Politics in America Part 9: A Psychotic Social Psychology, Continued

Politics in America
Part 9: A Psychotic Social Psychology, Continued
by Robert L. Kocher

In order to deal with the continually rising flood of anthropological and psychological theorizing, the point has come where courts of law have, for practical purposes, been replaced by courts of psychiatry, psychology, anthropology or sociology. If one partner in a marriage wants to fool around in other beds on the side, he or she cites a pool of psychiatrists, psychologists or other social theorists who support the idea of fooling around on the side. He or she appeals to that roll call of authoritative support. If the person’s mate objects to extramarital fooling around, that roll call of authorities will intimidate, accuse, or socially prosecute the reluctant mate as being guilty of being overly possessive, immature, controlling, insecure, rigid and having other forms of maladjustment. The accused mate must then obtain a defense counsel from a different school of psychiatrists, psychologists, anthropologists, etc., who will say it is not the accused who is guilty of being mentally deranged, but that the accuser and his school of supporters are instead the ones who are immature and pathological. It may spill over into the formal legal court system with the judge attempting to determine the merits of the various differing theoretical schools. Concomitantly, it spills out into political life with people seeking to elect political candidates and judges who will validate their pathology and life styles in the rush to impose government-mandated pathological protectionism.

A real-life example in the legal realm was the Woody Allen-Mia Farrow cesspool a few years ago. In a typical Hollywood liberal class act, actor/director and professional neurotic Allen was in some sort of indefinable relationship with actress Mia Farrow over some period of years. Farrow, who had no respect for herself and (to get involved in the mess she did with a piece of trash like Allen) no respect for her children, had a child by Allen—in addition to children from a previous marriage and adopted children. Allen was also humping one of Farrow’s adopted daughters, who exhibited a precocious talent for adapting to the moral and intellectual environment created by her stepmother. Psychiatrists, psychologists and lawyers argued on all sides over whether or not Allen technically should be considered as having taken advantage of the daughter (his quasi-stepdaughter) by inherently serving in the role of being her psychological father over the years. In addition, lawyers, and psychiatrists debated the arguments and counter-arguments as to whether there was child sexual abuse involved. It was a psychiatric/psychological/sociological free-for-all with voices and arguments from all frames of reference.

Building a Winning Team

The same principle holds in any other area of human activity from recreational drugs to homosexuality to crime to politics. What you can do to somebody, or how much you can get away with, depends upon whether you can put together a winning psychiatric/sociological/anthropological support team—and eventually who you can put into political office or judgeships. American politics has become, to large extent, a movement by a coalition of neurotics, borderline psychotics, and character disorders to stuff the ballot box with support for their specific mental disorders or for mental disorder in general in order to enforce toleration of those disorders upon the public.

Various individuals and schools of psychology employ theorizing to devise support for their position while attributing psychiatric disorder as the basis of opposing positions. There will be certified credentialed authorities on both sides of every issue you read here. You must look at the facts and determine who is nuts.

Collateral with this, it should be realized there is a great difference between those professions involving the study and correction of mental functioning versus other professions. For practical purposes, most civil engineers are similar and interchangeable. The mathematical formula for the catenary used in structural engineering is universally accepted, immutable, and it’s mastery is an engineering requirement. Engineering standards and qualifications are uniform.

However, the psychiatric and psychological professional world is far from homogeneous. While we talk about “psychiatrists” and “psychologists” as if they were titles of people having fundamental similarities, they encompass a collection of people of such wide theoretical and conceptual divergence that they are for practical purposes not members of the same profession. One can read various textbooks on abnormal psychology or personality representing different theoretical schools and they bear almost no similarity.

There is no single profession of psychiatry or psychology. There are groups of people with varying and often antithetical views called by the same names. Their training and qualifications vary accordingly. Many of the various individuals and schools can barely tolerate each other. The history of psychiatry is filled with various groups of people of one school of thought expelling other individuals or groups for their divergent views. Those who are expelled still remain psychiatrists or psychologists.

Superimposed upon this formal academic dissimilarity are those elements of psychopathology and personal eccentricity which members of the profession carry with them—including eccentricities stemming from among the highest suicide rates of all the professions. This provides corresponding opportunity for an influx of psychopathology bearing authoritative weight into any social issue. The theoretical psychological and mental health professions are marked by an influx of people with the almost religious mission of intent to either sell their peculiar form of pathology, or practice it with certified authority while labeling objection to that pathology a form of mental disorder. This has resulted in another force for pathological protectionism in American society. There is a subculture of religiously zealous socialist pathological utopianism where not only will the lion and lamb lie down together, but borderline psychotics and character disorders will find universal acceptance along side the sane.

What, Exactly, Are the Lion and Lamb Doing?

Thus, in 1998, in what seems to be becoming an incipient movement, a series of psychological studies were published in so-called reputable journals which argued that what was euphemistically termed “intergenerational intimacy,” otherwise known as sex, homosexual or otherwise, between adults and kids, was harmless to the kids, but presumably still fun for the adults who wanted to engage in it. This was rapidly and delightfully seized upon by NAMBLA, the North American Man Boy Love Association, as a scientific triumph.

The legal front has seen concurrent, successful suits forcing the emplacement of homosexuals as scoutmasters, while there have been three instances (to my knowledge) of reported sexual molestation of Boy Scouts by troop leaders—reported by those increasingly fewer parents and kids not too beaten down or intimidated to voice complaint.

On the social front, what were once known as child sexual predators, but are now becoming known as sophisticated practitioners of intergenerational intimacy, are now emboldened to a point where hesitation is being replaced by defiance coupled with a taunting and insulting veneer of denial that no sane person would accept. They form their organizations, publish their contrived scientific studies, sprout up their internet web sites like crabgrass, cruise the internet looking for kids, and bring their law suits before a corrupt judicial system.

There is further support from a countercultural president of such mental condition that he gropes women in the Oval Office and runs around masturbating. The Clintons are determined to both demarginalize all sane concepts of serious psychopathology, first, to protect their own condition and, secondly, as part of a ceaseless oppressive, antagonistic, sadistic, humiliating diffuse attack and disassembling of sane values that releases their ridicule and contempt upon society. The assertion of homosexual normality and agenda is ridiculing and insulting enough to serve the Clinton’s purposes on all counts. It is essentially the same attack upon society as occurred at Waco, but in an administrative and psychological form in which assault by a homosexual agenda is substituted for assault by rabid ATF thugs. And, of course, the legitimization of that agenda closely enough parallels those who believe in homosexual or heterosexual contact with children to be of service to them, to suspect more support for their agenda is on the way, or at the very least to produce an atmosphere of confusion and ambiguity that can be exploited to provide more operating room. All sides in the issue basically know that.

About 20 years ago film director Roman Polansky was prosecuted, over protests from among the liberal Hollywood community, for drugging and raping 13-year-old girls. He left, or was allowed to leave through deliberate criminal laxity in the justice system, the country to escape punishment. The day may come in 10 to 15 years when he will be vindicated, and any verdicts or pretense of enforcement will be discarded as an embarrassing remnant of an unsophisticated age.

