It is a fact that liberalism always hates and resists what they see as the anal retentive rigidity, simplicity, and style of Republicans. If you look at Nixon, Ford, Bush 1, Bush 2, William Buckley, George Will, and Pat Buchanan, to name a few, they do all seem to evidence an intellectual and interpersonal rigidity. They lack the obvious warmth that Bill Clinton for example, does not, and this is probably a direct manifestation of the limited choices and experiences to which they avail themselves as conservatives.
Yes, Clinton and the Democrats are more open, tolerant, friendly, experimental and perhaps caring, than Republicans. Clinton, for example, was tolerant of Monica, homosexuality, welfare, and Bin Laden, but this is not because he was a warm, open, friendly, tolerant explorer and liberal social scientist, but rather because he was a spoiled child (anal expulsive, to be Freudian) who thought he could reinvent the wheel and history. Actually that may be too kind since it merely allows him and them a psychological problem. Perhaps it is not that he and the liberals think they are entitled and able to reinvent the wheel, but that they don't appreciate history enough to know that the wheel already has been invented. Conservatives do know history, and what has been invented. Whether the liberal failure is more intellectual or psychological weakness, one can't really be sure.
Liberals persist though with Freudian based pop psychology, but only as it applies to Republicans: "A recent liberal study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism, and the intolerance of ambiguity." The Guardian further writes about the study: "As if that was not enough to get Republican blood boiling, the report's four authors linked Hitler, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan and the right-wing talkshow host, Rush Limbaugh, arguing they all suffered from the same affliction. All of them "preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality."
"The authors also peer into the psyche of President George Bush, who turns out, surprise, to be a textbook case. The telltale signs are his preference for moral certainty and frequently expressed dislike of nuance."
"This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes," the authors argue in the Psychological Bulletin.
The study authors don't want to trivialize themselves with too much pop culture Freudian terminology, but Freud did start it all; so he is unavoidable really. "He said that people with "anal character" were meticulous, parsimonious, and obstinate. Though it's not clear who first used the term "anal retentive," in 1924 a student of Freud's named Karl Abraham distinguished A-Rness from anal expulsiveness. The latter is pretty much what it sounds like, the predisposition to experiment, (to ignore history and to make a "liberal" mess), while parsimony and obstinacy are thought to be A-R traits.
So the next time a liberal pop psychologist or rank amateur accuses a Republican of being anal retentive you can say, "but isn't that better than being an anal expulsive Democrat who neither knows nor understands history?" And, you further might say that while in 100 years the oral/anal psychosexual development concept was never proved to have scientific merit, today it certainly has even less merit given that capitalism had produced enough toilet bowls to go around. Whereas when Freud formulated his silly theory he had to share his with 10 other family members which apparently gave him the "issues" which he has tried to resolve at our expense for the last 100 years, and this in not to mention that his subjects were largely experiencing toilet training not in a crowded house with a shared flushing bowl but, even worse, in outhouses and chamber pots at the hands of very poor, rigid, pre-Nazi Germanic parents.
The next time President Bush makes you uncomfortable as you watch him straining to get a few words to flow from his seemingly paralyzed mouth, remember, Bill Clinton was the exact opposite. He could and still does effortlessly share himself with anyone at anytime. Perfectly conjugated verbs and precisely pronounced nouns flow from his experienced mellifluous mouth like soft ice cream. You might say he is as open, comfortable, and experienced about sharing himself in public as, well, a prostitute. Bush, and many Republicans, on the other hand, are far more fearful, closed, cautious, and self conscious. In public, Bush has the interpersonal manner, shyness, and awkwardness, of someone who has, with humility, respect, and intelligence, accepted the wisdom of history and limited his primary interpersonal experience to, primarily, his wife and family. And that is more the model on which civilization has been based.
