Politics in America
Part 16: Parties, Subcultures, and Structures (continued)
by Robert L. Kocher

The fantasy is that those who voted for Perot would have voted for Bush or Dole if there were no other alternative or had Perot not run. However, what is quite apparent is that in the absence of alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans, increasing numbers of people have been declining to vote at all. If Perot had not run, what was more apt to have happened was that the election would have reverted to the poor pre-Perot voter turnout while the Clintons prevailed.

It would be nice if more people showed up at the polls. It would be wonderful if somebody passed a rule that nobody else could run for office so that people had no choice but to vote for your candidate. But this is nothing but a little kid’s wish and fantasy. Other candidates don’t take votes from you. Aside from media manipulation, the reason elections are lost is that a weak candidate failed to make his case. George Bush was weak in ’80 when he was rejected in the primaries. He was weak in ’88, but was saved by Reagan’s coattails and the fact that the Democrats ran an idiot for president. He was weak in ’92. Dole was weak in ’96, but was promoted in the primaries by the leftist media to insure the Clintons’ re-election. Perot had nothing to do with any of it.

Indications are Perot did not take votes away from Democrats or Republicans. Perot votes were mostly people he brought into the political process who were disgusted with the Republicans and Democrats, and who would otherwise have stayed home. In 1996 many of them stayed home.

The reform party had, and continues to have, another serious problem. Some of its voters voted for the Reform Party out of absolute hatred of, and polarization from, the existing order and foolishness within the Republican and Democratic parties. The problem with that is, unification based upon hatred, polarization, or commonly held disgust is always temporary and leads to eventual deferred organizational self destruction if it is the only basis for a political movement. While some of the people seeking the Reform Party disagreed with the prevailing order outside the party, it is also true that they had no basis for agreement on anything among themselves.

The “Just Get Gore” Fallacy

This is a common mistake. It is one being repeated by the Republican party in 2000. Republican and political amateurs tell me daily that the only important thing is to get the Clintons and Gores out of the White House. Nothing could be further from the truth and this thinking is an ultimate deathtrap. Without a highly articulate spokesman advancing a well thought out broad agenda, winning an election is an ultimate disaster during which your opposition gets a rest period while the world watches your candidate prove the criticisms the opposition made during their election campaign. You lose leverage during your own term in office because of internal organizational dissension and directionlessness. You’ve simultaneously undermined your ideological and political strength in future elections. Winning an election with an incompetent or compromising or compromised candidate is deferred suicide.

The worst thing that can happen is to win an election with someone who is too incompetent, or is reluctant, to confront and refute your ideological enemy. It makes a better case for the view that the enemy is so correct as to be unrefutable than the enemy could make by himself. Ideological silence or ineptitude confers an image of indominability, immortality, invulnerability, and permission upon the opposition. The message given is that the only thing your presidential candidate can do is lamely apologize by embarrassed silence for not adopting the ideology of the political left. Your supporters are betrayed to find when they vote against the opposition they still have no voice and the opposition remains the dominant political voice.

In subsequent elections that image of indominability and permission are used against you. The ideological weaknesses of your weak previous office-holder are declared by the radical left opposition to be the wise valid positions of your party, while deviation from weaknesses and attempts to correct them are labeled extremism. A competent new candidate in your party is nearly mortally crippled by needing to spend as much time and effort refuting or reversing the silent ineptitude and embarrassment of the previous officeholder from his own party as he does making a rational ideological case. This allows the opposition the opportunity to present your candidate as being a divergent radical within his own party for saying what the previous candidate or officeholder was too inept or disinclined to say.

Concurrently, you find your own political party has become a comfortable nesting place for an influx of weaklings and trash now promoting and attempting to extend the agreeable softness and weakness of weak predecessors.

It must be understood there absolutely is no such thing as a moderate or center position in politics where there is a radical left. Any time your candidate moves half way to accommodate or make peace with the left, the left responds by moving farther left, which then moves the middle point farther left. Consequently, in the last 40 years moderation and middle ground have been moving targets receding leftward at the speed of light as so-called moderates and peacemakers desperately and lamely pursue the endlessly moving average set and reset by ever-increasing radicalism and pathology on the left. The shift has been such that the leftist position of 40 years ago is now called right-wing extremism.