After-Birth Abortion

In 1960 abortion was looked upon as a last resort under the most serious circumstances. At the present, a healthy baby’s life can be terminated for casual and arbitrary reasons if it has one toe in the birth canal and it has become somewhat routine to suck their brains out during an induced slightly premature birth procedure. There are now arguments starting to be asserted that the mother’s right to abortion be extended to one month after the baby’s birth. Shock as a reaction to a stimulus tends to dissipate upon repeated presentation of the stimulus. I have little doubt that the idea will be accepted after an initial period during which protest will be worn down. A so-called “dialogue” is beginning to occur in which those who question whether a one-month-old human being can be killed at convenience will eventually be accused of imposing their unenlightened arbitrary religions values upon others in violation of separation of church and state, and the matter will be declared ended. By the same process, I suspect, sex between marauding adults and children is destined to become an heralded advance in adult civil rights in 20 years’ time. It’s already permissible if you are a Hollywood genius.

Basically, stepping back and taking a consolidating overview, what is happening is that we have increasingly larger numbers of adults who are incapable of adult heterosexual relationships with each other, or are soured on (or finding insufficient satisfaction in) such relationships in a sex-obsessed culture, and who are becoming progressively intrigued by the prospect of sex with children. That is what most of this boils down to. Additionally, the adults have scarred each other with their calloused demands for excesses upon each other, and are looking at sexual relationships with children for a source of innocent partners.

There are psychiatrists and psychologists who are adamantly against so-called recreational drugs. On the other hand, some of the leaders of the 60s drug culture were psychologists and psychiatrists. Some are devout Christians while others are militant atheists. Many psychiatrists and psychologists are adamant in the opinion that homosexuality is a form of mental disorder and some believe it’s a psychosis. On the other hand, other psychiatrists and psychologists do not believe homosexuality is a disorder and take pride in respecting it as a arbitrary liberated sexual preference. Some psychiatrists and psychologists are gay and support gay liberation. They are all accredited.

Nothing Is As Nothing Does

To say that a given group of people are psychologists, psychiatrists, anthropologists, clinical social workers, sociologists or whatever is to say absolutely nothing. An individual or a group may or may not be employing a sound theoretical basis. An individual or a group may or may not be competent. There are widely varying degrees of sanity within the profession. Whatever you want to do or whatever someone else wants to do, a substantial group of certified mental health professionals can be found who will support it. Because there is support for something does not make whatever it is valid. Neither should it confer license to do whatever it is.

Psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, et al., are not products of stone tablets received on mountain tops. They are members of the culture and products of the academic/intellectual subculture. Psychiatry, psychology , etc., on the average represent the culture and subculture producing them. A diseased culture or subculture produces diseased psychiatry and psychology. The corrupt general culture and the pathological academic subculture of the last several decades has produced a cornucopia of pathological psychology and pathological psychologizing—enabling authoritative support and endorsement of pathological and destructive life styles, and authoritative intimidation of those people who are victimized by them. Similarly, psychologists, sociologists, et al., are products of the educational system. A corrupt educational system produces corrupt and sick social scientists.

What constitutes sanity versus insanity, what constitutes our concepts of family relationships, what constitutes responsible concepts of sexuality, what constitutes commitment, what constitutes reasonable human emotional needs, what constitutes responsible childrearing, are all under siege by a multitude of crackpot psychological theories and fashions whose adherents demand the entire society be restructured back and forth overnight to comply with the latest theoretical fashion or the latest pathological trend circulating through the society.

Not only have we become a psychological society, we have come to live under psychologically-mediated tyranny—and confusion.

Psychology has become an indirect battle ground through which to channel various types of personal aggressions, and to justify or fight out various levels of immaturity or psychopathology. It has also become the indirect battle ground to channel various sociological and political ideologies having views on problems dealt with by mental health professionals.

The Popular “Explanation” Is a Sales Pitch

The analysis of cultural and psychological trends given so far in this series differs substantially from the popularized interpretation of events, and may be shocking to many readers. If one were to review the articles in popular liberal magazines, or listen to the authorities appearing in the news media or late-night talk shows, or if one were to poll the mass-media psychologists and psychiatrists, it would lead one to believe there were absolute unanimity of opinion—opinion in direct opposition to what you read here. There is, and has been, far from unanimity. It should be realized much of the popularized explanation of what has taken place, of what is taking place, and of the present state of the culture has been written by the participants or those sympathetic to the social movements which have occurred and consequently represents their view. It is the products or adherents of an inverted system of values praising themselves. The popularized explanations are made to appeal and sell by telling people, particularly products of the recent social trends, what they want to hear. What they want to hear, and what they buy, is that the fantasy they have created about themselves and the social movements of the last 30 to 35 years is true. It isn’t true. It never was true.

An earlier discussion in the overall series at this site, “American Mental Health and Politics” (http://zolatimes.com/V3.14/american_menhealth.html), documented reputable psychiatric critique of the present social psychological condition as well as other serious large scale mental health problems. Detailed content of the discussion will not be repeated here beyond a listing of areas: a sharply increased depression rate, a rate of serious mental disorder five to 10 times that of the mid 50s, a loss of cognitive and logical processes fostered within the educational system, and so forth. Most of these tend to spin off a component of various kinds of thought disorder that becomes felt in the national political and legal process. The borderline personality has become prominent and has become the borderline political process, the borderline judicial system, and the borderline educational system.

To the extent that there is even agreement on what mental disorder is, further superimposed upon any set of mental health figures are political/social issues. Is social or sexual “liberation” to be interpreted as a form of positive adjustment in which an individual is “free from hang-ups,” or is it to be interpreted as hard core psychopathic deviance? Is absence of close committed interpersonal relationships to be interpreted as free-thinking independence, or is it to be interpreted as serious incapacity to form interpersonal relationships? Was Jane Fonda—merrily sitting on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun—to be considered a highly-committed enlightened social activist in the cause of peace and social innovation, or was she a dangerous psychopath or psychotic sublimating the anger from failures in her personal life into an attack upon society? Is it permissible to hump your own daughter, your stepdaughter, your son, the kids in your scout troop, in your classroom or wherever? Depending upon the answers to these questions, the rate of serious mental disorder could be increased or decreased by a factor of three or more.

American culture is under countercultural assault, socially and politically, from a coalition determined to impose mental disorder. It is also inhabited by a rate of serious mental disorder five to 10 times that seen in the mid 50s.

A crucial element often given as the creation of the mental disorder problem is the Viet Nam War. If there had not been a Viet Nam war, it would have been necessary to create one as an excuse to escape accountability. Viet Nam became the glib answer for everything and an excuse for anything. The reality is that for most people, except the relatively few who happened to be drafted into the military, the Viet Nam war was the longest and most uproarious party in American history. Don’t let anyone ever get away with saying it wasn’t a ball. The Viet Nam war protest, and allied protest movements, made the ‘roaring twenties’ look pale by comparison. There was more free sex, more drugs, more music, more festivals, more licentious abandonment and no responsibility for nearly 15 years. All that was needed for an invitation to the ball was to be against something or everything, and you were in. Within that context many people from the 60s and 70s are addicted to the period, and/or to the movements, and seek to re-ignite or re-live the period.