Perhaps if the great; larger than life post war Democratic leaders (FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton), not to mention the great liberal leaders throughout history who our Framers framed against, had shut up, stayed home and not beguiled our support for their great and deadly liberal schemes to create their brave new worlds, we would have been spared the deadly ordeals we endured at their hands. Republicans, from Jefferson forward, have been looking for freedom; not to be lead around by great, anal expulsive, charismatic, and Democratic leaders
who have failed to understand and conserve the wisdom of history.
1.31.2006
1.17.2006
Loveless Democratic Sex
It goes without saying that homosexuals are generally liberal Democrats. Gay rights is a relatively new phenomenon which of course means that liberals will exploit it by ignoring the conservative wisdom that got us this far through history, and embracing what is new, because, after all, it is new, and what is new is very very important, to liberals.
But gay sexual expression is not the only new form of sexual expression the Democrats love. In fact we live a magical new world of liberal sexual expression. Six men simulating anal sex on a float during the Gay Day Parade in NYC is just one example of liberalism helping us to accept and appreciate Democratic sex. Last week we learned of a man and his friend who jointly, in Vermont, raped a little girl for 4 years and was then sentenced to 60 days in jail. Sorry, there were no mitigating circumstances, just liberals everywhere. To show his liberalism, the Judge expressed and enacted his pro criminal sentiment that it was more important that the rapist be treated than imprisoned. This of course was not very comforting to conservative parents who believe in punishment for those who rape their children, and who know that sexual offenders are the least likely to be treated successfully anyway. The main stream liberal media was dead silent.
And then there was Dateline: a TV show whose investigation brought pedophiles out of the woodwork and into the home of a little girl where they were lured to have sex with her. A Rabbi, a teacher, and assorted others showed up. A few weeks later Dateline did the same thing in the same home and, despite the publicity the first show had received, still more pedophiles showed up, at least one of whom admitted to having seen the original show. Extrapolating nationwide one can assume that America the beautiful is now chock full of pedophiles. And of course normal heterosexuals have been liberated too. They divorce at a rate of about 50% only to have sex with other people during the course of far shorter second marriages; with nary a conservative scarlet letter to be seen. It is called no fault divorce because it is beyond their fault or ability to control, according to the liberals. If kids then grow up in poverty, so what? Divorce is deemed natural, like homosexuality and pedophilia. The liberals have no need to assign blame, they just accept and tolerate what is new without a wish or ability to judge, understand, or conserve wisdom from the past. Everything is morally relative. It's like Herbert Marcuse and John Lennon said , " Imagine there is no heaven; imagine there is no hell?" How dare Republicans analyze history in a way that asks them to repress or confine their sexuality in a manner consistent with civilization, the liberals wonder ?
And then there is Bill Clinton who, in perhaps the most important and memorable act of his presidency, taught our teens, and impressionable adults, that oral sex isn't sex, and certainly has nothing to do with love and family. Most teens seem to have accepted his Democratic wisdom too. I just heard the story, through a trusted friend, of an upper middle class family in Ohio who had a coed birthday party for their 13 year old daughter. It seems the parents left the room for a short time only to come back to find 10 boys lined up against a wall receiving oral sex from the girls. One has to wonder if the Clinton library features promiscuous loveless Democratic sex as one of the primary displays on the first floor near the main doors?
And then there is abortion, the cornerstone of the domestic Democratic agenda. It is their way, unconsciously, to destroy the concept of love and family altogether. They encourage us to have sex with people we don't love, and then kill the baby that may result, rather than fall in love, get married, and love children, the way people did in the so called intolerant and dreaded 1950s. They have succeeded to a point where more babies are now killed than loved, but somehow 1 million dead babies a year, just for sexual pleasure; at the expense of love, is not a bad trend to a Democrat.