Electing peacemakers and “nice guys” in dealing with the radical left is the equivalent of quitting the antibiotic medication which is fighting an infection threatening to turn into gangrene. The infection gains strength while unopposed, and your political party or next presidential candidate faces the future having lost an arm or a leg.

This is one of the things that happened with George Bush senior. He was elected in the mistaken wish that he would have the same personal force and direction as Reagan. Instead, Bush’s pleasant blandness, his timidity and/or incapacity in confronting the political left, his failure to articulate an agenda and analysis, lost the conservative momentum and brought catastrophe upon the Republican Party and the nation, culminating in the ascendancy of the Clintons. The economic condition was horrible in 1992 and strongly affected the election; but with the exception of the period just after winning the Gulf war, the Bush presidency was also directionless and without incisive forceful voice from the start because of George Bush’s failure to confront the lifestyle and political left.

Like many others in the Republican party, George Bush’s views of politics and the presidency were hopelessly obsolete and were based upon the long bygone days before the convoluted titanic struggle with radical socialism and rationalized borderline psychotic counterculturalism in America. Bush seemed to lack any awareness that such a struggle even existed, or of its seriousness. And probably, in his limited world, it didn’t exist. This was much of Bush’s failure, assuming his intent was oriented toward a free society. It is a condition seemingly shared by his son. It was also, incidentally, the failure of Bob Dole.

Why Don’t People Vote?

The point of all this reverts back to the original discussion as why increasingly large percentages of American people don’t vote. It’s not that they are politically or generationally disinterested. It’s that they are disgusted and withdraw from what is being forced upon them by the liberal media controlling the defunct major parties and the lunatic circus of American politics. The American people are being insulted and humiliated by the travesty. Many of them did show up at the polls specifically to vote for Perot. If Perot had not caste a pall over his campaign by quitting the race, the percentage of eligible voters voting should easily have gone to over 60 percent—as it once was in America.

Millions of more people are registered to vote and would vote, but they will not vote for the manipulated virtual-reality staged politics being pushed upon them.

So, why do the people who vote vote, and what are they voting for?

In recent years elections have become referendums on people’s neuroses; their psychoses; their character disorders; their demands to have out of wedlock children cared for by others, and their accompanying rationalizations for it; their pathological sex lives and accompanying rationalizations; their demands to have a parental surrogate government/state that will take care of them as if they were children and the state were responsible for their care through their adult years, and their rationalizations for it; their drug problems and rationalizations; their marital and other interpersonal relationship failures and irresponsibilities; and their soft undisciplined indolence with its rationalizations.

None of these should be election issues. However, any time personal problems and deficiencies become a numerical majority within a voting democracy or democratic republic, people have the political right to force the consequences, along with the distorted interpretation or rationalizations of those problems or deficiencies, upon other people with corrupt politicians gaining power by promising to articulate and broker the process. It may not be a moral or ethical right, but it is political reality.

A constitution is no guarantee of protection from that, as it can be nullified and replaced as quickly as it was originally written, or can be systematically distorted into misinterpreted meaning and intent beyond any recognizable original content, guarantees, or purpose. Yesterday’s constitution with yesterdays’s guarantee of rights, and yesterday’s laws can become tomorrows declared crimes and evils to be punished at gunpoint if enough people vote to do so, if enough opportunistic power-hungry demagogues support it, if corrupt courts construct it, and if none are physically prevented from so doing. That is one of the intrinsic dangers implicit in democratic governmental forms, and in politics. That theoretical danger is evolving into reality in American political life.

If you doubt it, consider that firearm ownership was considered a constitutionally supported uncontested personal right in America for nearly 200 years, but is now well on its way to becoming a criminal offense.