The party is over, but the partiers won’t and can’t leave. The partiers are psychologically dependent upon the pathological patterns developed during that period. For years after the war ended, there was, and still is, a desperate search for replacement—aligned political-social movements and causes—in order to continue the life style. During the Persian Gulf war they began to reemerge like crabgrass, chanting slogans they brought with them from the 60s and 70s. We still have a Viet-Nam-War-era protest politics in America, and in other places throughout the world, by people desperately struggling to remain in a 30-years-younger time warp and a still-continuing attempt to avoid adulthood.

Viet Nam wasn’t the problem. The major contributing elements had already occurred and Viet Nam happened to occur concurrent with the effect of those elements.

The Crowned and Conquering Child

One serious contributing factor was that the excessively youth-centered culture and value system of the last 35 years worked great for 18 year-olds. Many of the participants were, and are, quite arrogant in their espousal of eternal youth-culture. However, it has set several generations up for an eventual psychological collapse because it makes no provision for a person’s eventually being over 35 years old. It leaves them nowhere to go. Many among the generation who, 30 years ago, couldn’t trust anyone over 30 and who were going to be young forever, whose only life and values were politicized youth-culture, have felt pressure which became desperation. It’s no accident that I have been seeing more magazine articles and hearing more radio shows discussing cosmetic surgery. According to the American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons close to 600,000 people had cosmetic surgery in 1986 as compared with 300,000 in 1981. Not only were 37- and 38-year- old women having plastic surgery, they were demanding their husbands have it also because they could neither tolerate their own age or tolerate being around somebody else who reminded them that their youth was over.

If such trends continue this is likely to generate eventual embarrassing situations because an unknowing person is likely to slap someone on the back too hard, not realizing that whoever it is has have been patched and repatched through plastic surgery, and find that whoever it is will suddenly disintegrate into a mound of gray powder.

When a friend of mine’s husband had his 40th birthday in the 1980s, it was the end of his world under his value system. He fell into a psychological collapse, and she needed to sit holding his hand while he cried for two full days. Since that time, he’s been plagued by constant anxiety, depression and other morbid states. But, at the time he was 35, he evidenced little anxiety or depression because the delusion that he would be a member of eternal youth-culture was not being forcefully threatened, and his psychological defenses were holding. The defense for many is to desperately hold on to youth-centered leftist 60s politics in the belief it will make them part of the youth scene forever.

One of the major cultural errors was that the wise observations in the 1863 Sanders’ Union Fourth Reader mentioned earlier in this series were put aside and forgotten. (See http://zolatimes.com/V3.44/politics_amer2.htm.)

In the last fifty years, somewhere, something very important has been ignored. By being unrealistically supportive and indulgent to children and teenagers, or for that matter to anybody, what is produced is an adolescent who is perfectly well adjusted and cosmetically very well-functioning if kept in a spoiled child’s world of self-indulgence, but who is unfit for adulthood and adult relationships. It produces delayed mental disintegration because of inability to deal with adult relationships and responsibilities and because of inability to differentiate fantasy from reality. It also produces perpetual adolescents and social chaos.

Certainly, unrealistically indulgent childrearing creates unconditional self-esteem and security for the child. But, it is a false self-esteem and security which doesn’t last. By being overly supportive and indulgent during pre-adult years, we’ve created a false self-esteem and false sense of security in an uncomfortably large proportion of several generations who are now dependent upon constant unrealistic social support for continuation. This false self-esteem can also be maintained with drugs such as cocaine—which is an interesting form of drug dependence. There’s no substance to this type of self-esteem. What is produced is a hollow narcissistic shell.

It has been forgotten that true self-esteem, valid self-respect, valid self-confidence must be earned and merited. True self-esteem, confidence, and security are obtained through hard-won mastery of adult roles, through mastery of adult tasks, through ability to make adult choices. These are developed through tough consistent rational, let me repeat, rational parental discipline and through continual reasonably-measured increases in responsibility, requiring periods of slight discomfort typical of a growth process—which have not been the hallmark of the liberal permissiveness and affluence of the last nearly fifty years. If the slight discomforts of the growth process are deferred, the accumulated waiting discomfort becomes overwhelming.

My Victims Need Me

As an aside, this false self esteem and false sense of security which is dependent upon unrealistic social support for its continuation explains one of the key elements which often characterizes recent generations. Many of them need constant psychological support and praise, including support from the people they victimize. They are very sensitive to rejection. Hence, one of the sayings used to characterize a widespread mentality of recent periods has been: “I don’t need you, but I’m terrified that you don’t need me.”

A major rationalization for the liberal permissive childrearing system of the past fifty years is that adult maladjustment is caused by lack of love and support in childhood. Like most rationalizations, there is an element of truth in it. Certainly, for the first three years of his life, a child needs a nearly unconditional love and acceptance. Certainly, it is possible to abuse a child and produce a maladjusted adult. Certainly, it is possible to undermine a child through raising him or her in an over-critical atmosphere lacking emotional support. Nobody in his right mind would argue with any of that. Certainly adults can be seen who were emotionally crippled by early childhoods of severe alcoholism, family incest, and other forms of hard-core child abuse. There is genuine child abuse and there are undeniable consequences to that abuse.

Many people among recent generations have wanted to theorize child abuse is their main problem, and by so theorizing avoid facing some unpleasant facts. It is also possible some people want to believe in permissive childrearing because of personal resentment toward parents, or toward what they would like to believe is parental abuse. In some cases there may have been some abuse which they over-generalize as the universal cause of all problems.

But, while many among recent generations would like to theorize and emphasize the main problem has been parental abuse, coldness, rejection, or excessive parental criticism, let it also be emphasized that parental abuse or parental criticism are not mutually exclusive of, or do not preclude, spoiling a child or letting children grow up soft. A person can be abused or criticized but concurrently be undisciplined, egocentric, soft—and also develop a demand for an irrational compensatory entitlement as payment for their real or unreal suffering. In some cases parental problems don’t exclude development of a spoiled child, but insure development of a spoiled child or teenager. Children and teenagers are quite adept at exploiting the parental problems in such a way as to manipulate parents and escape the increased responsibilities of maturation. If parents are preoccupied by problems, children will exploit it to their advantage to get away with murder.

Growing up is difficult. If there is any way for a child to avoid it, he or she will. If there is any way for an adult who is a superannuated teenager to avoid the difficulty of growing up, he or she will avoid it.

Due to cultural patterns of recent decades, a large proportion of several generations of young had more interaction with and more control over each other than they had interaction and control by parents or other adults. As a ploy to avoid personal responsibility for their condition, they have been, and continue to be, very adept at employing specious psychological arguments about parental abuse having psychologically predestined them to do whatever it is they wanted to do anyway. They got their own way. They had their sexual revolution. They had their abortions. They had their life style revolution. They had their drugs. American values, life styles and social institutions are scarcely recognizable from what they were previous to the 60s, and it’s largely because the youth-culture/counterculture of the 60s and 70s had its way, implementing its pathologically immature culture and values.

The old rules were made to protect people. The new rules, the new values, and new life styles were devised to un-protect people, to confer license and to deny consequences. Until society returns to the old rules, living will be difficult.

