The Big Lie is a power-grab against God and nature. It is adapted to time and place, and spreads like cancer to mentally enslave. The Big Lie is irrational because its purpose is to defeat reason. It is stupid because it is jealous of intelligence. It is unconvincing because it is designed to overcome real conviction. It is implausible because it does not need to be believed, only obeyed.
When the Big Lie gains control of government propaganda machinery, as LGBT dogma has in America, that ascendance in itself is not enough. Winning is never enough for the Big Lie: it must crush any challenge to its control. The irrational, implausible dogma of “Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender-Queer” psycho-rubbish is transmogrifying from progressive cant to cultural hegemony. Diehard practitioners of free speech, traditional values, natural family life, Christianity, or plain common sense are being mentally enslaved, economically persecuted, and culturally disappeared.
The recent case at the University of North Carolina typifies the onward march of LGBT hegemony. Universities are no longer sanctuaries for hoary-headed professors and kindly old deans lost in learnedness. Especially public universities are enormous bureaucracies devoted to social control and political indoctrination. This case involves apparatchiks at the University of North Carolina, Miss Katie Turner, who enjoys the public beneficence at the Faculty Programs Office through being degreed and certified in women’s and “gender” studies. This appointment authorized her publishing and interpreting a list of “potentially offensive” statements – the dreaded microaggressions – on the Employee Forum, with explanations as to why they should be avoided. Reportedly, the post included contributions by Shabari Dey of Diversity And Multicultural Affairs and Krista Prince of Housing & Residential Education.
Miss Turner defined microaggression as “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, and environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial, gender, sexual orientation and religious slights and insults to the target person or group.” The implication of “microaggression theory” is that it is daily and commonplace for employees at this university to be hostile, derogative, and degrading to one another. The taxpayers of North Carolina pay functionaries to insult their best professors. There will be no commensurate defense from those professors, not because they frequently target each other with indignities, but because they are afraid to speak up.
LGBTQ hegemons are always trying to ally themselves with fighting racism. Turner threw in a particularly foolish racially tinged microaggression for good measure. She wrote that asking a co-worker, “If they’re up for a game of golf” is hostile and derogatory because it assumes the listener has “access” to the sport. There are more golf courses than deer ticks in the Carolinas. By this standard it would have been racist to ask a young Tiger Woods, “Hey kid, have you ever thought about taking up golf?”
There is no parallelism and no basis of comparison between the problem of racism and propagation of LGBTQ dogma. Racism is a universal and inevitable fume of weak-mindedness caused by adaptive, gratifying delusions of superiority. LGBTQ preferentialism is itself a pernicious variety of racism. Sex consciousness and the problem of lust is the most intransigent and confining aspect of egoism. LGBTQ dogma is a pitiable inversion of the truth of human possibility regarding the problem of sex. The Big Lie of politicized sexuality exalts the imprisoning of consciousness and dehumanizing behavior. All the flamboyant and crude displays of pride will not produce one moment of tranquility of soul or greatness of heart. The LGBTQ “communities” of which we hear so incessantly can not be communities of compassion, creativity or selfless service beyond their own self-delimited wants. So long as any human being is defined by lust, they will be captive on the lowest rungs of consciousness and behavior.
Turner claims it is microaggressive in conversation for women to refer to their husbands and boyfriends, or men to refer to their wives or girlfriends, by such terms. She says this “sets the expectation that people do not identify as LGBTQ until they say otherwise.” Say otherwise? This is idiotic. It imagines conversations like, “Hi, my name is Ed. Last time I checked, I’m not queer. I call the old ball-and-chain ‘wife’
, ha-ha-ha.” Or, “Nice to meet you Ed, I’m Mary, I identify Bi. Hot jeans you’re wearing Ed, and BTW, I’ve seen your wife. If you ever get tired of haulin’ that one around, let me know.”
The attack on the traditional terms husband, wife, boyfriend and girlfriend is not merely idiotic; it is sinister. The state of North Carolina is hiring arrogant drones who presume to tell husbands and wives what they must call each other. Winning the right to same-sex marriage was never going to be enough. Man-woman marriage must be debased.