Prerequisites for survival of freedom in a democracy or a democratic republic, and even for the survival of the democracy or democratic representative nation itself, are individual and cultural adoption of the protestant ethic, individual and cultural morality, and both cultural and individual integrity. DEMOCRACY AND PERSONAL FREEDOM CAN ONLY CONTINUE TO EXIST IN A SOCIETY TO THE EXTENT THAT PEOPLE IN THAT SOCIETY CONDUCT THEIR LIVES IN A RESPONSIBLE AND SERIOUS MANNER SO AS TO NOT BECOME A BURDEN OR IMPOSITION UPON OTHERS, OUT OF RESPECT FOR OTHERS. Without these critical controls upon democracies or republics, democratic systems rapidly evolve into a tyranny of imposed social servitude where each, for his own purposes and benefit, too willingly sacrifices the freedom of his neighbor; where each is conscripted in servitude to the excesses or expanding indifference of his neighbor; where all are bound in servitude to each; where each is bound in servitude to all; but no one finally owns himself—while demands to participate in, and receive government support for, further irresponsibility continue to escalate. In fact demands for government support may become the only means of survival and the only form of unoppressed viable livelihood as other prospects whither when social state economics becomes dominant. This is what is happening and is being rationalized in American politics.

When people lose respect for themselves and for other people, the result is socialism.

Personal Morality and Integrity

The principal factor that allowed democracy and a constitution with guarantees of liberty to exist in America was the morality and personal integrity of the American people. With that personal morality and integrity now in a state of deterioration, weakling generations are voting their diseased conditions or demands and imposing them upon the entire culture and its institutions.

The now-uncontested pool of collective rationalizations for irresponsibility, and even for serious mental disorder, which has become culturally dominant within the media; in education; in politics; and, increasingly, in law; has become a “tyranny of the absurd” wherein pathological thought processes are to be imposed, mental adherence to pathological processes is subject to review, and disagreement in any form is declared a hate crime.

The recent law suit brought by homosexuals to force the Boy Scouts to install gay scoutmasters is a case in example.

One of the basic background premises that made such a suit even remotely conceivable is the presumption that homosexuality is not serious unstable compulsive psychopathology, but is instead a benign misunderstood acceptable variation of normality. This assumption is at odds with evidence that would be accepted in a healthy society. It is not the task to review that evidence here, but merely to state that as society has been ground down and has surrendered to the militant pool of rationalization of all things, that premise is now not to be questioned. This has quite improperly moved homosexuality from being a pathology issue into being exclusively a civil rights issue in which public and personal acceptability of homosexuality is to be imposed by the courts.

From my own point of view I would not want gays in control of or as role models for my children. Apart from the sexual temptations, about which gays tell me I’m wrong, it is my opinion they have distortions of thought and of values along with components of fixated immaturity and emotional dishonesty about which they also tell me I’m wrong, but which I would neither want my children exposed and desensitized to, nor to look upon as being validated by their presence in leadership positions. A full examination of this topic must be reserved for another time and/or place. Let it suffice to say there is fundamental disagreement between gays and myself on what constitutes fundamental reality.

Returning to the main point, while the Supreme Court marginally ruled against forced emplacement of gay scoutmasters in the Boy Scouts, the same ruling simultaneously backhandedly validated an ultimately far more dangerous principle in a broader sense. Even though the court established certain limited rights for private organizations and private individuals, it also implicitly recognized the right of outsiders to impose review, judicial or otherwise, upon individuals or organizations, and to compel individuals or organizations to defend and justify themselves for not conforming to outside interests and agenda at the pleasure of courts, busybodies, or ideologies—at considerable constant cost and effort to those summoned before the courts —in the ultimate hope that under the constant pressure and litigation mistakes will be made, corrupt jurists will be found, incremental small compromises or surrender can be obtained until their accumulation results in eventual achievement of agenda entirety, or any opposition will be ground down by fatigue and by financial strain and incapacity.