It is difficult to differentiate a life style or culture from the type of personality which creates it or lives in it. As the culture continues to develop, and develops a psychological momentum of its own, it begins to exercise independent power which bends the will and personalities of those who live in it into conformation with that culture.

A Is Not-A

The most irrational and difficult characteristic of the personality system inhabiting the American culture which has been created in the last 35 years is a component of what some personality theorists term splitting and what other theorists refer to as compartmentalized thinking. This personality does not recognize the law of contradiction—the principle that something cannot both exist and not exist simultaneously. Neither does this mentality recognize interrelationships between various actions and consequences or the principle of cause and effect. Since this mentality does not associate cause with effect, neither does it look at the foreseeability of consequences. Various thoughts and actions are looked upon as separate unassociated events or entities and are somehow kept in separate mental compartments. Thoughts and actions are viewed or expressed separately as if they had no relationship to one another or to anything subsequent. This mentality can say one thing one moment, then, in response to personal need for denial or in response to a different personal impulse, say the exact opposite a minute later without recognizing the contradiction. There is no integration of thoughts and actions consistent over time or in terms of consequences.

Instead of validating actions and mental processes by reasoning, by logic, or by reference to cause and effect, a new validation procedure has been substituted which references an ungoverned and pathological emotional system.

Part of this is the result of a lack of reality-conscience. A healthy person has an internalized reality-conscience. If I ask a healthy person what is sitting on the end of the table I’m looking at, he would tell me it was a lamp because that is what it is. If he were to tell me it were something other than what it is, for instance tell me it were a book, a telephone or an automobile; he would feel anxiety, a twinge of conscience, because of the contradiction with reality. This can be called reality-conscience or non-reality anxiety, whichever term you want to use.

Reality-conscience is very important from several standpoints. This emotional feedback is an important emotional signal which interrupts a person as a reminder when reality is being contradicted, giving them a clear emotional indication when they contradict reality or become otherwise irrational. Secondly, reality-conscience or non-reality anxiety exercises a controlling influence which maintains mental health and maintains sanity. If a person with reality-conscience starts to become irrational, he starts to experience an anxiety which pulls him back from that irrationality and into the real world. This prevents him or her from developing delusional systems and many other forms of psychopathology. You won’t find people with reality-conscience in the back wards of mental hospitals believing they are airplanes who can fly or believing they are Napoleon.

Thirdly, people who are compelled by reality-conscience to view the world realistically are able to avoid behavior which creates realistically destructive consequences and they will avoid trouble. In seeing the world for what it is, they avoid trouble for what it is.

People who are taught not to lie, and have conscience against lying, have a better start on life and mental health.

However, in recent generations there is deficient reality-conscience or deficient non-reality anxiety in the teenaged and adult populations. This is a consequence of: 1.) The psychotic social environment; 2.) The personal actions within various irrational “life styles”; and, 3.) The counter-rational arguments rationalizing those life styles, which have had the effect of dismantling reality-conscience and desensitizing the individual to the messages from what little conscience remains. On further reflection, there might be added: 4.) Somewhere in the recent history of this culture we stopped washing children’s mouths out with soap for telling lies; instead we elect them to national office.

As a consequence we now have principle portions of several generations in this country who are unable to differentiate reality from fantasy. The ability and willingness to differentiate between fantasy and reality is one of the most fundamental characteristics distinguishing the immature thinking of children from the thinking of mature adults. It is also part of the boundary between sanity and psychosis.

Living in the Delusional Matrix

Simultaneously, reality-conscience has been replaced by two other forms of emotional feedback. First, there is the anger springing from temper tantrums, which is strong fuel for action. The force of such anger creates a subjective feeling of confidence (unfounded confidence) and displaces depth of self-examination. Secondly, as people drift into irrationality or become committed to irrational life styles, reality becomes a threat to their delusional structure. The result is a final inverted psychological condition in which, instead of developing anxiety over deviation from reality, people develop an anxiety over potential perception of reality as well as an antagonism toward perception of reality.

The absence of reality-conscience results in a removal of, or desensitization toward, that sense of reasonable limits which is the intellectual boundary between thought disorder and sanity. It opens the door to easier development of delusional systems. Such people can deny the obvious, lie with vehemence, and treat reality with indignation, propelled by anger and with no sense of conscience. So we end up with a president who claims he doesn’t know what sex is.

I was of the initial belief that the denial of knowing any relationship between cause and effect was a purposeful lie as well as an attempt to bait someone into anger during conversation. In the 60s, this was true. However, with the continued passage of time, both through the consequences of psychologically destructive individual actions and as a result of the diseased social environment of the last several decades, by the 70s many people were in such a psychopathological condition, in a pathology promoted by the culture, that they were, and are, are absolutely that confused. They have lied to each other and to themselves so often and so long that they, and the culture, have forgotten the truth. There has been a progressive desensitization of conscience concerning denial of obvious reality.

On the specific and practical level, one can hear people in American singles organizations assert their depth of emotional involvement and depth of commitment in their “relationships.” In self-describing their patterns it is seen that other people enter and leave their lives in rapid succession. They seem to have no difficulty blithely recounting the number of past “relationships” in which they have been involved. They can walk out of a relationship on a moment’s notice without undergoing profound grief reactions. After ending a relationship, they are on the loose the next weekend looking for someone else and seem to be able to replace the previous person with someone new in minutes—which then becomes the new deep relationship and is offered up as proof of ability to form deep relationships and ability to make commitments. As proof of capacity to form relationships and make commitments, the last fifty revolving door “relationships” are cited.

In real world fact, the last fifty “relationships” are proof of inability to form serious relationships and make commitments. Relationships bear a resemblance to the game of golf. The lower the score, the better. People of emotional genuineness and depth don’t talk of having relationships.

The inherent contradiction between depth of genuine emotional attachment versus the ease with which people come and go in their lives with little evidence of sense of profound loss, or the ease with which replacements can be found, is not recognized. Virtually every aspect of their past patterns as well as their present attitude suggest emotional shallowness, detachment, and a frivolous disregard for the emotions of others. However, they demand, and that means demand, to have themselves and their “relationships” admired as paragons of emotional depth. Bringing up the obvious contradiction between emotional depth and their behavior elicits temper tantrums.

Such contradictions are typical. The most transparent and contorted verbal permutations, which are not to be questioned, are concocted to cover up these contradictions.

This can be maddening to anyone who must deal with them because while people with these characteristics demand what they call rational discussion, there is no consistency, logic or rationality to their thought processes. It is impossible to interact with them on a manifest level with any degree of rationality. Instead, you are subjected to a vehement argument for whatever impulses or desires they have at any particular moment regardless of whether it conflicts with their differing impulses, desires and arguments the moment before, or conflicts with what is wanted for next week. This is an existential personality in the sense of existential. These people exist in a continuing moment-to-moment existence in which each moment is viewed as being unrelated to what happened previously or what will happen in the future. They live in the continual present. There is absence of a sense of continuity or continuation.

