The American subversive
By Alisa Craddock
web posted September 18, 2006
In the old Soviet Union, children were property of the state, and they were taught in school to report their parents if they heard them say anything against the Soviet government or its officials, or anything against what the state or its officials said or did. I remember learning about it in my old AVC class, (that's ‘Americanism vs. Communism" for you younger folks) but curiously, though my brother who was two grades ahead of me had studied "AVC", by the time I took the course in my senior year, the course name had been changed to "Comparative Political Institutions." The adversarial connotation had been dropped. Nevertheless, we did learn (and not without a bit of dismay) that kids were expected to, and even rewarded for, reporting their parents for anti-state speech, who might as a result of Junior's patriotic act, be dragged out in the middle of the night, never to be seen again. Many of them ended up, I'm sure, in insane asylums, since it was understood you had to be crazy to reject communism.
Now it is pretty clear to many of us that we are moving toward just such a totalitarian state. But how do you silence political dissent in a population who are taught that "freedom of speech" is sacrosanct? The answer is that you label it "bigotry." Or "hate speech". You cultivate and harness the rage of special interest groups sympathetic to the socialist agenda (homosexuals, feminists, assorted liberals, illegal immigrants) and you demonize anyone who speaks against their political aspirations as bigots, racists, homophobes, Nazi's, American Taliban, whatever, then you work toward outlawing those expressions of dissent, thus introducing the un-American notion of "political crimes" to a fat, complacent and unwary people. This has been going on for so long now, many of us find it hard to remember what it was like in America BC—before Clinton.
Just as the sixties marks the end of America's innocence and the beginning of the social and political upheaval of the sexual revolution, Bill Clinton's "war on hate" seems to connote a line of demarcation between the era of an illusion of social and political liberation to one of totalitarian "thought police" still packaging itself as "liberation". It (the war on hate) was a study in hypocrisy, as all of today's "political correctness" and "diversity training" is: Under the guise of promoting social "tolerance", they promote political "intolerance": Tolerance for homosexuals, feminists, assorted liberals, and illegal aliens, and intolerance toward conservatives, religious people, and religious conservatives, oh, especially religious conservatives. Reading Clinton's grand design for eliminating hate, one feels we are in the Twilight Zone of statecraft. In a 1998 article, Berit Kjos, describes a 1997 White House Conference on Hate Crimes in which Clinton committed the Justice Department to go after hate crimes "with more prosecutions and tougher punishments," he said. "The National Hate Crimes Network will marshal the resources of federal, state and local enforcement, community groups, educators, anti-violence advocates…"
Kjos writes "Under the noble banner of peace and unity, biblical values would be linked to hate and intolerance. The program would be marketed to the public by publicizing genuine hateful acts such as the murder of homosexuals but, in practice, "hate" would include any attitude that opposes the new ideology." Are you getting that? Christian values as political crimes—not only un-American, un-Constitutional, but eerily perverted.
Under Clinton, Attorney General Janet Reno's Justice Department webpage included a kids' page that categorized religious conservatives (particular Fundamentalists) with Nazis and Klan, and encouraged kids to report their parents if they heard them say anything bigoted at home (like homosexual acts are sinful...you know, things like that). "…Help stop hateful acts that hurt kids just like you" it said. Children are then encouraged to "correct" any bigoted remarks made by relatives, or to talk it over with a trusted adult. In other words, to report their parents.
But that would be insufficient by itself to accomplish the desired goal, so classroom discussions and invasive surveys to get children to discuss/expose their parents "bigotries" (which would certainly include social and religious values learned at home) would be implemented. And so they have. In an earlier column, I wrote about the unbelievable ruling by California's constitutionally challenged Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that "Parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students." And parent David Parker had discovered that applied in Massachusetts as well when he tried to opt his kindergarten-aged son out of a homosexual indoctrination program, as provided in Massachusetts law. As usual, the liberals just reinterpret the law to mean something else so they can do whatever they want to do.
David Parker's son was recently cornered and beaten on the anniversary of the Massachusetts same-sex marriage ruling by a gang at his elementary school in retaliation for Dad's political crime of protecting his son from the gay agenda. Are you old enough to remember the beatings Soviet citizens were sometimes subjected to for trying to escape? There was a movie about one such case. A Russian man jumped off his ship onto an American ship that came alongside and asked for asylum. "America free. I want free!" he said in broken English. The U.S. Government would not grant asylum and risk an incident with the Soviets, so the man was returned to his ship, whereupon his comrades fell upon him and beat him unmercifully. Is the beating of David Parker's son a foretaste of things to come here in this country?