The idea that people be summoned to defend and justify themselves at the will of others is a comparatively novel one that imposes excessive subjugation or conformity of individuals and organizations in submission to outside interference from society or groups/individuals, and is clearly in defiance of the basic principles of individual freedom. In addition to its given ruling, the court should also have taken the opportunity to rule that no court of law had standing or authority to impose such review. Such review is excessively intrusional and a humiliating deprivation of individual rights. Suits of such nature are out of the boundaries of a free society and absolutely must not be considered by the courts. Neither courts, nor organized groups, or anybody else, have the right to impose conformity to their approval or disapproval—nor even to confer approval or disapproval.

The so-called rule of law in such cases has become the misuse of law to enforce compliance to outside purposes and enforce constant review and intrusion. The rule of law is becoming perverted into an intolerable tyranny of inquisitorial subjugation, or forced submission to review.

Instead of a supreme court committed to preservation of American liberty, what exists is a collection of meddlesome jack-legs and intellectual mediocrities.

As a distant psychological defense mechanism, rationality in remote areas brings the threat that rational examination and criticism might be applied in nearer areas where rationality is to be avoided, and rationality itself in any form in any place has become the enemy, period. There has now evolved a leftist led countercultural crusade and war against rationality everywhere with compulsive substitute of psychotic or borderline psychotic thinking processes that ultimately license anything so as to free hopelessly soft mentalities from the massive anxiety of facing reality or responsibility in any area of their lives. Imposition of the tyranny of the absurd is anxiety-driven to self-protect its proponents from necessity of competence, from personal accountability, and from reality. The motivation is also driven by a desire to inflict indirect passive-aggressive hatred and viciousness upon other people through attacking their sanity.

And so it is that you can talk to a liberal/leftist about distant subjects such as physics or the beauty of butterflies and make a vicious eternal enemy if that person detects in you an incisiveness and depth of mind that he knows will eventually expose his softness and lies to you, and his lies to himself. In such minds the conversation is a political statement representing eventual criticism of sex lives or marital problems or demands to coast through life remaining as narcissistic children free of serious responsibility.

Educating Cripples

One tangential consequence of the attempt at self-protective infantile rebellion against rationality is development and imposition of a liberal American educational system designed to produce cripples and minds too deficient to recognize or contest leftist softness, rampant rebellious immaturity, or borderline psychosis. Instrumentally we have the militantly absurd new reading where people can’t read, the militantly absurd new math where people can’t calculate or count, and the new sex education to begin brainwashing children into the empty or psychotic interpersonal relationship failures characteristic of the angry people designing it. This system ultimately graduates soft immature vegetative incompetents who have had their rational processes suppressed or attacked to the point of marginal functionality, who are too undeveloped and spiritless to do anything but feed on their neighbors, while living empty chaotic personal lives like the Clintons, and who are unable to see or challenge anything —who are, in short, both non-threatening to, and prepared for, the liberal/left.

Pursuing this, we now have hazy liberal mathematics and liberal science that begin undercutting the hated concepts of absolutes and integrity from a seemingly irrelevant distance with the intent that such concepts will become so diluted by the time they are applied to personal conditions and activities that judgment will be impossible.

Additionally, of course, there is perpetuation of simple unresolved softness. Schoolchildren have always wished to escape the growth process necessitating multiplication tables or the rigors of division. America now lives in a condition where liberal adults still intent on rebelling against, and escaping, mental discipline in any form are imposing a society where such things are denied being necessary.

Conscription of society and its members in servitude to the excesses, irresponsibilities, and indifference to diligent self-discipline within that society brings only temporary escape or relief for individuals adopting those irresponsibilities, and only temporary relief for society at large. The eventual deterioration spreads to such massive and nearly irreversible proportions that distributing the destructive effects among society members can no longer dilute those effects upon individuals, but only adds to a pool of mutually-inflicted reciprocal collective burden and obligation. That is, the average of four and zero are a lower two. But the average of four and four is four, and the burdens of widespread moral decay can no longer be relieved by imposing them upon the decreasing number of healthy individuals, but can only be reciprocally inflicted and imposed upon participants in that decay. (This is one major failure of socialism. It is also responsible for the failure of a number of major American cities that have become populated by that distributionist mentality beyond any resources to support the consequences. New York was overwhelmed and destroyed when courts ruled it was discrimination not to allow non-residents who enter the state and city to become immediately qualified for extremely liberal welfare benefits. The subsequent immigrational swarm to receive such benefits was beyond any healthy resources and was ruinous.) The ultimate effect of attempting to avoid consequences by distributing them becomes the equivalent of two people on opposite ends of a sinking boat attempting to save themselves by throwing the water they are bailing out of opposite ends of the boat at each other, while both complain that the sinking condition is the result of the other’s not bailing harder.