Effects Without Causes

In the absence of emphasis on cause and effect; and since conditions supposedly don’t have causes; there can be no foreseeability that consequent conditions will occur from actions under this distorted mentality. Hence, there is no responsibility to foresee consequences from present actions. This lack of employment of foreseeability leads to chaotic and turbulent life-situations for which they take no personal responsibility and over which they say there is supposedly no choice or control. They don’t begin their analysis of their own life situation at the beginning or with the cause of present conditions, but focus upon the present, as if their current condition were spontaneous, unavoidable and without antecedents. There is no sense of responsibility for whatever consequent conditions now exist.

This, in turn, creates constant necessity for remedial action. Somebody else must pick up the pieces. However, this remedial action is not expected to take place within the context of their changing the behavior which causes turbulence and deterioration in their life.

One excellent concrete example is the situation of AIDS and homosexuals. There was recently a radio interview with four homosexual men who had AIDS. One complained that he saw 30 of his good friends contract AIDS and die, or the few of them left are near death. In his own words, “Two years later, now, I have AIDS.” Notice the use of words in such a way that the concepts of cause, effect, responsibility and foreseeability are circumvented. He says he now suddenly has AIDS without any mention of how this might have happened. There is a finely-tuned use of language which either de-emphasizes or deletes any concepts of personal cause and effect or personal responsibility. It’s as if the “now” in the “now, I have AIDS” were the causative factor.

According to his own statement, 30 of his friends have died of this disease. Was it foreseeable that if he engaged in the same behavioral patterns and activity that they did when they acquired the disease, he would also acquire the same disease? Certainly, it was foreseeable. He didn’t happen to get AIDS spontaneously. For two years he voluntarily and knowingly engaged in behavior which in his experience, and the experience of any reasonable person, would have predictably and reliably result in contracting AIDS and dying. AIDS didn’t mysteriously happen to him. He knowingly engaged in behavior which caused him to get AIDS.

By any reasonable standards, he had a choice of whether or not to acquire AIDS. According to the law of cause and effect, he could either engage in behavior which would predictably produce the effect of getting AIDS or choose not to engage in that behavior, thereby avoiding AIDS. This was a clear primary or first choice. There was no absence of choice.

Why, then, did he choose to get AIDS? It was because he did not stop the behavior which would cause him to contract AIDS.

The next question becomes, why wouldn’t he give up that activity? Maybe it was because he decided it was too enjoyable to give up. Maybe it was because he lacked control over his impulses. Maybe it was because he was so driven by psychopathological compulsion to engage in that activity that the compulsion was stronger than the need to avoid certain infection with the lethal disease. Perhaps it was because of a self-destructive or suicidal element in this personality. Perhaps it was because he thought the importance of his immediate sexual impulses should take precedence over the importance over any other factors. Perhaps it was a matter of infantile personal abstinence.

Those questions open a war between various political groups, between various psychiatric and psychological theorists, and between people who believe in various conceptions of what are called “life styles.”

This issue has been a hotly-contested war within the psychiatric profession for more than 30 years. For technical reasons, the American Psychiatric Association deleted homosexuality from its official manual of mental disorders in 1973. However, in 1978, sixty-nine percent of psychiatrists still believed homosexuality was a pathological adaptation.

The issue has become heavily politicized, with heterosexuals who are pathological and defensively dedicated to expunging the concept of psychopathology in nearly any form, inclusively rejecting the concept of pathology in gays as an indirect way of protecting their own conditions and warped life styles. Both groups have a vested interest in furthering the image of psychopathology as being a form of cultural pluralism rather than having pathology looked upon as pathology. In addition, the support of homosexuality is also an indirect method of directing hostility upon hated middle-class reality-based values or parental figures. It’s a perfect medium for countercultural and oppositional-defiant personality systems. This coalition of people and purpose is politically powerful. It includes the President of the US.

Regardless of what any public relations campaigns would attempt to have the world believe, everything I have seen and heard regarding homosexuality indicates homosexuals typically function at highly pathological and primitive levels of mental functioning—one symptom of which is that they lack presence of mind or the willingness to associate the consequences of their behavior with that behavior and act accordingly. A second symptom is often the absolute primitive precedence of their desires and impulses over all other considerations. This is coupled with an infantile defiance. There is a maze of twisted pathological psychological processes deep in the homosexual mentality. I see a lot of weirdness; if there is a sane side to gayness, I have never seen it. The arguments in support of gayness assert hypothetical and potential conditions which exist in theory, but seldom exist in reality. All I have is reality. What I see takes precedence over what someone is trying to talk me into believing.

Any group of people who show a persistent pattern of killing each other by engaging in wanton sexual excesses with multiple strangers in the face of the most obvious overwhelming evidence that it is lethal has far more serious problems in terms of psychopathology than what is blandly referred to as simple sexual preference. All the AIDS education programs in the world haven’t worked because the problem is not lack of knowledge, but is a fundamental pathology.

Bill Clinton is hell-bent on having gays in the military and everywhere else. He and the liberal establishment have centered the discussion on the issue as exclusively a civil-rights issue. It is not a civil rights issue. It is a pathology issue.

In ordinary social interactions we attempt to be cordial and overlook minor eccentricities or impositions. However, there comes a point where demands and impositions can become so severe as to require a substantial compromise of personal integrity and make cordial accommodation impossible. Gays have become more confrontational in their demands upon society and have escalated their insistence on being given reasons why those demands are not met. In their confrontation, they are cornering society. Not out of viciousness, but out of sheer exasperation and exhaustion of cordial options, it has come to the point where its time to say gayness tends to represent a serious mental disorder which is lethal to gays and requires massive destructive pathological denial on the part of society as a prerequisite to acceptance. Individuals or society are not obligated to adopt destructive pathological levels of denial.

Many gays impress people of serious maturity as being silly asses. They have become quite self-confident and secure in the role of being cute silly asses because something in their background has reinforced them, and continues to reinforce them, in that role. For those segments of society for whom this has entertainment value, so be it. For those of maturity and seriousness, it isn’t funny.

Part of the problem with gays is the same as the borderline psychotic phenomenon seen throughout the last several decades. In the adult sane real world there are many activities which are not to be engaged in because they are destructive or injurious to others, destructive to one’s self, or lethal. Period. That fact absolutely must be accepted as a part of realistic maturity and growing up. Having temper tantrums won’t change it. All the endless verbal arguments in the world won’t change it. Fabricating endless psychological theories to the contrary won’t change it. Whether it’s fun at the moment doesn’t change it. Whether other people seem to be having fun at the moment doesn’t change it. Whether people think they are having fun doesn’t change it. Getting away with it for a short period doesn’t change it. Biting, kicking and scratching won’t change it. Nothing changes it. In the adult sane real world there are activities which are not to be engaged in because they are destructive or injurious to others, destructive to one’s self, or lethal. Period.

That basic truth has not been acceptable to a large proportion of several generations, and rejection of that reality has been much of what has gone wrong with America since the mid 60s. Infantile rejection of that reality has been a strong fundamental element in the pathological architecture of gays and they seem determined to lead the pack.

