Thinking as Inmates of Auschwitz

Thanks DHess25876

For more Kocher Essays go to Laissez Faire City Times

Thinking as Inmates of Auschwitz

Robert L. Kocher
used with permission

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 fact, someone ought to write a psychoanalytic paper on the sane person as a prisoner of a Nazi concentration camp. 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 people making those arguments as if those people were honest or were amenable to logic of moral suasion.

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 desperate need for development of more arguments and pleas by the oppressed as if the Nazi counter-arguments were legitimately based in reasoning. There was no choice. It got to the point where the Nazis would remain in amused intransigence against the most flawlessly argued rational petitions. The Nazis had but one agenda and it was that millions of people were going to the gas chambers.

There was no leverage. People attempting to reason with the SS were helpless. There was no "either or." There was no element of risk or accountability. The Nazis suffered no penalty for laughing at the most rational of petitions. 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. One of the lessons a generation of youth learned in the 60s was that parental and adult stammering and rage was an empty threat that would collapse into depression if adults were prohibited from, or unwilling to, act upon it, and if the young of the period ignored it. This produced a generation of fearless psychopaths who became adept at weathering passing periods of indignation. Just as importantly, it also produced generations of immobilized victims. Bill Clinton learned the lessons of the 60 quite well. Like many from that period he is still fighting the adult world and he has enough critically placed counterculture generational adherents to immobilize and fracture what should be unified confrontation of his dishonesty, pathology, irrationality, and irresponsibility.

A confrontation with Bill Clinton rapidly becomes a protective immediate preemptive reflexive confrontation between generations that has been going on for more than 30 years, which is the basis of Clinton's political strength, and which quickly eclipses necessity of accountability or anything else. Generational allegiance takes priority over anything else, including survival of this nation. 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 infantilly 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.

The physical life span of a human being in this country is in the order of just over 70 years. The political life span is much shorter, between the ages of 21 and the average condition of physical debilitation or death. It's an unfortunate fact that nearly half the people who first voted President Reagan into office are now dead or in the same condition he is. The Reagan election was to a great extent the last gasp of a waning generation.

The 1968 Democratic Convention took place with thousands rioting outside in madness and vowing to bring down the system. At the next convention they had moved inside the hall with legitimate demographic credentials still vowing to bring down the system with George McGovern and a countercultural political platform. Over the years the members of the movement in the Democratic party have quietly gained seniority while the opposition has steadily weakened through the ravages of time.

Like the Jews in Germany during the 30s, and later the Poles, Russians, and others later to be declared untermensch, we awaken to find madness has now become national policy and the cultural determining force. We have politically correct educational systems producing irrational graduates from ideological curricula who can not read, calculate, and are both incapable and unwilling to participate in the real work needed to make a basic economy run. They are for practical purposes useless for anything beyond arguing to perpetuate the debilitating social and political ideological dialogue that created them. Abortion, once a painful decision under necessary circumstances, has not only become legalized, but is looked upon with such casualness that questioning it threatens the activity of a majority of the population. Marriage partners have become disposable conveniences to those who bother to get married at all. Irrational self indulgence at the expense of others has become an exercise in the right to social pluralism. There are radicals in the national legislative body who more properly belong in mental institutions.

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?

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 any depth. 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 de-emphasized or marginalized. Conspicuously absent from Hillary in her selectively militant crusade for the 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 Lewinsky.

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 incapacities.

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 privates 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 sex.

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 derss? 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.

Serious psychopathology has been glamorized and sold in the media as social and sexual liberation in this culture for more than 30 years, leading to the widespread belief that continuing transitory personal amusement and pleasure can be had without costs. There has been the coordinate argument that those who argue against this view are unsophisticated punitive right wing malcontents. Much of this has been buttressed by arguments saying that wide variation in cultural values and behavior seen in anthropological studies indicates one can arbitrarily pick and choose among values, behavior, and morality without restriction, and only pathologically rigid religious moralists would not adopt a cultural system that provided the infinite of immediate personal pleasure along with the absence of what are declared to be arbitrary and punitive behavioral restrictions. Indeed, the choice of engaging in such life styles has come to be looked upon as a civil right in a pluralistic society, with financial support from other members of society to prevent the social injustice of unpleasant or unequal outcome. But the cultures superficially and distantly idolized for their permissiveness also have their psychiatric and economic problems. The implementation of this in America has had disastrous consequences--AIDS, drugs, for practical purposes the abandonment of children for pursuit of parental personal agenda, enormous out of wedlock birth rates, the destruction of male-female relationships as people demand to use each other as disposable pleasure vending machines without honest consideration of the crippling emotional costs. This is part of what has been the pathologizing of America with elevated suicide rates and rates of mental disorder five to ten times that of 45 years ago. This cultural media trend has acted, if not to support the Clintons, to subdue serious judgment. At he worst, overindulgence in the pleasures is interpreted as liberated overzealousness or as an addiction to be winked at.

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 Clintons 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 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.

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 mostrational 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.

Robert L. Kocher
A Sebastian Steiner Associates analytical paper. (used with permission)