For corrective reversal of the deteriorated political and economic condition, not only must there be reversal and reconstitution of the political and economic institutions, but there must be corrective reversal of the distorted individual thinking integrated into them, if enough remnants of uncontaminated rationality ultimately even exist to be utilized in correction and make such a thing possible.

Eat the Competent

Temporary feel-good approaches of politically mediated imposition of social servitude upon others as remedy for personal problems and deficiency are the equivalent of a patient’s escaping immediate discomfort by refusing painful surgery while cancer slowly progresses to the point of terminal illness.

This overall system is the hardest form of oppression to overthrow because it is willingly adopted, yea demanded, as it allows each person to pursue personal amusements and shirk effort or responsibilities at the expense of his neighbor with no apparent immediate cost to his self. It evolves into a type of social cannibalism in which each has license to feed upon his neighbor and all are raised to become food to be eaten in turn or simultaneously in perpetuating the system of decay. If it is allowed to go too far, the only corrective measure becomes desperate absolute bloody revolution. But the necessary revolution can not be simple revolution of customary nature oriented primarily toward overthrow of a few thugs or demagogues at the top, although such people should be brought to trial for crimes against freedom and crimes against humanity much as top Nazis were put on trial at Nuremburg, and employing the same precedent.

Limited revolution would only result in reinstitution of more of that which was overthrown by those corrupt at the bottom who initially demanded the destructive condition that developed and had to be overthrown. What is required is a more molecular and chaotic total revolution nearly too horrid to contemplate directed toward overthrow of those in immediate proximity who are the real oppressors with their irresponsibility and excesses. It’s revolution of man against man and neighbor against neighbor on the local streets and in local institutions. It is, after all, the undisciplined trendy local minister who is orgasmic about being a part of the latest left-wing fashion, and the defiant local left-wing schoolteacher or school board member, and the angry leftist professor, who are the grassroots forces converging socially and politically to demand creation of and imposed conformist servitude to degeneracy and its authoritarian socialist state. What exists is an army of the corrupt and degenerate who elect their own generals to lead them into battle in their war to impose servitude upon others.

What should never be forgotten is that the worst enemy of freedom is not necessarily the corrupt politician. Among the worst enemies of a free society are the kid down the street who is shirking off in school, or who is screwing off instead of being in school, and his parent(s) who are letting him get by with it. He is preparing himself to be nothing but the eventual social parasite who will become your eventual oppressor and master as he learns to rationalize political demands for support of his predictable resulting condition and attitude toward life.

Armed revolution, of course, is what we want to prevent from happening. But it’s also an unfortunate truth that respect from others comes from two sources. The first source is morality and ethics. In the event morality and ethics cease functioning, the only remaining second method of obtaining respect becomes establishing fear or terror of the consequences of crossing the line into disrespect. People and demagogues will test the limits to see what they can get away with and need to be set straight.

Can we agree that many of the political issues that are being programmed by the media would not exist if the American people were leading serious responsibly-disciplined lives? Can we agree that many of the intractable so-called social problems are primarily the result of basic lack of integrity and mature seriousness in personal lives in America? Is it not absolutely clear that the increasingly deplorable condition of children in America that is ideologically exploited by the radical left is but a reasonably predictable secondary consequence of what should really be the issue? Complaint about the condition of children is part of an abstract comfortable escapist conspiracy of denial which allows those creating the condition to continue creating it without blame, with forced support from their neighbors, in league with demagogues who exploit the consequences for advancement of personal ambition.

