The purpose of this post is to begin providing links, tools, and tactics which we can all use to educate the public, fellow citizens, and neighbors about Hillary Clinton.
It is a work in progress- I have provided a starting point, but want others to chime in with more links, stories, and information.
It is the product of conversations with a number of other members, from which several salient tactical points emerged:
1- keep it as contemporary as possible- the old Whitewater and similar items are stale and dead to the public.
2- keep it civil, please- within the board guidelines, or better. We are trying to convert the mushy middle, and stridency puts them off. Badly.
3- source or reference everything. Authenticity is critical to such an effort.
We need to get hold of HiLIARY' medical records. I have a feeling there is some psychological stuff in there. We need to have ex guards, secret service, ex cooks, maids,etc. come forward with the REAL HiLIARY story.
Thanks for looking. Hillarrhea®!'s medical records? Boy, I bet that would be dangerous to even mention, let alone pursue.
Bill and Hillary Clinton as Borderline Psychotics
by Robert L. Kocher
Some of you asked what would cause Bill or Hillary Clinton to become borderline psychotics. This is especially confusing from the view that Hillary had an almost ideal childhood. Bill's mental disorder might be explained from his turbulent background. I wrote an 850-page manuscript on the borderline psychotic phenomenon and its political expression in the Clinton generation. My analysis was considered too right-wing to be of wide interest. I will venture a partially simplified explanation here. What I am about to say disagrees in principle with the many in the psychiatric and psychological establishment.
It is often assumed that childhood emotional or physical abuse is the basis of adult maladjustment. This was extensively true prior to the 60s. However, it is also true that doting parents giving children their way in an undisciplined permissive environment can produce very serious irreversible mental disorder that is delayed until that child becomes an adolescent or adult. What is produced is a child who is cosmetically very well functioning as long as he or she is kept in a spoiled child's world forever, but is completely unable to make the transition into the adult world and reality. Let me also point out that turbulent parental background does not prohibit spoiling a child. Children are very adept at exploiting parental preoccupation with parental problems in such a way as to avoid taking uncomfortable responsibility.
The period after WWII saw a massive cultural change in the child developmental atmosphere in this country. In earlier generations there had been the rule of spare the rod and spoil the child. But the time had now come when parents were being told by the new breed of permissive authorities that parents were not to tell children "No!" and make it stick. There was a super-rational system of childrearing in which parents were to reason with children instead of using authority. One unfortunate effect of this was that children and adolescents found they could pretend ignorance of any explanations and do what they wanted to with no serious repercussions. A second consequence was that if at any time the child became a better debater than the parent, the child or adolescent got to do what he wanted while parents were demoted to the role of being pleading and whining children even when the parents were correct. It became obvious by the mid-60s that the country had produced a generation of young orators who could argue any side of a case with the cleverness of a trial lawyer.
This had three disastrous consequences.
First, the word "no" did not need to be taken seriously. "No" was only a signal to fearlessly concoct psychobabble arguments while doing what you wanted to. You cannot tell many in the Clinton generation "no" and have it respected. The absence of continued response to their interminable inane argumentation is interpreted by them as permission for them to do as they want.
Second, and I absolutely can not overemphasize the importance of this, in being allowed laxity in return for inane arguments a generation came to believe that it could argue reality out of existence. This formed the foundation for very serious mental disorder. In recent decades the failure of thoughts, of speech, of behavior to conform to basic reality is no longer a signal to a person that he may be doing or saying something irrational. Rather, it has become interpreted as a sign that one has a public relations problem that must be addressed by creating a new series of arguments in a campaign to deny reality. At the presidential level this necessitates a campaign to obscure or redefine what the words "sex" and "is" mean.