One wonders where on earth these diabolical, overpowering, and perverse sexual appetites of ours come from? The truth seems to be that evolution's greatest fear was that we wouldn't reproduce enough to survive; so we were given a sex drive designed to overpower every other aspect of our being in order to assure that no matter what fate befell us: especially war, famine, disease, plague, and total exhaustion (the normal conditions during the period in which we evolved) we would still see to our primary evolutionary directive: reproduction. If it was any other way, none of us would be here. Today, progress has eliminated many of the factors that, historicially, distracted us from sex. Sex, then, has emerged as a more powerful preoccupation than at any time in human history, and accordingly must be repressed and constrained more than ever in a manner consistent with civilized values.
The result of our huge sex drive was hugely chaotic sexual practices that could be measured in millions of dead bodies until the saintly "religious right" stepped in to invent and promote a concept of love and family in which sexuality was finally given a context consistent with civilization. Under the religious right, love, family and civilization blossomed in 1000 years, 10 times more than it had in all of human history.
But today the chaotic liberals are back, and opposed to the incredible progress the religious right bestowed upon mankind. And again their failure can be measured in millions of dead bodies. 50 million Africans and 3 million Americans are scheduled to die in the next 30 years because they had sex in a liberal context. About 80% of the American children who grow up in poverty would not be poor if their parents had chosen the religious right's version of sexuality. And then of course there are 3000 kids who die everyday in Africa, each one of whom would have preferred two loving, faithful parents. and not to be treated as mere artifacts of passion in the name of liberal tolerance. Then there is the mainstream liberal ACLU which is now defending NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association), in the name of liberal civil liberties, in a Massachusetts case while concomitantly attacking the religious right? Dead, amoral parents, and starving, sick, abused children seem to be the liberal legacy; yet the enlightened, sophisticated, educated, and oh so sensitive liberals, regard the religious right as the very antithesis of civilization?
So what should we do about Gays, divorcees, pedophiles, abortionists, and free love advocates who are slowly rotting our culture ? We should do what the saintly religious right has always done, i.e., encourage them to do the very best they can at love and family, and in the extreme cases put them in jail. Indeed, the ultimate question of civilization is: do we want to harness humankind's greatest and most powerful instinct and tie it inextricably to love, family, and children, or do we want to destroy the very concept of love by acting out some loveless liberal pornographic vision of human sexuality?
Ted Baiamonte
comments:bje1000@aol.com f
But gay sexual expression is not the only new form of sexual expression the Democrats love. In fact we live a magical new world of liberal sexual expression. Six men simulating anal sex on a float during the Gay Day Parade in NYC is just one example of liberalism helping us to accept and appreciate Democratic sex. Last week we learned of a man and his friend who jointly, in Vermont, raped a little girl for 4 years and was then sentenced to 60 days in jail. Sorry, there were no mitigating circumstances, just liberals everywhere. To show his liberalism, the Judge expressed and enacted his pro criminal sentiment that it was more important that the rapist be treated than imprisoned. This of course was not very comforting to conservative parents who believe in punishment for those who rape their children, and who know that sexual offenders are the least likely to be treated successfully anyway. The main stream liberal media was dead silent.
And then there was Dateline: a TV show whose investigation brought pedophiles out of the woodwork and into the home of a little girl where they were lured to have sex with her. A Rabbi, a teacher, and assorted others showed up. A few weeks later Dateline did the same thing in the same home and, despite the publicity the first show had received, still more pedophiles showed up, at least one of whom admitted to having seen the original show. Extrapolating nationwide one can assume that America the beautiful is now chock full of pedophiles. And of course normal heterosexuals have been liberated too. They divorce at a rate of about 50% only to have sex with other people during the course of far shorter second marriages; with nary a conservative scarlet letter to be seen. It is called no fault divorce because it is beyond their fault or ability to control, according to the liberals. If kids then grow up in poverty, so what? Divorce is deemed natural, like homosexuality and pedophilia. The liberals have no need to assign blame, they just accept and tolerate what is new without a wish or ability to judge, understand, or conserve wisdom from the past. Everything is morally relative. It's like Herbert Marcuse and John Lennon said , " Imagine there is no heaven; imagine there is no hell?" How dare Republicans analyze history in a way that asks them to repress or confine their sexuality in a manner consistent with civilization, the liberals wonder ?
