, but there would be a
desperate need for development of more arguments and pleas by the
oppressed as if the Nazi counter-arguments were legitimately based in
reasoning.

This is the same condition we have at the present in America.

To begin with, we are facing a situation that is obvious and obviously
insane. Does anyone really believe that it is not, at the very least,
inappropriate for the president of this country to be receiving oral sex
in the Oval Office at the very moment he is on the phone arranging for
the American military to be sent to a war zone? Not on the sane side of
the boundary between sanity and profound mental disorder. But, the
evidence is clear that it happened and there is no denial of it by the
president. It is obvious that Bill Clinton lied to the American people
and the courts with an open defiance that approached contempt and ridicule.

Bill Clinton’s deceptions are not characterized as the masterful work of
superior intelligence. The stuff he is pulling is the type of stuff any
third grader would get slapped for. Any child could see the obvious lies
and manipulations. In fact, Bill Clinton’s manipulations are based not
so much upon clever deception, but upon the unspoken confidence that no
one can, or will, now do anything about it.

In some respects Clinton is like the class clown who is supported by
other smirking students in a conspiracy to ridicule a hated teacher. In
this case Clinton was elected to ridicule a society and a philosophy of
mature responsibility that an infinitely rebellious and polarized
generation has hated since the 60s. The Clinton coalition is made up of
various alienated racial and cultural groups who elected him to
dramatize their hostility and rebellion. The more irrational and warped
the Clintons are, the more it serves that purpose.

There is no Clinton deception. There is no need for deception. The
Clinton lies are transparent and not utilized so much for deception but
to ridicule opposition’s powerlessness within a concurrent message that
the time has arrived when the angry radicalism of the 60s has achieved
seniority. The Clinton lies are more an act of triumphant generational
sadism than deception. ?And who other than the kid who 30 years ago went
to Moscow as a committed declaration of his support of those seeking
failure of the American effort in Viet Nam has better credentials to
lead the triumph?……..

Bill Clinton is a somewhat charming manipulative narcissistic psychopath
who is capable of showmanship. Beneath the showmanship, over a nearly 35
year period he has shown an infinite capacity to lie and betray others
without embarrassment. He has shown few other capacities in any depth.
Bill Clinton’s present passing troubles are not, and should not be
looked upon, as having been the result of a relationship with Monica
Lewinsky, or even Paula Jones. The Bill Clinton problem is a consistent
pattern of remorseless predation, callousness, manipulation, contempt,
ridicule, hostility toward morality, and irresponsibility going back
more than 30 years of which the Jones and Lewinsky matters are but a
small symptom. In all the years of his adult, or nearly adult, life,
anyone associated with Bill Clinton has suffered or been betrayed. That
includes everyone from cabinet officials to his own daughter.

Perhaps both we, and Bill Clinton, should be introduced to the
previously unexplored concept that if one believes that criticism of, or
prohibitions against, oral penile and anal sexual stimulation with
comparative strangers in the Oval Office are an unbearable hardship,
then one really ought not campaign for the presidential office because
one doesn’t really have the prerequisites in terms of maturity,
toleration of reasonable adult discomfort, or anything else to qualify
for the position. This is an issue that has never been brought up.

Perhaps there should also be serious concern about the state of mind of
a man running for the presidency who has state troopers bring a strange
woman into a hotel room and who contemptuously sticks his penis in her
face as an act of naked cruel ridicule and contempt.

Hillary Clinton’s purpose can be summed up in one sentence. Her angry
agenda is a constant attack to bring the rest of the country down to the
state of bitter empty degeneracy seen in her own marriage and her own
life. She began with a rebellious refusal to take her husband’s name as
part of their marriage. Throughout her career she has made repeated
barely concealed sarcastic comments or attacks regarding the family and
the traditional role of women as mothers. Concurrently, she has seldom
missed an opportunity to side with organizations or ideologies that
directly or indirectly attack or subtly undermine the position of women
in those roles. In Hillary’s view “It Takes a Village” to raise children
and the importance of a warm nurturing mother is deemphasized or
marginalized. Conspicuously absent from Hillary in her selectively
militant crusade for the social welfare of children are criticisms of
people such as pornographer and Clinton supporter Larry Flint who forced
upon his own daughters at an early age what Bill Clinton did with Monica
Lewinsky.

The Clintons are living what they believe. If they didn’t believe in it,
they wouldn’t be living it. What they believe is what they believe
others should live. They demand to live in a world where there is no
challenge or contradiction to that belief. Hillary’s life is one of
revenge upon those who do not share her incapacitates.

The Clintons are too immature, too psychopathic, too megalomaniacal, too
paranoid, too aggressively pathological, too uncontrolled by any sense
of personal limits upon behavior, and too dangerous to be in positions
of responsibility and authority in a sane country that wants to remain
sane. That is the real issue before the American people that has been
completely obscured.