Third, it both delays and intensifies childhood temper tantrums. All of us need to be told there are things we can't have or can't do. The result of this in childhood is a series of transient angry temper tantrums and poutings that wise parents should know comes with the territory until the child learns to accept reality and responsibility. If the child doesn't learn certain basic realities and responsibilities at six or eight, he will have a temper tantrum when confronted by those realities at 10 or 12. But by 10 or 12 the uncorrected irresponsibility is on its way to becoming a permanent way of life that is hard to reverse. For the last 35 years this country has been flooded with generations of young who are having infantile temper tantrums at age 18, 25, or even 50 for personal conflicts with reality that should have been resolved at age six or 10. It has been the curse of this nation. It doesn't kill a kid to have a temper tantrum when he finds he can't have his way at age six. But the last 35 years should have taught the lesson that it kills parents and society when adolescents or adults have temper tantrums and discipline problems at later ages.
Presidential Temper Tantrums
One end product and social consequence of this process is the unbelievable situation of a now 52-year-old president having temper tantrums over the suggestion that he should not be allowed to crawl around laughing on his hands and knees getting oral anal stimulation or getting penile sex while in the Oval Office or while ordering U.S. troops into a war zone. He is supported in this by a large portion of his generation who quickly become enraged and threatened at criticism of Bill Clinton because a "no" applied anywhere for anything in the nation means it could also be applied to them. The arguments in defense of Clinton's behavior are inane concoctions that no mature well-adjusted adult should listen to, but they have been generationally accepted and employed as sadistic counter-arguments to desperate pleas for maturity from parental figures since the infantile rebelliousness of the 60s.
Many in a generation of parents who had survived the depression didn't want their children to suffer and work the same way as they had. Concurrently, with the development of TV, children were raised in an nearly constant amusement-inundated fantasy life that did not make demands on them for development of substance, depth, self-discipline, responsibility, or effort for full participation.
In terms of personal development and schooling for life, the baby boomer life curriculum began with Captain Kangaroo, proceeded with a six-year course in Howdy Doody and Mickey Mouse Club, and upon puberty graduate work began in rock-and-roll and Beach Blanket Bingo movies without any intrusion of serious responsibility or consequences into student lives. It resulted in massive numbers of 20-year-olds with mentalities undeveloped past the level of Mickey Mouse Club. Mickey Mouse has now completed puberty unaccompanied by any form of maturity or seriousness and is gleefully sticking his penis in strange women's faces in hotel rooms or groping women who walk into the Oval Office in what is, among other things, an exercise of bush league childishness. Minnie Mouse came to the White House with him and has her own agenda of militant immaturity.
By virtue of TV, a generation was raised in show business and developed show business personalities. Many of them can assume any role or appearance and have an astounding capacity to remember lines. Academic life blossomed accordingly. The college Sociology 101 final exam is scene two, take five, flawlessly performed, resulting in an A average achieved without any understanding, without critical reasoning development, with absolutely no level of introspection¾ and with absolutely abysmal levels of ignorance through the doctoral level if one plays the game with suitable proficiency. This is Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham graduating from Yale law school. For thirty years this country has been plagued with a mass of pompous incompetent high-grade-point ignoramuses sporting glittering personalities, a plague we may not survive.
In earlier decades educational periods were shorter, while entry into the adult world of responsibility and serious work occurred earlier. In the Iowa high school I went to during the early to mid 50s, many of the students took substantial responsibility in running family farms. Many of the high school seniors were serious MEN, and proud of it. One of the reasons a cow college like Iowa State University graduated so many people who became corporation presidents is because of a student body composed of a hardy breed of mature farm kids who were accustomed to effort and responsibility.
Fear of the Adult World
But, in the 60s, entry into adulthood had been deferred as educational levels increased. Simultaneously, the teenage period, which formerly ended with high school graduation or earlier exit from school, became extended indefinitely, and became an end in itself. Affluence produced a well-financed enjoyable teenage subculture with teenage-oriented movies, teenage automobiles, teenage music, a ready supply of recreational drugs, and so forth. The question is, with a teenage world offering music, entertainment, sex, drugs, with little responsibility, what reason is there to leave that world and enter into adulthood? Answer: None. In the mid 60s a generation faced with leaving the teenage world said, to quote one of the anti-war chants of the period, "Hell no, we won't go." Many of them haven't left to this day and are still furiously rebelling against entering the adult world 35 years later. In testimony, we now have two perpetual teenagers occupying the White House as president and first lady. Bill and Hillary, like half the liberals in this country, have an absolute hatred of the adult world.