I have always wondered why Janet Reno went after TV violence but not sexual content when she threatened back in the early nineties to use her office to force network executives to ‘clean up' their programming. How peculiar that she would criticize Murder, She Wrote (pretty much the "Lawrence Welk Show" of murder mystery series) for merely talking about murder (can you have a murder mystery without clues?) and not go after the increasingly explicit sexual content of some other programs. Was it that her boss tied her hands, or was there a different agenda at work. If Clinton was so concerned about the welfare of children, why not continue the aggressive prosecution of obscenity? Why only violence?
Countless studies have shown that television violence does affect the behavior of children, and certainly their perception of reality. I'm not arguing with that. Though I don't agree with Janet Reno's approach (I personally favor the Parents' Television Council's approach of pressuring the advertisers and of advocating for cable choice), I look for a reason for this disparity in her attack – violent content only – because sexual content affects children's behavior even more perhaps than violent content, especially when combined with sex education classes that encourage promiscuity and treat perversion (homosexuality) on a par with heterosexual relations, in the name of teaching "tolerance".
Since Reno's boss used "free speech" as an excuse to all but abandon obscenity prosecutions, it may have been that Clinton reigned her in, did not want her to act inconsistent with his own actions regarding pornography, and so would not let her go after sexual content. But the calculation with which he implemented his agenda does not induce one to see that as a likely prospect. No, I think it had more to do with the feminist agenda to emasculate boys, to create a new manhood-- docile, submissive, dumbed down and receptive to the new socialist agenda. Those natural male attributes which, when harnessed and disciplined, make boys into strong, manly, thoughtful and responsible citizens are instead pathologized as defects of personality or character, and frequently medicated with Ritalin. Why? Why else—to make them passive. To create world socialist citizens. Competitiveness is for capitalists. Aggressiveness is for soldiers. This feminist agenda to remake manhood and its ultimate purpose is summarized in the assertion of Carol Gilligan that the well-being of society may depend on freeing boys from "cultures that value or valorize heroism, honor, war, competition, the culture of the warrior, the economy of capitalism." Tell that to the valorous men of United Flight 93.
Of course the most disturbing aspect in all of this is the way our government, through the use of the unconstitutional idea of "separation of church and state" has facilitated and made no effort to control anti-religious speech (except, of course, against Islam). Anti-Christianism, and especially anti-Catholicism, are increasing and becoming more aggressive in a way that is eerily reminiscent of the rise of anti-Semitism in Germany. Anti-Christianism has gone beyond mere verbal abuse and deliberate blasphemies intended to offend and degrade. People have been fired, verbally abused, had their churches burned and desecrated, been court-martialed, had their property confiscated, and a growing list of other outrages, including a unanimous resolution by the City of San Francisco condemning the Catholic Church for its refusal to place adoptive children with homosexual couples. We're not even allowed to obey our own religious tenets anymore, muchless encourage others to adopt them. What happened to the Bill Clinton's "War on Hate"? Maybe the Christians of this country should start crying "disenfranchisement", and talk about feeling threatened and unwelcome. In our case, it would actually be the truth.
So we have all the key ingredients for a totalitarian state—an education system modeled on the Soviet education system, the artificially created "political crime", children monitoring their parents, replacing God with the State. What's left in our totalitarian march? The Piece de Resistance:
In 2003 a study was published in the Psychological Bulletin (that's the same fine APA publication that brought you the Rind, et al study that said that childhood sexual abuse was not always harmful and was even sometimes beneficial). This 2003 study concluded—you guessed it, that political conservatives are mentally ill. That's right, conservatives are deranged due to mental rigidity and closed-mindedness, including increased dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity, decreased cognitive complexity, decreased openness to experience, uncertainty avoidance, personal needs for order and structure, and need for cognitive closure; lowered self-esteem; fear, anger, and aggression; pessimism, disgust, and contempt. Yep, that about sizes up my state of mind, especially that part about pessimism, disgust, and contempt. As far as "lowered self-esteem" is concerned, when all the things that provide stability and a foundation for living are deemed pathological, and common sense is derided as an illness, and all your best efforts to persuade those who call evil virtue and virtue evil fall on deaf ears, I suppose it is bound to make you a little crazy.
An acquaintance of mine once told me that the definition of insanity was when you did the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. I must truly be insane, because I keep trying to reason with liberals, and I keep getting the same result.
I wonder how long it will be before they start dragging us crazy conservatives off in the middle of the night, never to be seen again. After all, you must be crazy to reject the New World Order. 
Alisa Craddock is free-lance columnist and activist in the culture war, a convert to Catholicism, and describes herself as a Christian Libertarian. In addition to Enter Stage Right, her columns have been published on Alain's Newsletter and Out2 News. She may be contacted at acrock43_j@yahoo.com.