Transgenderism is a hoax. A man beset with unstable sex identification can not turn himself into a woman. Through hormonal treatment and cross-sex impersonation he can superimpose upon his indelibly male mind and body a few of the characteristics of females, which he craves. But he will always retain masculine traits of personality and physiognomy. At best he becomes a man/pseudo-woman composite. The prefix “trans” suggests a masculine and feminine transposition. It is difficult to appear to be the opposite sex. Some people who attempt it, especially if they are not wealthy, come to appear freakish. Everyone who encounters artificially created sexuality immediately recognizes the person’s original sex. If a man/pseudo-woman composite makes people feel uncomfortable because of its blatant unnaturalness, they have a right to those feelings.
LGBT hegemony denies the right to believe one’s own eyes, apply one’s own knowledge, or obey one’s own conscience. It legitimizes a “trans” person forcing his or her illusions on other people, to which they must accede and honor. Turner’s guide informs us that, “…denying or failing to acknowledge their pronouns, name, or identity… Addressing trans people with incorrect gender pronouns, calling them by former names, inquiring about their ‘real’ identity, asking them to explain their gender identity, and denying or failing to acknowledge their pronouns, name, or identity” are all verboten microaggressions. The simple statement, “I don’t know any LGBTQ people,” is also microaggressive – even if true.
The Big Lie is never plainspoken. It is inculcated through the deformation of language. Of course, the LGBT hegemonic term “cisgender” is not considered a microaggression. It is justified retribution.
What if one really doesn’t care about the never-ending demands of sex minorities? What if one has noticed that there are important issues in this world that cannot be alleviated through more control over heterosexual people? What a sick, unnatural world with people declaring their sexuality and then expecting special regard and accommodation.
Genuine diversity of belief is intolerable to the hegemon. Inimical ideas must be framed as mental illness or hate and stamped out. Because for the Big Lie, winning is never enough. It must conquer. To enslave, the Big Lie does not need to be believed, but bowed down to.
by Deborah C. Tyler
Slippin’ Jimmy McGill, the central character of the indispensable “Better Call Saul,” earned his moniker by staging ingenious personal injury scams while being, as his coffee cup attested, “the world’s greatest attorney.” But the world’s greatest potential future journalist, Michelle Fields, has outdone even Slippin’ Jimmy in her résumé of injuries at the hands, words, lusts, and crowd dispersement methods of multifarious abusers. In five years since graduating from college, Ms. Fields has reported suffering approximately 15 major incidents of police brutality, physical intimidation, emotional harassment, sexual assault, sexual harassment, slander, and criminal hacking by competitor journalists. She has had occasion to accuse the likes of Robert Kennedy, Jr., Allan West, and Leonardo DiCapr of simple assault, bullying, and battery. And let’s not forget the defamation by a former professor for his infamous “Michelle’s a retard” outrage.
Michelle Fields exemplifies the “precious snowflake generation” that is psychologically conditioned and politically indoctrinated to three fallacies: 1) I should win a trophy and everyone takes first place for being me; 2) you’re nobody til somebody victimizes you; and 3) if it hurts or offends me, it must be punishable hate.
Prizes for Nothing,
Clicks for Free
Throughout the course of their lives, praise and awards have been decoupled from actual accomplishment for Michelle Fields’ generation. The natural fact that outstanding achievement in any field of endeavor is rare – by virtue of genetic gifts and/or hard work – has been supplanted by the notion that everyone needs to be honored to promote self-esteem. Traditionally, the most brilliant, high achieving students were recognized on special occasions such as graduation. Average – and even good students — accepted the rareness of true superiority and didn’t expect to win prizes. However, the recognition of special accomplishment came to be associated with racism and sexism. With unfairness. Similarly, in the business and professional worlds, special recognition was rarely meted out, and then only for genuine achievement.
Slippin’ Michelle was raised with the bad fortune of enjoying opportunities and accolades beyond her actual abilities and achievements. For example, two months after being fired for substandard journalism, she was oddly named as one of the “next wave of political pundits.” Everybody wins a prize just for showing up! Or not.