The counter-arguments by the Clintons and their supporters range the
spectrum from the insulting and ridiculing, to the insane. Clinton
claimed he was never alone in a room with Monica Lewinsky. He was never
asked how many other people were in the room when he ejaculated on
Monica’s dress. Clinton denied remembering whether he had been with a
woman he was periodically having various highly intimate oral and anal
sexual activity with. The explanations of this could be one of three
things. He was lying. There was such a superabundance of such women that
it became difficult to remember any one of them, in which case it
absolutely confirmed the point being argued by the plaintiff. Or perhaps
there was organic brain disorder causing memory loss. At the first sign
of evasion, there should have been a court-ordered psychiatric
examination to determine the degree of organic brain impairment or
deliberate lying.

It is argued that it was about sex, and everybody lies about sex. But,
it isn’t about sex. Bill Clinton doesn’t engage in sex in the erotic or
passionate sense. The persistent pattern is one in which Bill Clinton
shoves his penis in women’s faces in an act of contempt and ridicule
while he remains emotionally distant. No woman has ever reported
anything remotely resembling a romantic or warm interlude with Bill
Clinton. There is no evidence of robust healthy eroticism in the Clinton
background. Rather than romance and sex, there is more a pattern
approaching the introduction to the deranged character in a
psychological horror movie. Clinton is supported in this by various
woman’s groups because it provides them with a visible counterpoise to
repel off of in their continuing campaign of hatred of the male enemy.

Before it was declared to be about sex, Clinton denied that there ever
was sex or that a 52 year old Rhodes Scholar and law school graduate
even knew what a sexual relationship was. Sex had to be rigidly defined
in court. Under the tortuous definition, Clinton denied having a sexual
relationship. Under the same definition, a description of his actions
under later revelation absolutely qualified as sex.

It is argued that the Clinton matters concern consensual sex which if
forgiven by Hillary are not the proper concern of outsiders. But
dragging a strange woman into a hotel room and pushing a penis into her
unwilling face is not consensual or within Hillary’s province to either
permit or forgive and declare to be dead-ended at that point. Hillary
Clinton has no legitimate say in anything. The issue is the seriously
and highly questionable mental state of someone characterized by a
pattern of such activity. This was never about consensual sex or Monica
Lewinsky or Hillary. It was, and is, about sanity. The primary issue is
the mental condition of a man running for the presidency who more
properly belongs in a psychiatric textbook.

I am not having an affair or sex with that woman means, not at this
exact moment I am sitting in this chair. It doesn’t mean he wasn’t five
minutes before, or won’t be five minutes afterwards.

The arguments are simply not believable and defy the conventionally
agreed upon meaning and use of language employed both in ordinary verbal
discourse, in written form, or in court. We, and members of the judicial
system, are asked to believe the Clintons don’t understand that.

Clinton argues that his answers in court were legally correct. They were
not legally, or in any other way, correct. His answers were improperly
allowed in court by marginally competent opposing counsel with an
incompetent corrupt judge who was Clinton’s former student. Anywhere
else those answers would be insulting and cause for legitimate
indignation. That common standard should be just cause for their being
viewed as perjury in a court of law.

We further find that FBI files are commandeered and disappear with no
chain of custody, with arrogant resistance to any attempt at
accountability or explanation of their use. We are asked to believe
important papers regarding fraudulent business activities disappear or
suddenly later partially reappear sitting openly on tables depending
upon personal convenience.

Does anyone seriously believe the Clinton arguments and positions? Does
anyone in his right mind believe Clinton’s assertion that didn’t know
whether he was in a room alone with a woman when he put semen on her
dress? Of course not. No sane person would in any circumstances. They
are so absurd as to be little more than an insult, an expression of
ridicule, and an arrogant expression of contempt toward the people to
whom they are directed.

Yet, we are attempting to discuss and refute the Clinton assertions and
arguments as though they were sincerely ventured, credible, and as if
the assertions and people making them were amenable to logic or to
moral/ethical persuasion. There is no honesty or sincerity to the
Clinton arguments, or on the part of the people making them. The only
and best refutation to the assertions is their own insanity. There is no
more valid refutation possible. We are attempting to reason with a man
who cynically and ostentatiously marches to church with a bible
displayed under his arm on an Easter Sunday and returns to nearly
immediate extramarital sexual liaisons, as if he were a person of
serious integrity rather than someone without serious intent, morality,
or ethics.

Why do we do it? We do it because it is the only remaining method of
dealing with the Clintons who should be summarily dismissed and
expelled, but like the inmates of Auschwitz who could not expel the SS,
we have no power or leverage. So we persist in vain attempts at arguing
the inarguable before psychopaths who not only do not care and who look
upon the discourse with amused contempt and ridicule.

