Special Link

The American Mind in Denial

Special Guest Posting by RLK

1/27/99 RLK

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

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

The gates of the death camps cynically proclaimed, work will make you free. That, of course, was a lie to give the entering inmates a tiny bit of false hope to pacify them. In some cases inmates were used as labor to construct the very buildings that would later be used as death processing factories to kill them. Any attempts to negotiate with the SS, or with Himmler, or with Hitler was an exercise in self delusion. Regardless of the rationality of arguments presented, those arguments would be rejected. The counter-arguments would be completely irrational, but there would be a desperate need for development of more arguments and pleas by the oppressed as if the Nazi counter-arguments were legitimately based in reasoning.

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

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

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

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

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

Send This Article to a Friend:
Your Name:
Email Address of your Friend:
Your Email address:

Laissez Faire City Times Homepage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


-30 -

Send This Article to a Friend:
Your Name:
Email Address of your Friend:
Your Email address:

Laissez Faire City Times Homepage