Gays are not being forced to acquire AIDS. If one begins at the beginning, there are a host of primary choices. They can choose to get AIDS by continuing to engage in activity which experience shows results in becoming infected with the disease. Or, on the other hand, they can choose to change their pattern of sexual activity. Or, they can choose to undergo competent psychotherapy so that they no longer have the compulsion to become involved in such activity. Those are primary or first-level choices and decisions which can be made. No one is preventing them from choosing not to become infected with AIDS.

However, these are not the choices desired because these choices require giving up immediate impulse gratification. These choices require acknowledging realistic unpleasant effects of behavior. These choices require maturing and facing life. These choices require undergoing a reasonable amount of adult discomfort and giving up something. These choices are not within the context of their continuing their behavior. The homosexual mentality tends to be too infantile and pathological to make that kind of choice or utilize that level of reality-testing or engage in that level of reality acceptance.

Instead, circumventing the fact that there are primary choices which have consequences and that they have made a choice which they intend to pursue, gay liberation groups initiate their reasoning in the middle. Beginning from the implicit defiant position that they are not going to change their behavior, they egocentrically demand that there be no consequences to that behavior. Or they demand the entire scientific and technological resources of the country be preempted into a massive effort so that they can continue to continue that behavior.

That is not sane. It will need to change.

But gays are a protected group because other groups also don’t want to make choices and take responsibilities in parallel areas, and pathological protectionism of gays drives a wedge between the threat of other forms of immature pathology and reality. The imposed acceptance of gays insures a margin of safety for people with other serious deficiencies.

The restrictions on physical sexuality are no less applicable to heterosexuals than gays. The days of the free-swinging sexuality of the 1960s and 70s are over. Herpes, cervical cancer, gonorrhea, clamydia, AIDS are putting an end to all of it. The emotional hardships and quality of life hardships it created should have put an end to it before it started.

Babies Result from Storks and Spontaneous Generation

Another example of large-scale pathological functioning in which remedial action is substituted for initial reality-testing is the pro-abortion steamroller. Again, there is no concept of primary cause and effect. There is no sense of foreseeabiltiy of consequences, no sense of responsibility at the level of primary and foreseeable cause. There is a focus on remedial action, a focus on the distorted assertion that the cause of babies is a lack of remedial action as well as the implicit assumption of continuation of the primary causative behavior.

The “pro choice” argument starts in the middle with a statement something such as, “Women should have the right to make decisions and choices about their bodies,” the decision or choice level talked about being abortion. It is presented as though it is the only level of choice or determines whether there is any choice at all. With the exception of rape and incest as examples of need for abortion, not once in twenty years have I heard any reference by pro-abortion advocates as to what causes pregnancy. It is as if pregnancy were an inevitable or spontaneous occurrence necessitating abortion to prevent babies from automatically being born. Implicitly, babies are looked upon as being caused by lack of abortion. Restricting abortion is sentencing women to have babies.

However, pregnancy does not spontaneously occur, nor is it caused by lack of abortion. There are antecedent conditions which must be fulfilled to produce pregnancy. Pregnancy is an effect which has a cause. The cause of pregnancy is two people in a bed engaging in sex. Pregnancy is a foreseeable consequent event of sex. As such, when a woman decides to engage in sexual activity, she is making a primary decision or a choice about her body and about pregnancy. At that point there is a level of primary decision, choice and responsibility. The issue of abortion is a remedial action applied to the consequences of a choice or decision which has previously been made but which is denied because people don’t want to make that choice. They want the choice to be something else. Women have an important decision-making and choice regardless of whether or not abortion is legal. Abortion is a remedial action for poor choices or an earlier choice which are denied as being a choice.

Freedom of choice and exercise of choice begin long before abortion. When one reads in the liberal woman’s magazines that nearly 60 percent of women polled are sleeping with men on the first date, those women have been making some important choices, at that point, not just two months later, about their bodies as well as well as other decisions about their subsequent psychological condition which will be discussed later. However, not even once, in 30 years, has anyone heard a single women’s liberation or abortion-on-demand proponent even suggest the most remote element of choice or decision in that behavior. No serious examination is ever made of responsibility or consequences of that sexual activity and behavioral pattern. When choice is demanded, responsibility at that level is not what is wanted and mention of it releases temper tantrums. When asked if there are any consequences to their sexual activity and “life style,” they change the subject, saying it’s an expression of women’s new freedoms. If further asked whether the new sexual activity under the new freedoms and the new life styles is a choice which causes the new pregnancy, they will look you straight in the eye and, without blinking, furiously demand to know just what in the hell one could possibly have to do with the other. The concept of controlling pregnancy by controlling actions which cause pregnancy has been expunged from consciousness or consideration. (The concept of controlling anything by controlling the actions which cause it has become almost universally rejected in recent decades.) Cause is completely disassociated from the effect in a way that seems impossible. In fact, it isn’t possible in a healthy mind. One of the conditions of that unhealthiness is a deficiency of reality-conscience.

Capacity to become angry if a question about consequences is brought up, validates in their mind their assertion that there aren’t any consequences. There is a subjective validation by reference to feeling, consisting largely of the anger generated by a temper tantrum, without any reference to reality. Anger confers a subjective sense of psychologically protective self-confidence, validity and license. Unfortunately, we have an extensive population in America who are self-confident to the point of being delusional as a result of capacity to have infantile temper tantrums.

The concern, here, is with abortion as a symptom of profound levels of psychopathology in this culture.

During a recent hour-long television program in which six women who had had abortions were interviewed in depth, two of these women had PhDs while another, a registered nurse, was a counselor at a pregnancy clinic. Only one was married at the time of her pregnancy. Five of the six had had two or more abortions. One, at the time of the interview, was five months pregnant for the third time and unmarried. In at least four instances these women had become pregnant during passing episodes lasting one, or not more than two nights. As one of the women glibly explained, “I met someone I was attracted to one night, then later found out I had become pregnant.”

This has become typical. Similar stories are a cultural norm. Half the women in single life are giving their bodies and their emotions to be slobbered over for a night by people they don’t know well enough to loan a twenty dollar bill to, and the women’s magazines take pride in it as being an expression of women’s self-confident independence. Few of these women question what they are doing or consider the consequences, because they have been programmed into a mindlessness by reference to reality-contradictory social pressures from a society which says it’s cute and liberated. They are following a script that doesn’t turn out like the glossy photographs of models or articles in the magazines. Most of them don’t know why they are doing it. But the consequences are real and keep hitting them like an invisible wall which they are psychologically blinded from seeing.

When the women on the program were asked what they thought the answer was to prevention of unwanted pregnancy, they were unanimous in the opinion the answer was sex education. While this superficially sounds plausible, it is in obvious direct contradiction to the fact two of them had doctorates and another taught contraceptive use at a clinic, but all had became pregnant and had abortions multiple times. Their own education and even their own previous experience with several unwanted pregnancies and abortions had no effect in preventing subsequent pregnancy. There is seen an assertion of hypothetical or potential conditions which exist as theory, but are not supported in specific reality. The education argument is one of an elaborate array of sociological and psychological explanations which are vehemently employed, but irrelevant and erroneous.