Is not the real problem affecting children the unreasoned not-giving-a-damn-for-anything-else lunatic lack of impulse control and the destructive indiscriminate sexuality that is producing one third of them out of wedlock to be raised in a continuation of the same pathological unstable atmosphere in which those children were conceived? Is not the condition of children a realistic consequence of practical abandonment of marriages and children to passing self-centered adult immaturity, impulses, and agenda? Of course.

An August 28, 2000 Time issue entitled, “Who Needs a Husband?” describing the new trend of women (not teenagers, women) turning their back on serious relationships with men and rejecting marriage. They are resorting to out of wedlock pregnancies. Sixty-one percent of single women now would consider raising a child on their own. I know what it does for the women, their impulses, and their receipt of social approval for demonstrated adherence to liberated agenda, but, seriously, what does it do for the kids? And what laws are demanded to be passed and what demands on business or social services are to be made to support the life style?

Those who are sincerely interested in the welfare of children would emphasize the above, which absolutely must be changed before the condition of children will change. But in American leftist sociology, and in American politics, it is forbidden to subject the people and life styles destroying children to criticism because such criticism is an interference with cultural pluralism, including the varieties of pluralism that create destructive conditions for children.

Criticism of the people doing this also cruelly ignores the supposed fact that such people are supposedly victims of their environment who are incapable of anything else—while also conveniently ignoring the fact that the absence of serious criticism is, in reality, a major factor creating the distorted psychological environment of which such people are claiming others to be, and claiming themselves to be, victims. Criticism would cause people engaging in irresponsibility adversely affecting children not to feel good about themselves, even though they have no valid reason to feel good about themselves. Criticism assumes there are absolutes to be employed in criticism, which violates major liberal philosophical premises. And since 70 percent of black children are being born out of wedlock to mothers often not much older than the children they are birthing, questioning the wisdom of such patterns evokes immediate guilt-inducing immobilizing accusations of racism that are drawn like a knife to silence any criticism or dissent or calls for responsibility. Anything that black people do becomes out of bounds for serious criticism when whites are also doing it. White irresponsibility and degeneracy has found it possible to protect itself from criticism by hiding behind black irresponsibility and degeneracy while crying racism. Asserting the idea that children need committed married parents is to now become labeled a racist extremist fundamentalist Nazi by both blacks and whites.

Black and White

Criticizing behavior in blacks that should be unacceptable and disgusting in whites, is labeled an act of racism. In its fear of being accused of racism, American society has repressed all capacity for reasonable judgment and observation as well as turned its back on every moral and every value it ever had. A white culture that once created the greatest nation on earth has bent over backwards to the point of mocking and deleting itself in vain attempts to avoid offending blacks who have learned to manipulate whites with angry looks and accusations. It’s become a sadistic game of ridicule to reduce whites to a condition of humiliating mindless spinelessness in which whites surrender all moral or intellectual capacity to become slobbering fools before black radicals.

All liberal prescriptions prohibiting criticism only apply to selected groups. So-called right-wingers are freely subjected to all forms of attack and criticism in defiance of the rules reserved to protect practitioners of destructive hedonistic irresponsibility. People calling for moral and economic responsibility are directly attacked rather than being excused for being victims of their childhood or environment. Resistance to being conscripted into forced conformity and servitude to an oppressive destructive psychotic social order is unforgivable. Somehow, out of their obstinate and hateful failure to submit themselves in servitude to the authoritarian social order that is the only leftist hypothetical answer to everything, but is actually responsible for everything, these obstinate beings, who are not listened to about anything, are pronounced responsible for the condition of children they have never seen, had no role in creating, and who are hundreds of miles away. It takes imposition of Queen Hillary of Clinton’s absolute rule in a guilt-ridden world-wide authoritarian Village to remedy the emergency that she and others like her have created and perpetuate, and which necessitates their rule.

The so-called Political Right will endure the accusations and abuse because they have become too accustomed to receiving it, because they have been ground down over years by tormentors who are organized and out of reach on TV stages thousands of miles away, because counter-arguments to social servitude are censored out of circulating existence or consciousness, and because resistance is disorganized and has no large scale disseminated voice while the efforts and organization of their tormentors are coordinated on TV.