In discussing the most recent “outrage” against Slippin’ Michelle (in which she alleged a dastardly and emotionally crippling physical assault that did not seem to occur), Greta Susteren pointed out that female journalists fought for the right to be in rough and tumble environments, to play in traditionally men’s game. Slippin’ Michelle’s response was to call Greta a “shill for Trump.” Michelle Fields has not learned the humility which comes from real achievement built on struggle. Her careless insult betrayed her opaqueness to Van Susteren’s achievement and superiority, which are based on real accomplishment.
You’re Nobody til Somebody Victimizes You
Slippin’ Michelle’s mother, Xiomara Fields, is a Honduran-born pro-illegal immigration activist, a movement which seeds America with aliens who have no intention of becoming law-abiding, tax-paying citizens, and some of whom are murderers, rapists, and drug traffickers. Any effort to distinguish good and evil on an individual level diminishes the victim-group status. The status of victim determines benefit and advantage, rather then individual worth or achievement.
Who are the heroes of science and engineering and literature and art for Slippin’ Michelle’s generation? Ever since Rosa Parks was selected to stay put and Gloria Steinem was inconvenienced in killing her unborn baby, American iconography has been based in narratives of race, sex, and political victimization. Fictive LGBT genderism, Black Lives Matter, and “undocumented” politics are smelly barnyards confining creative imagination, making their adherents prisoners of vulgarity and grievance.
The precious snowflake generation has an obsessional need to claim victim status, which eclipses selfless service and achievement. This fallacy breeds “defamation envy” and the parade of faux hate crimes that fill the media, such as Lena Dunham’s rape hoax. An overblown sense of victimization has robbed young people of their capacity for compassion and service to real victims. Their imaginary victimization renders them useless regarding the real genocide being committed today against Christians by Muslim jihadies.
A lot of people assert Slippin’ Michelle has falsely accused them of abusing her, in one way or another, over the last few years. When she recently tried to pull off the literal slip and fall scam against Corey Lewandowski, disgruntled defendants published numerous slow-motion videos showing Field’s statement, “I almost fell to the ground” to be untrue. Transcripts of recordings established that seconds after the incident, Slippin’ Michelle asked Washington Post reporter Ben Terris what had happened because she didn’t know. Recordings suggest the two reporters immediately began framing the incident as an offense committed by Lewandowski. Certainly there was no suggestion that Trump’s campaign director was appropriately protecting the candidate, who lives under continual death threats, against somebody improperly invading the candidate’s space. And even though Slippin’ Michelle was taped laughing a few moments after Corey Lewandowski might have tugged her arm, a few days later she compared her suffering to the death of her father, telling Megyn Kelly, “This has to be, apart from my father’s death, the worst experience I’ve gone through.”
Regarding the countercharge that she had touched Trump, Fields, vigilant in the quest for defamation, Slippin’ Michelle said, “I didn’t touch him. I didn’t grab him. In that sense he’s responsible for defaming me when it comes to that situation.”
If it Hurts it Must be Hate
The third fallacy is the most ominous for Constitutionally based political freedom. For the snowflake generation, so-called hate speech is no longer protected free speech, but rather a special class of speech which lies outside the First Amendment. Slippin’ Michelle’s entire life has been spent in this post-First Amendment mindset: free speech is allowed only if it doesn’t offend a group-victimization meme or hurt somebody’s feelings. Calling somebody a name is an assault. An inimical opinion is a crime or cause for investigation or therapy. Students at major universities are going to administrators demanding comfort and protection because the name of a leading presidential candidate has been chalked on concrete.
Many years ago children were taught social resilience with, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never harm me.” Slippin’ Michelle’s cohort has been taught the opposite, that hurt feelings are the same as a physical assault that must be punished. Being so offended by taboo words and bereft of a tradition of free speech, how can this generation preserve a free press? This is a disaster for America.
By Deborah C. Tyler
The foreign policy of the 44th president is to march backwards through history to secure defeat and declare surrender in wars which the United States has previously won. The President’s current commitment to lose the war on terrorism is ongoing and worldwide. Total defeat will probably elude him during his time in office, despite his complex ‘strategerie’ that involves American military paralysis and civilian psychological helplessness.