And then there is Bill Clinton who, in perhaps the most important and memorable act of his presidency, taught our teens, and impressionable adults, that oral sex isn't sex, and certainly has nothing to do with love and family. Most teens seem to have accepted his Democratic wisdom too. I just heard the story, through a trusted friend, of an upper middle class family in Ohio who had a coed birthday party for their 13 year old daughter. It seems the parents left the room for a short time only to come back to find 10 boys lined up against a wall receiving oral sex from the girls. One has to wonder if the Clinton library features promiscuous loveless Democratic sex as one of the primary displays on the first floor near the main doors?
And then there is abortion, the cornerstone of the domestic Democratic agenda. It is their way, unconsciously, to destroy the concept of love and family altogether. They encourage us to have sex with people we don't love, and then kill the baby that may result, rather than fall in love, get married, and love children, the way people did in the so called intolerant and dreaded 1950s. They have succeeded to a point where more babies are now killed than loved, but somehow 1 million dead babies a year, just for sexual pleasure; at the expense of love, is not a bad trend to a Democrat.
One wonders where on earth these diabolical, overpowering, and perverse sexual appetites of ours come from? The truth seems to be that evolution's greatest fear was that we wouldn't reproduce enough to survive; so we were given a sex drive designed to overpower every other aspect of our being in order to assure that no matter what fate befell us: especially war, famine, disease, plague, and total exhaustion (the normal conditions during the period in which we evolved) we would still see to our primary evolutionary directive: reproduction. If it was any other way, none of us would be here. Today, progress has eliminated many of the factors that, historicially, distracted us from sex. Sex, then, has emerged as a more powerful preoccupation than at any time in human history, and accordingly must be repressed and constrained more than ever in a manner consistent with civilized values.
The result of our huge sex drive was hugely chaotic sexual practices that could be measured in millions of dead bodies until the saintly "religious right" stepped in to invent and promote a concept of love and family in which sexuality was finally given a context consistent with civilization. Under the religious right, love, family and civilization blossomed in 1000 years, 10 times more than it had in all of human history.
But today the chaotic liberals are back, and opposed to the incredible progress the religious right bestowed upon mankind. And again their failure can be measured in millions of dead bodies. 50 million Africans and 3 million Americans are scheduled to die in the next 30 years because they had sex in a liberal context. About 80% of the American children who grow up in poverty would not be poor if their parents had chosen the religious right's version of sexuality. And then of course there are 3000 kids who die everyday in Africa, each one of whom would have preferred two loving, faithful parents. and not to be treated as mere artifacts of passion in the name of liberal tolerance. Then there is the mainstream liberal ACLU which is now defending NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association), in the name of liberal civil liberties, in a Massachusetts case while concomitantly attacking the religious right? Dead, amoral parents, and starving, sick, abused children seem to be the liberal legacy; yet the enlightened, sophisticated, educated, and oh so sensitive liberals, regard the religious right as the very antithesis of civilization?
So what should we do about Gays, divorcees, pedophiles, abortionists, and free love advocates who are slowly rotting our culture ? We should do what the saintly religious right has always done, i.e., encourage them to do the very best they can at love and family, and in the extreme cases put them in jail. Indeed, the ultimate question of civilization is: do we want to harness humankind's greatest and most powerful instinct and tie it inextricably to love, family, and children, or do we want to destroy the very concept of love by acting out some loveless liberal pornographic vision of human sexuality?