Similarly, neither does sexual knowledge have any effect at the level of the general population. In the May 1987 Journal of Marriage and the Family is a piece of research by Hanson, Myers and Ginsburg titled “The Role of Responsibility and Knowledge in Reducing Teenage Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing.” From a study of 10,000 teenage females, one of the conclusions was: “Our findings suggest that knowledge, as measured by birth control knowledge and sex education courses, is not successful in reducing the chances of out-of-wedlock childbearing.”

According to figures quoted in a November, 1990 ABC special on abortion in America, forty-five percent of abortions are had by women who have previously had abortions. According to public health figures in the 1992 Universal Almanac, 75 percent of abortions are had by women, usually single women, above the age of twenty. These are not naive uneducated 13-year-olds.

Although it is wished lack of knowledge were the problem, and it is often argued that lack of knowledge is the problem, in the real world lack of sex education, or lack of sexual knowledge, was not the problem and isn’t the problem. In the real world, lack, or abundance of, sexual knowledge is no more operative than it was with the women being interviewed. Something else is the problem. Part of it will be discussed at a later time.

Everything Is, Like, in a Fog

What is heard from these and similar women is a non-integration of personality and non-integration of concepts characteristic of borderline and other psychopathology. They have no definite internal sense of reasonable limits upon their behavior. There is no filtering of behavior through reasoning processes. They don’t think about what they are doing. They knew, or know, their impulses at the moment. At the time they feel those impulses, those impulses dominate their behavior. Aside from that, they are in a disorganized mental condition where they either do not associate themselves or their behavior with any consequences or don’t care. There is no sense of what is real. That is a major problem. There is no serious sense of the real or reality. This is tied to a type of pathology called derealization and/or depersonalization in which there is a blunted sense of acuteness that what is happening or what exists is real. This condition is intensified by a nearly universal psychological environment, particularly in the media, which denies reality and continually presents powerful images contradictory to reality.

They live in a confusion covered up by a patchwork of inconsistent phrases and clichés (chopped logic), often incorporating the type of empty and irrelevant sociologizing heard from the above women, which they throw at people in defensive fabrication of an illusion of reality-contact and as a substitute for coherent thought. They have no coherent or consistent internal psychological structure. They drift from “relationship” to “relationship” in a confused state under which they have no sense of the serious reality of what they are doing, periodically becoming pregnant.

Much of this is because, beginning with Cosmopolitan magazine articles advising them to disregard the dangers of AIDS, or glamorizing the juggling of several sex partners during a week, their psychological environment is dominated by a diseased atmosphere and exhortation that would confuse anyone.

Parenthetically, this type of mentality has been both promoting, and in control of, sex education. Sex education is in the same state as the rest of the perverted educational system. The resulting values-free sex education curriculum has been primarily oriented toward protecting the liberated values of those pushing the course, toward the engineering of a psychologically cushioning environment for that confused mentality and life style, culminated by a perfunctory tangential message about not forgetting to use a condom. The primary message is not being lost. The primary message is thinly veiled permission, if not endorsement of, engaging in behavior where a condom may be employed. Condoms are a graduation present and the symbol of an overall condition of their value system or direction of life.

The emphasis on values-free content is a direct implementation of the objection to those values in borderline culture and is an aggressively-motivated political/social implementation bordering on coercion. More specifically, the sooner a girl is railroaded into bed with somebody, becomes pregnant, and has an abortion, the sooner she is compromised and less apt to question or become a psychological threat to her older liberated sisters who have been pushing and living that life style for years. This is the barely-hidden agenda. The condoms are symbolic and not to be used.

Factors in the cause and nature of this psychological state will be examined in greater detail later. But, for now, part of this is the result of the emphasis on the importance and validity of feelings under the psychology of Feeling, Being and Now—in which the focus is immediate experience and amusement. This psychology and the resulting social trend omits the most important single question instrumental to a sane life: “What am I doing?” Implicitly, this also contains or leads to the question: “What are the expected consequences?”

This question is, or these questions are, one of the characteristics of competent adulthood. This question is, or these questions are, what prevents unwanted consequences, including unwanted pregnancy, AIDS, and most of the major personal and social problems facing the nation? This is the question that is not being asked.

What are you doing? Time after time in the last 30 years I have asked that question and received the eager answer, “Good, let’s talk about feelings.” Or, “I feel—-.” When I reply that I’m not asking about feelings, but I am asking about what someone is doing and what the consequences are apt to be, all eagerness for discussion suddenly disappears. I receive the answer, “Why can’t we talk about feelings?” Whoever it is, is apt to become angry, then cry, in successive reiterations of the question. Finally, I receive a blank look because whoever it is doesn’t know what they are doing or has never thought about it. Nobody has ever asked them that question before. Under the psychology of Feeling, Being and Now, that question is forbidden or has been displaced out of existence by focus upon feeling.

We have a very large proportion of people in this country who either don’t know what they are doing or have a blunted sense of reality so that they don’t understand the significance of what they are doing. One of the consequences is pregnancy.

Don’t misunderstand. If they were given a written examination over what causes pregnancy, they would pass the tests with scores of ninety-nine. What is missing is a sense of reality, a sense of the importance of consequences of actions, and a presence of mind.

The Missing Sense of Reality

In recent weeks there has been a national news story about six women who are suing a man who gave them all AIDS over a several month period through sex, as if they were unknowing victims. He was humping all of them concurrently on a mutually casual basis during the period. It is difficult to believe that any reasonable person would not have a grasp of the nature of the relationships they were participating in with this man, with the risks involved, and the assumption of expected outcome. But they acted as if they didn’t and became indignant at the predictable outcome. So the liberal women’s magazines tell these goofs that it’s terribly clever to have multiple casual sex partners, and they rush out to do it. When the guy is playing the same game they are and everybody ends up with everybody else’s diseases, along with a modicum of pregnancy, they get indignant as hell and sue the guy. Maybe they should think about suing Cosmopolitan magazine for providing false information which contributed to their contracting the disease.

The immediate personal gain in avoidance of serious thoughtful evaluation is that the person need not face conflict or resolve conflict between impulses and eventual consequences. By focusing on the importance of feelings and the acting out of feelings without regard for other considerations, people avoid the conflict between desires and other considerations. It’s the equivalent of the ostrich with his head in the sand. Eventually, however, the consequences occur. The consequences seem to be accompanied by great indignation.

Collaterally, there is a pathological level of particularization, to borrow a term from legal advocacy. The defense lawyer stands before the judge and says, “Your Honor, my client only moved one finger of his right hand. Why should he go to jail for that?” The excessively particularized and restricted view presents a false diminished importance of what happened. The problem with the argument is that his client moved that finger against the trigger of a twelve gauge shotgun, with the foreseeable result of killing four people. The point is that somewhere there must be some realization of the context of the seriousness of life. Similarly, sexuality has a broader context of seriousness. Sex is the equivalent of pulling a trigger. There are secondary short and long term consequences. Much of this analysis requires a two or three step reasoning process which a preponderant proportion of generations since the early 60s are not only incapable of making on scholastic tests in the sciences, but are also unable to make in daily life.