In treating their denial and arguments as rational, we have been reduced
to the same level of insanity as the people making the arguments. We
have validated and dignified insanity. What has evolved is a theater of
the absurd in which what has been lost is basic contact with reality and
sanity. We plead and grovel in vain attempts to get minute concessions
of what obviously constitutes basic reality and sanity.

But Bill Clinton does not have a sex addiction problem. He does not
engage in passionate attraction or sex in the ordinary erotic sense. He
doesn’t have love affairs in the erotic, romantic, or any other ordinary
sense. If anything, he has a massive hostility problem just beneath the
outer surface of his personality that is channeled into sexual symbolism
within a pattern in which a vaguely sexual action becomes a vehicle for
contempt and reducing others to a position of acknowledging his aloof
superiority. The so-called affair with Lewinsky was not one of mutual
eroticism. Much of it was spent with Lewinsky down on her knees in
controlled submission before an emotionally detached superior Bill
Clinton. In many of their episodes Clinton demonstrated his superiority
by withholding ejaculation and masturbating into the sink adjacent to
the Oval Office in an act of further emotional distance and contempt
devoid of passion. The act of demanding Paula Jones kiss his penis was
not an act of consensual eroticism or passion. Clinton’s personality is
more closely oriented in the direction paralleling the mentality of
serial woman killer Ted Bundy who imposed the ultimate subjugation of
death upon women. Certainly, if there were incidences of violence upon
women somewhere in Clinton’s background, it would not be surprising.
However, Bill Clinton’s brutality is more mentally destructive than
physical. Women feel dead inside when he is through with them.

The Clinton mental profile extends well into areas that should
legitimately alarm the broader society. Bill Clinton exhibits a wide
spectrum of characteristics strongly diagnostic of very serious
psychiatric disorder. It’s not a matter of sex, but of chronic lying
without inhibition or hesitation, lack of rational behavioral control,
lack of insight, absence of remorse or conscience, feeling of special
personal entitlement, shallowness of personal relationships, and absence
of any sense of relative importance in personal priorities. Forty-five
years ago before sociopathic narcissism and irresponsibility became
interpreted as social liberation, Bill Clinton would have been written
up in journals as a bizarre and extreme case history.

The Clintons show barely concealed contempt and ridicule for the people
of this country. No one who respected me personally would lie to me in
the bold fashion as the Cintons have. Both exhibit profound paranoia.
When their obvious contempt, pathology, and malfeasance is observed,
they attribute such observations to vast right wing conspiracies or
other conspiratorial persecution. The Clintons conceive of themselves as
persecuted victims of that entire portion of the world possessing
personal character and mental health. They are on a paranoid crusade and
the limits to which they will use violence to subjugate others to their
paranoia is limited only to the extent they are temporarily immobilized
or lacking in power. This is true of the political left in general.
Anyone who is not blind, not psychotic, and has an IQ above 95 is
considered is an intractably vicious enemy.

Over the years, the descriptive or diagnostic categories of mental
dysfunction have been softened. Bill Clifton exhibits what was once
called a psychopathic personality and megalomania in the form of
delusions about his own superiority and specialness. Those delusions
confer a contempt for other people conceived of by him as so far below
him as to be expendable in their insignificance or inferiority. He
furthermore believes his mental superiority is so great as to confer an
infinite ability to manipulate other people, and he feels licensed to do
so. Consequence, he exhibits a contemptuous attitude toward other
people, toward law, toward reason, and toward any and all societal
institutions which thwart his sense of his special significance. Beneath
a mask of sanity the Clintons are psychotic and dangerous because they
have no internal moral or rational limits governing their behavior or
their intent. Activities such as deliberate misuse of FBI files easily
fail to become a matter for serious introspection within their
self-anointed imperial superiority.

The Clintons are dangerous. They, those around them, and their
supporters, are the greatest threat to this country in its history. They
are manipulative ice people bent on power and revenge. They are capable
of rationalizing anything. They are capable of doing anything. Like many
in their generation who have, and still have, an antipathy toward the
country and toward rational self-discipline, they have an agenda.

The arguments defending the Clintons must necessarily be as psychotic as
the behavior they are defending. Indeed, for the Clintons to survive,
the Clintons and their defenders must pathologize the nation. No sane
mind would accept the arguments being given. No sane country would
accept the arguments being given.

Serious psychopathology is being given a very hard sell in the service
of selling and defending Clinton. The Clinton defense has become
progressively divorced from any structure of reason or reality. The most
rational of refutations falls upon contemptuous and ridiculing ears.

Like the inmates of the Nazi concentration camps, we argue with the
Clintons and the forces of liberalism as if they are amenable to
rationality when they are not. The countercultural destructiveness they
represent is not the result of intellectual oversight, but of deliberate
intent. Attempts at reason are looked upon as a weakness that confer
time and passivity that allows them to complete their task. That is what
must be understood.

Reasoning with the Clintons, the Carvilles, the Dershewitzes et al will
not make you free.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.