For example, as part of his effort on behalf of achieving victory for the Caliphate, the President and his Democrat and Republican adherents refer to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria as the Islamic State in the Levant (ISIL). The term Levant is from 15th century French meaning rising – as in the east where the sun rises. It is an obsolete term for a territory which pre-dates the existence of modern nation states. This is why Obama uses it. That, and the opportunity to lisp.
The term ISIL is psychologically useful in rolling back the mindset of centuries of humanist progressivism in favor of brutal theocratic authoritarianism. Way, way backward is the key to Obama’s slogan, FORWARD. Conditioned helplessness is also achieved by Homeland Security’s commitment to leave the borders wide open and deport no one, even as Obama’s Field Marshal of Failure Jeh Johnson issues warnings about the dangers he is fostering: If You See Something, Say SomethingTM.
President Obama’s original strategy to achieve a lasting defeat in the Iraq War was based on his failure to negotiate a status of forces agreement, which would have left an American military presence. But Obama’s mission accomplished moment of solid victory for terrorists came in 2014 when he refused to provide meaningful resistance or air support against the ISIS brutal invasion and their Christian genocide.
The President is now in Cuba cheerfully accepting the mortifications of US defeat in the Cold War. Mr. Obama, tear down your border! It is rumored that the President quietly sought the help of Pope Francis in negotiating the terms of US capitulation in the long battle against Communism. There was no one at the airport to greet the tail-tucked American commander, nor should there have been. He was there for baseball and an old-fashioned commie butt-kicking. Raul make it hurt so good. Obama declared, “I personally would not disagree,” with the insults offered to America by the victorious Cuban dictator-for-life. Opening the US border to an onslaught of illegal Cubans is reportedly part of the secretly negotiated terms of surrender. To the victor…
Reports are circulating that before President Obama leaves office he will march further back into history, sparing no effort for ignominy and chagrin for Americans. Travel to Munich and Tokyo is under discussion.
By Deborah C. Tyler
The recent publication of a close-up of Lena Dunham’s naked bottom as season’s greeting from America’s new sweetheart prompts a moment of psychoanalysis.
Fundamentally, Dunham’s repulsive presence is political propaganda. Totalitarianism maintains its control through fear and imposition of the irrational, inhumane, and self-destructive mental condition generally termed dissociation. The vulgarity and obscenity of many female comics play a role in inducing that malleable mental state in people who have fallen into attenuated connections with God and conscience. Dunham leads the pack of the propagandistas of the disgusting.
This article originally appeared on American Thinker
by Deborah C. Tyler
Throughout his writings, Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. explained that white moderates who claimed friendship to the negro cause but rejected social disorder and cautioned patience and calm were more of a stumbling block to freedom than the frank racists of the KKK. That stumbling block to change seems to be recreated in the psychology of many prominent conservatives writing about the current presidential election. A permeating subtext across the writing of elite conservatives ranges from concern to contempt to fear of the righteous anger of patriotic Americans.
Anger is the fuel of political freedom. The misconstruction of right-wing anger by conservative elites is becoming more of a stumbling block to saving the Republic than the open hatred of conservatism by the left. Radio conservatives are interacting with real people so they tend to be more open to the justified anger of their listeners. But many elite conservative writers read like heads separated from hearts, more likely to write about Edmund Burke than my friend Ed, a laid-off factory worker. They seem to be more concerned about Ed becoming fanatic than the open borders and bad trade policies that cost Ed his job.
There are two principal reasons conservative elites fear anger on the right. First, they were educated at left-wing universities because those are the only kind there are. Though they don’t know it, right-wing elites were brainwashed at those universities to believe a fascist lurks within every ordinary American, itching to pop out with guns blazing if allowed to get angry. Second, prominent conservative thinkers are comfortably employed and ensconced in life. While the destruction of the economy and borders of our Republic is most troubling indeed, it is not personal, as it is for Ed.