For instance, abortion has become a remedial action to partially repair the consequences of a cavalier sexuality and a disorganized mental state—an impulse-dominated mindlessness which is an implicit presupposition that is both denied and not open to discussion regarding whether there should be personal behavioral change or responsibility. This mental condition has become the de facto assumption in the inevitable or automatic pregnancies which must be aborted. Given the pathological mental condition of the people involved, automatic unwanted pregnancy is a nearly inevitable secondary consequence—along with AIDS and other physical and psychological difficulties.

This, the beginning, is where the discussion of freedom of choice should begin. To initiate a remedy, it should be realized and emphasized there is an important element of seriousness, foreseeability and responsibility at that point. Sex is a very serious primary decisive action from which there are both physical and emotional/mental consequences. There must be more emphasis on the fact that that decision is the decision and there must be emphasis on the consequences of that decision rather than attempting to present the subsequent remedial action as the single decision. Although, for many contemporary women remedial action has become the only decision possible because they are in a deteriorated and disorganized state of mind such that they are incapable of making any primary personal choices or decisions.

The hidden agenda in abortion on demand is in part an argument to legitimize or make possible a chaotic behavioral pattern containing a highly-developed component of psychopathology in which unwanted pregnancies are an inevitable consequence. Not only is pregnancy a consequence, but there are other individual psychological as well as social consequences which are debilitating, which have been denied, and for which no responsibility is taken. It is an attempt to view sexuality as if it has little seriousness except as a source of immediate pleasure—this view reflecting the psychological condition of a mentality that is typically psychologically blocked from engaging in heterosexual relationships of any depth, warmth or complexity. It is a pathological psychological condition intrinsically encouraged by permissive sexuality. The psychological blocking and pathology is contagious in the sense that people who don’t have it are forced to acquire it as a defense after having been repeatedly battered or preyed upon by those who have it. Promotion or legitimization of that pathological mentality and behavioral pattern is the unspoken issue on both sides of the abortion argument.

Collateral manipulations used as leverage are arguments as to the necessity of abortion in cases of endangerment to the life of the mother, rape or incest are not genuine issues. These areas represent a small proportion of instances where abortions have been utilized. Fewer than one percent of abortions involve rape or incest. Few people probably have objection to abortion under those situations. However, the sides both for and against abortion know the arguments for abortion under these situations are looked upon as pro-abortion arguments which are to be expanded to endorse or validate a lifestyle or value systems that promote a pathological psychological condition that is the issue.

Anti-abortion people are very frightened people. They have sound reason to be frightened. Nearly 40,000,000 abortions are an integrated condensation of a complex of attitudes, values, pathology and life styles which are irrational, destructive and contain a miasma of denial. Within this, there is a progressive desensitization toward the importance of anything or anybody. Under this desensitization people are destroying each other and the culture. However, the situation is much as the previously mentioned mentality within the drug subculture. Drug culture inhabitants could be undergoing the most dangerous and obvious mental and physical consequences in a state of calm because they operate under psychotic levels of denial. The only sane person in the room would be the only one agitated with everyone else in the room calling him nuts because he was agitated.

In the same way anti-abortionists can see a psychological cancer spreading through and destroying the society. They are not able to articulate the complexity of their observations very well. They meet a wall of aggressive denial which they attempt to counter intellectually. There is no way to deal with denial intellectually.

Civil and personal rights in America are being defined by those demanding them as a condition where the person demanding them is exclusively the one who has them, while nobody else has any or everybody else is forced to adapt to the demands of the person making the demands. Choice is being defined as choice exclusively for the person demanding to choose without regard for the rights of other people. The crusade for personal and civil rights has become a demand to marginalize the rights of other people.

The pro choice arguments are being falsely presented as civil rights advancements. The reality is that what is being demanded is not choice or a civil right, but license under a focus that excludes all other rights or considerations beyond the convenience, impulses, or trivial pleasures of a mother or prospective mother. Beyond those conveniences or impulses, rights for no others exist. However, in the mature adult world, there is a point at which a developing human being is due the same rights as any other human being. Part of the responsibility of sexuality, indeed of civilization, is serious acknowledgment of that truth.

Kill ’em All, Let God Sort ’em Out

For the last 30 years there have been angry arguments as to when life begins with various attempted philosophical proofs on all sides. The arguments are academic and are not the real issue. Upon stepping back and taking an overview, I realize a formerly unconscious observation over the years. It’s my impression that if the truth were known, it makes, or would make, little difference to many of the people arguing for unrestricted abortion whether the babies being aborted are living or non-living, although it’s tactically desirable to devise the protection of some philosophical and legal justification. Fewer and fewer people give a damn one way or another. In some cases the people involved are in such a dazed state, and are so pathologically distanced from any sense of reality, that they barely know or care. In other cases it’s because they are hard-as-nails and little more than hard-core psychopathic deviants. Call them self-involved narcissists, borderline personalities, sociopathic personalities or allied personalities.

Many of them show no concern or emotional depth or attachment in their adult relationships. There is no reason to expect them to show any more concern or respect for the unborn than they do for each other as adults. The born or waiting-to-be-born all receive the same treatment under contemporary psychopathic liberalism. There is a cold pattern of self-centered indifference generalized throughout the entire spectrum of their lives. We’re becoming a nation of throwaway adults and throwaway babies. It’s becoming too easy.

Bill Clinton’s Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders angrily denounced pro-life people’s “love affair with the fetus”, as if it had no more significance than a rock. That should frighten people. Clinton knew of her basic philosophy beforehand and chose her for that reason. That should also frighten people.

The important question facing America is not when does life begin, but when does hard-core psychopathic deviance begin, and when does proselytization of highly destructive psychopathology begin. The question facing America is whether or when we must put on the brakes so as to maintain a healthy society. The question is whether the quality of life is going to degenerate into a miasma of pathological sexual squalor and abortion. There has been a complete lack of introspection regarding this.

This is one of the major issues concerning abortion. It’s an expression of an overall attitude or set of values under which nobody means anything or is significant. Not me. Not you. Not the born. Not the unborn. It represents a circle of egocentric concern with a radius so small that it excludes anything beyond momentary impulse. Anything or anyone beyond that immediate radius is disposable within a complete absence of introspection.

Parenthetically, this is one of the reasons women have been having trouble obtaining psychological intimacy from men. Men do not trust that value system in women. They wonder whether these women value anything. For hit-and-run operations with hit-and-run caliber men, values make no difference, but for anything serious it causes mistrust.

A pertinent question is, “Who’s next?” What are the limits? It’s getting too easy. At what point does a mechanical attitude toward the unborn begin to generalize? Does anything have significance or worth?

There is a point of universal serious moral contemplation separate from religious context and subject to examination by serious atheists. There is no free ride. At some point, levels of general permitted cultural psychopathic deviance result in a condition in which our own lives will be viewed as worthless, insignificant, or subject to arbitrary disposal by others. Seriously consider whether that’s the life you want to live, and if the answer is yes, don’t expect any consideration because you will end up living in a society composed of killers and psychopaths—including those we have to choose from in building personal and family relationships. Be careful of what kind of moods and attitudes are apt to exist in the society you design, because you might have to live with the results of it.

This entry was posted in Politics in America. Bookmark the permalink.