The kid who has too easy a life distanced from serious work and responsibility, and who is given too much, easily becomes a socialist. For reasons of space limitation I'll provide only two reasons. First, he or she is raised unacquainted with the realities of what is required to make a business or society function. There is no respect for the work other people have done or for the people who do it because there is no familiarity with serious sustained work.
Second, effortless receiving without responsibility or effort becomes viewed as a premise in life, and the individual with that premise looks for a government to act as a permissive parent surrogate that will continue that process.
One of the legacies of the 60s is a hyper-expansion of a dominant, educated soft leftist superclass that is hostile to the adult world and adult responsibilities, and which has no appreciation or awareness of the concrete work and talent needed to make the country run. The professions of TV and journalism offer a haven (and heaven) for such two-dimensional glibly entertaining and economically naive hot house plants who would be incapable of survival in any other world. They dominate the culture’s conceptual pool of ideas to the exclusion of reality.
It is possible to produce an adolescent or adult environment that is so psychotic that no reasonable adaptation to it is possible, even by someone from a well-adjusted childhood. The spoiled generation of the 60s constructed such an environment with the unreasoned egocentric demands they made upon each other, and upon life. Particularly instrumental in producing this environment was the so-called sexual revolution in which people took turns maiming each other. There was a demand for instant love, instant mercurial sexual gratification, instant trust, instant vulnerability, and instant disposability and replacement with somebody else on momentary impulse. It was emotionally crippling to anyone with a healthy capacity. Marriages couldn't survive people entering them with that mentality and began crumbling in astronomical proportions.
To a great extent the young of the 60s were guided and pushed into this by the alienated, crazy, and angry from previous generations. Anthropologist Margaret Mead¾ whose own life was a mess and whose academic work and publications were revealed to be a fraudulent attempt to justify that life¾ Playboy Hugh Hefner whose own personal relationships were glamorized photogenic cold predation with a total environment bed and chrome-plated Hi-Fi sets, Cosmopolitan Helen Gurley Brown who was a successful genetic experiment in attempts to achieve absolute levels of shallowness, and movies showing sex scenes by actresses who were vocal proponents of liberation but suicidal in their personal lives, all lead the dance.
The Sexual Revolution Works for Three Years
The sexual revolution worked for the first three years and works for the first three years after puberty. After that there is a pool of jaded, angry, mistrustful, bitter, warped empty shells and the fun is over. People engaging in the sexual revolution didn't want the jaded bitter products of the sexual revolution. What was wanted was a perpetual supply of innocent vulnerable new territory, which they quickly ran out of. Part of the trouble with the sexual revolution and sexual permissiveness is that people use up life too soon and in the wrong way.
The men in the country were disgusted with a generation of women who they secretly wished had had the depth and intelligence to resist the nonsense. A generation of women was becoming enraged because while they were proudly announcing their social and sexual liberation, they found they were getting VD and getting pregnant. Furthermore, when they announced that commitment and love no longer needed to be a prerequisite for sex, they were unaccountably infuriated when their declared uncommitted transient sex partners walked out the door the next morning never to be seen again. Furthermore, women found that men of any depth or decency had retreated and were off hiding in the bushes in disgust, leaving women with the highly revolting development of having to choose among a remaining pool of men who were just as shallow as they were for partners in their sexual liberation. A large proportion of an entire generation consisted of a pool of disgusted and/or predatory men facing a pool of infuriated liberal women.
The suicide rates among women went up to 150 percent of what they had been, and after a five-year lag the suicide rate of men caught up.
Women could no longer afford crippling emotional involvement with men only to be traded off the next weekend. While many of them practiced liberated sex, they remained emotionally distanced. What evolved was a new breed of woman who was sexually active, even hypersexual, but emotionally celibate, and castrating. In their emotional self-protection they stayed away from men who they could become intimately involved with and engaged in emotionally safe sterile relationships where they had invulnerability and control. As the women became more warped, men found the prospect of deep involvement with them to be distasteful, if not crippling. For some, these emotionally sterile relationships evolved into impersonal marriages into which both partners carried a fundamental resentment and hostility toward each other, toward marriage, and toward family life.