Ted Baiamonte
comments:bje1000@aol.com f
1.07.2006
Blaming the Republican Scandals on Democrats
Once upon a time there was ingenious man named Lord Acton who said, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." This of course represents the idea of freedom from gov't corruption and its necessary antecedent: power, around which the Jeffersonian Republicans solidified the meaning of our country, and made it, easily, the greatest country in the history of humanity. The Democrats of course never liked the American idea of freedom. Their credo has always been: power is sweet; absolute power is absolutely sweet. Since the 19th Century they have always wanted higher taxes and more powerful, corrupt gov't. It is their reason for being, without which they would not have one single deceitful word to say to the electorate.
Probably the best recent example of this tragic phenomenon is the prescription drug bill. Virtually everyone agrees that spending $800 Billion over the next 10 years, given an already huge and seemingly impervious deficit, is wildly irresponsible. But this did not stop the Democrats from fighting it tooth and nail in favor of an even more expensive and irresponsible bill that would enable them to go to their constituents and say, in effect, "see, we have made the gov't more powerful, and more subject to corruption, than the Republicans; so please vote for us. Indeed, this is the entire history the of 200 year old Democratic war on American freedom.
It is sad and tragic to see the Democratic glee at the current scandals which seem to involve far more Republicans than Democrats. The Democrats are apparently praying that the electorate will blame the scandals on Republicans, and then elect Democrats, not realizing that Democrats will increase the power of gov't and thereby increase the likelihood of future corruption in both Parties and all over the gov't.
The current Abramoff scandal is a Democratic tragicomedy for sure. The scandal really consists of corrupt, filthy rich, and incompetent Indians (originally enriched by the Gov't) trying to buy legislation with $50 Million, to become even filthier and richer through gambling. As it turned out the money from the Indians was used to enrich Abramoff, and most noticeably, to buy a European golf outing for a Congressman who might then have felt inclined to do something for Abramoff in return. Yes, the gov't was corrupt, but not as massively corrupt as the Indians thought or hoped it was.
As long as the Democrats further and further empower the gov't to give the Indians gambling, and the rest of us free prescription drugs, the likelihood of corruption, to say nothing of monopolistic inefficiency, will grow further and further. Lord Acton knew this 100 years ago, Thomas Jefferson knew it 200 years ago, but the Democrats still don't know it, and sadly don't have the intelligence to ever know it.
Comments: bje1000@aol.com
Ted Baiamonte
Probably the best recent example of this tragic phenomenon is the prescription drug bill. Virtually everyone agrees that spending $800 Billion over the next 10 years, given an already huge and seemingly impervious deficit, is wildly irresponsible. But this did not stop the Democrats from fighting it tooth and nail in favor of an even more expensive and irresponsible bill that would enable them to go to their constituents and say, in effect, "see, we have made the gov't more powerful, and more subject to corruption, than the Republicans; so please vote for us. Indeed, this is the entire history the of 200 year old Democratic war on American freedom.
It is sad and tragic to see the Democratic glee at the current scandals which seem to involve far more Republicans than Democrats. The Democrats are apparently praying that the electorate will blame the scandals on Republicans, and then elect Democrats, not realizing that Democrats will increase the power of gov't and thereby increase the likelihood of future corruption in both Parties and all over the gov't.
The current Abramoff scandal is a Democratic tragicomedy for sure. The scandal really consists of corrupt, filthy rich, and incompetent Indians (originally enriched by the Gov't) trying to buy legislation with $50 Million, to become even filthier and richer through gambling. As it turned out the money from the Indians was used to enrich Abramoff, and most noticeably, to buy a European golf outing for a Congressman who might then have felt inclined to do something for Abramoff in return. Yes, the gov't was corrupt, but not as massively corrupt as the Indians thought or hoped it was.
As long as the Democrats further and further empower the gov't to give the Indians gambling, and the rest of us free prescription drugs, the likelihood of corruption, to say nothing of monopolistic inefficiency, will grow further and further. Lord Acton knew this 100 years ago, Thomas Jefferson knew it 200 years ago, but the Democrats still don't know it, and sadly don't have the intelligence to ever know it.
Comments: bje1000@aol.com
Ted Baiamonte
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)