Leftist systems of thinking are paranoid and need an enemy to fight to unify leftist crowds because the left is only good at revolution and supporting licentiousness, but not good at building anything. Leftist societies don’t flourish and, like the little kids that leftists fundamentally are, leftists look for somebody else to blame for their failure. Life on the left is a constant paranoid search for people to blame and revolutions to start. The right is pronounced the enemy and guilty.

In the spoiled child’s leftist world, refusal to exist in servitude picking up after other people’s self indulgence while they show no intent to change, especially under the concept of social pluralism in a society where everybody but you has the right to unchallenged demands, to life styles, and to alternative values—makes you the only problem, and the self indulgence at the base of the issue is not to be addressed.

In the sum total there has developed an inversion where the victims get the blame while the irresponsible obtain licensed irresponsibility and power. It’s a social system in which the slaves get the blame for the excesses and irresponsibility of their social and political masters who demand more absolute servitude enabling more irresponsibility as the remedy.

If there were serious honest concern about the condition of children, then instead of misplacing guilt for purposes of ideological profiteering, the left would address the real base problems of personal and social integrity, morality, and irresponsibility instead of exploiting the condition of children for political blackmail. But the fact is, both political and psychological economics meet for profit and personal gain to create the world of leftist political ideology. Those who proselytize the condition of children as a social/environmental problem achieve positions of power in the authoritarian state argued as being required to fix the problem. The people creating the problem and who are the problem are elevated from the discomforting position of being told they are irresponsible calloused trash, to being noble innocent victims of a non-Marxist system. That ain’t a bad bargain and it confers considerable special entitlement along with release from required change in their attitudes or anything they are doing, because victims are not the ones who did anything wrong.

It makes absolute economic sense for the two groups of people—leftist politicians, and the irresponsible—to endorse a Marxist/socialist view. This synergy has become a principle industry. It will continue as long as it benefits those doing it, and as long as those doing it escape serious accountability and punishment.

Responsibility and morality for people creating and raising children under what should be unconscionable conditions are now forbidden to be discussed or brought into the equation while people such as the Clintons exploit it in attempts to become modern day Juan and Evil, excuse me, Eva, Perons. Republicans are no better than Clinton Democrats, and in fact enable the Clintons and others like them, when they won’t discuss it either.

The Tricycle of Poverty

There are leftist statements about the necessity to break the cycle of poverty. This statement is abstract enough to relieve confrontation with, or guilt about, the specific behavior producing poverty, while transferring the blame and guilt to other people who are to be reluctantly forced into leftist servitude and who are really the ultimate victims in this entire business. Any protests from those who are to be pressed into servitude are met with intimidating posturing melodramatic horror about how evil rejection of servitude is condemning children.

What is absolutely necessary, of course, is not to break the cycle of poverty which is in fact a byproduct that expands under this system, but is to break the cycle of immorality, dishonesty, and irresponsibility that produces poverty as well as it creates destructive conditions for children—and is also destroying American political life and society.

The process is not limited to the condition of children. It applies to AIDS or anything else. Scarcely a day passes without people pounding on the door demanding to be viewed as victims, and demanding compensation and obligated servitude of others to the self-centered self-indulgent behavior now adhered to as a pluralistic right that both produced their circumstances and whose cessation would eliminate the problem. AIDS is an illness that should not exist. It exists only as an index of irresponsibility and the rationalization of psychopathology.

As American disintegration has progressed, American political platforms and political movements read like transcripts of the Jerry Springer, Jenny Jones, or similar nationally televised freak shows. Political life has become a televised circus parade of pathological people with too much free time on their hands and too little rational morality in their conscience, filling their time and boredom by acting like self-obsessed silly brats while whining about their resulting deteriorating condition. A large number of people are making demands for government support of willingly-adopted activities most people would be ashamed to admit they would even consider 50 years ago. The American political process has become a parade of demands from undesirables, from people with character disorders, and from what was once properly identified as trash.


(continued next issue)