At this point the collective rage and hostility toward men by American women was expressed in formation of the woman's liberation movement, and Gloria Steinem who had had an abortion in 1956 during her own play period contributed the credibility of her strikingly glamorous Diana Rigg look to the movement. It sold like a cosmetics ad in a woman's magazine, and an articulate warped bitterness toward men became culturally institutionalized along with emotionally detached sexuality and legalization, if not glamorization, of abortion.
A Compulsion Toward Betrayal
For many women, the driving psychological force in their lives became an emotionally protective determination not to be suckered into vulnerability and betrayal. By involving themselves only with men they mistrusted, they relieved their anxiety over having trust betrayed. Such involvement may include marriage. There are many married as well as single women for whom mention of the concepts of close family relationships and family values produce rage. Part of this is because it reminds them of what they have elected to give up. But much of it results from the view by many women that believing in such things makes them vulnerable to profound betrayal¾ similar to the very thing Hillary Clinton would have gone through for 30 years had she not entered into an emotionally sterile relationship in which she initially refused to even take Bill's name in marriage.
It is often asked why women voted overwhelmingly to put the Clintons in office, since Bill Clinton represents the very worst that women have been complaining about for three decades, and one of worst fathers imaginable. Among a host of other reasons, Hillary Clinton's angry emotional sterility and hostility toward marriage legitimizes many women's similar attitudes and defenses. Additionally, the ultimate defense against betrayal by others is a preemptive betrayal of one's self before someone else can do it¾ often through adopting a cynicism. Bill Clinton offers the emotional safety of feeding that protective cynicism. Bill Clinton is so visibly corrupt, superficial, and worthless that he offers the safety of no chance of betrayal through mistaking his motives or capabilities. It's easy to maintain emotional distance. For a woman (or women) with emotional incapacity, or looking for emotional distance, Bill Clinton is made to order, and women receive the bonus of an abortion along the way. In many cases women can't criticize Bill Clinton because they have been dating, shacked up with, or married to his equivalent.
Bill Clinton is also safe from another aspect. He doesn't make emotional or psychological demands on women lacking those capacities. Hillary is an insecure empty shell who has used left-wing causes to synthesize a personality for herself. A man of any depth would reveal her own inadequacies to herself and drive both her and him to distraction. A shallow Bill Clinton is just about as much as she and millions like her can handle.
One way or another, women are profoundly confused because for the last 40 years they have been attacked and undermined by everybody¾and it's been nearly universally culturally institutionalized. The initial license for attack came from the Playboy philosophy. However, many of the principle underminers and exploiters of women have been other women¾the Helen Gurley Browns, the Margaret Meads, the Gloria Steinems, etc. The woman who messes up her own life resents those who haven't and works to undermine them so they have nothing better than she has. Women who buy into the nonsense make it a point to sell it to other women.
A Generation That Got Its Way
Many years ago, when I went through army basic training at Ft. Leonard Wood, there was a grizzled old master sergeant by the name of Sgt. Gibbon who ran the hand grenade range. In 1965 or 66 Life Magazine did a story on the military. They interviewed Gibbon who was still part of the training cadre. Gibbon complained bitterly that in all his years in the service, which probably went back to the time of General Grant, he had never seen waves of recruits and inductees as absolutely hopeless as he had been getting in the previous two years. They weren't that way because an entire generation of parents suddenly engaged in child abuse 20 years earlier.
I entered college in the mid-50s. I left for a period and spent time in the army. After leaving the army, I returned to the university in the 60s. In the mid-50s the student union was so clean you could eat off the floor. If a student spilled something, he or she would get a mop and clean it up. In 1965 the union was a swill with spilled drinks and wrappers scattered over the floors, chairs, and tables. The library was being destroyed. Students wanting information would simply tear the pages out of the books without concern or conscience. Yet the air was filled with abstract speeches about social justice and left-wing causes. The condition of the union and the library told me more about a generation of students than did the leftist rhetoric.