Anger is among the first emotions in life. A newborn baby, eyes still swollen and shut, asserts: I exist, I feel, if you hurt me (or not) you’ll hear my anger. Anger provides vital energy for protection and survival. It is the emotional state induced by the life-sustaining impulse to protect, to defend against or attack a perceived threat. Healthy anger is hardwired into the nervous system as a reaction to pain and suffering. Righteous anger is the highest form of healthy anger. It is the beneficial force for good which forms in the self-respecting hearts of principled people who have been lied to and who are suffering because of it. Righteous anger forms under conditions of oppression when moral, legal, or personal contracts are broken. It is the force which impels, sustains, and advances political freedom. In the fullness of time, it is the righteousness of anger which determines if it is creative or destructive.
There is a mistaken notion that the heroes of liberty are the authors of the great documents articulating human rights. The philosophers and writers play their part. But it is the nerves and muscles and blood in the veins of righteous men who decide, “We will fight, we may perish, but this will not stand,” that enable freedom. The yield of righteous passions are enshrined in documents of liberty and justice. It is because righteous anger arises again and again in the hearts of oppressed people that those documents of freedom remain alive.
In recent years the greatest threat to the survival of the Republic has not been from the left wing or from the foreign enemy. It is because righteous anger against the “blame America first” worldview has been degraded, dragged, and drugged out of the hearts of patriotic people.
Despite all the illegality and abuse inflicted on the American people by unchecked government, the right-wing pundits still counsel, “Beware of anger.” It is abominable that cosseted conservative writers, purposed to sound brilliant while resisting change, are railing against the too-little, too-late anger that has finally appeared, perhaps in great part because of the candidacy of Donald Trump. The Tea Party movement failed because they stifled the righteous expression of their anger.
Unrighteous anger is a generally unconscious defense of adaptive self-delusion. It is a transference of unhealthy emotion away from the actual causes of harm to a presumably safer, more convenient scapegoat. But the big lie that any anger in Americans of traditional values will transmogrify into violence against minorities is indelibly engrained in the educated mind on both the right and the left. In truth, it is amazing that there is so little of that noxious transmogrification, so little resurgence of historical hate crimes, in light of what has been inflicted on the ideals and opportunities of Americans.
A comparison of the political effects of the unrighteous anger of the left to the political paralysis of the anger-phobic right explains why the left wing is crushing conservatism across most battlefronts. Take the case of the venerable unrighteousness of Jew-hating. Contemporary Jew-hating trends of the left are styled around rejecting the prophetic deliverance of Jews to their sacred homeland. Contemporary Jew-hating promotes divestment, boycotts, and sanctions against Israel. These highly successful political tactics arise out of grassroots anger, righteous or not. Tactics such as economic boycott were essential to the civil rights movement. But these effective methods of political action are almost never encouraged by conservative leaders. Why not? Because they are afraid of the anger and neither understand nor trust the inherent restraint of Judeo-Christian righteousness.
The writing of right-wing pundits about the new angry American falls into two categories: a patronizing minimization or an hysterical apprehension of fanaticism. On the one hand, clucking conservatives belittle the righteously angry as “disaffected” or “indignant.” Worse are the mealy mouth Ivy League staccato talkers (“But, but, but brownshirts, brownshirts!”) who see a fascist in every American who loves their country. Conservative writers are as fully brainwashed against Americans as are progressives. Jeb! has supporters, Trump has followers.
The so-called conservative pundits with the deep cerebral folds generally make it clear that if America is lost, better that she goes out with a whimper. So the bums never get thrown out. Obama and Jeh Johnson can stick it to America again, defunding border protection, because there’s not enough righteous anger left to stop them.
Why don’t the supposedly brilliant thinkers on the right seize upon the energy of the people’s ire instead of disparaging it? Why do they call for sober reflection and reasoned debate in the face of national catastrophe? Because for them the decimation of job growth and the erasing of our borders are troubling, ill-advised, even foreboding, but not personal. They don’t live where Ed lives, across from the big green house on Pine Street. It was so well kept once. Now the paint is peeling and the yard is a mud pit. Young men speaking Spanish come and go all hours of the day and night. They keep to themselves, but doors slam and car engines roar. There’s a barking dog on a four-foot chain and some days they throw food out to him. The cops come by when Ed calls, but say there’s nothing they can do.