A generation has gone on to tear hell out of everything, including each other, for 35 years while mouthing empty left-wing rhetoric to justify themselves. They have crippled each other and their children with the same type of egocentric agenda seen in the Clinton Marriage. Virtually every psychiatric study has shown a rate of serious mental disorder in the Clinton generation from five to 10 times greater than the age group 10 years older. I can not seriously relate this to a sudden upsurge of abuse in childhood. What I do see is an egocentric generation that got its way about too much, too soon, too often, and with too little effort.
I see the explosion of mental disorder coming from a multitude of sources, but four concern me in this limited space.
One, in concocting irrational rationalizations enabling them to excuse anything or do anything, many in the Clinton generation both lost track of reality and pushed themselves and those around them into the realm of psychotic levels of irrationality, and ever-expanding denial of reality¾ to the point where the current President of the United States denies knowing what sex is or what the word "is" means. But it isn't just about sex. Their concepts of politics or economics are no more rational than their concepts of sex, and to question any of it is considered a threat to all of it.
Two, as psychotic levels of rationalization became more widespread, they came to create and dominate an unhealthy national psychological environment. It's not uncommon to hear serious presentations on TV, including by the president, that would indicate severe pathology in any competent clinical evaluation. The psychotic psychological environment in this country is lethal. Talk shows and magazines are filled with proselytizations of pathology. Music and musicians are like escapees from mental wards or rogue motorcycle gangs. In the churches, 30 percent of clergy admit sexual affairs with parishioners and preach sermons accordingly. Fifty years ago the media environment, the church environment, the entertainment environment, the political environment, and the educational environment furnished a psychological environment that was corrective of mental disorder. For the last 35 years that environment has been exhorting mental disorder and hostility toward the basic underwriting of self-disciplined behavior.
Three, the necessary protective moral standards by which people treat each other as adults have eroded to an extent that is nearly unsurvivable. What members of a generation have done to each other has driven then nuts. We live in a amoral environment where you can't even leave the President of the United States alone in the Oval Office with a high school girl, and there are tens of millions of people in this country defending it while those who have serious reservations about such a mentality are accused of sexual McCarthyism on national TV.
Four, too many people in the last 35 years have devised a delusional system whereby they look upon reality and pleas to take basic responsibility as an oppressive right-wing conspiracy. They have been supported in this belief by the media instead of having it challenged.
The Clintons have surfed this psychotic cultural and generational wave into the White House.
The attempt has been made to understand Bill and Hillary Clinton, particularly Bill, in terms of classical neurosis from abusive childhoods. But much of what is seen in the Clinton generation has made that model obsolete, although many from that generation, including psychiatrists and psychologists, desperately hold on to it to relieve themselves of any personal responsibility.
The truth is, Bill and Hillary Clinton have not suffered a bit of inconvenience for nearly 40 years¾including, for Bill, the inconvenience of military service. By his freshman year in high school Bill found he could manipulate people with showy glibness and deception, and nobody would call him on it. A good memory for acting lines would carry him through easy courses in the most prestigious schools in the country without effort or necessity to learn seriously. From there, he went almost immediately to being the boy governor of a state, and on to the presidency. It was all done with a little empty talk on a level that could be found on any high school debate team.
Hillary has led a similar life of ease and is now being pushed to take a senate seat and run for the presidency in 2004 on a platform of angrily confronting a vast right-wing conspiracy¾ which essentially consists of making accusatory and sarcastic remarks at you and me through a TV screen to the delight of angry women, spoiled angry leftists, and angry minorities. It isn't a bad life for an untalented spoiled brat who, without the world of TV and alienated politics, would be lucky to hold a job as a waitress in a truck stop.
The problem with the both Clintons is that they were long ago licensed to think and act at primitive, immature, and irrational levels of functioning. Much of this was a self-conferred licensing by a generation which has continued, and which has been the root of most of the political, economic, and social problems in this country.
Robert L. Kocher is the author of "The American Mind in Denial." He is an engineer working in the area of solid-state physics, and has done graduate study in clinical psychology. His email address is
steiner@access.mountain.net. from The Laissez Faire City Times, Vol 3, No 7, Feb. 15, 1999