CHAPTER 9 — THE NEOLIBERAL TICKET TO SUCCESS: THE VICTIM STATUS
American Life League

Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers. In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector ... the mainstream should be told that gays are victims of fate, in the sense that most never had a choice to accept or reject their sexual preference ... Straight viewers must be able to identify with gays as victims ...

                                                                            Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill.[1]

WARNING!
Some of the material described in this chapter is extremely offensive in nature.

Anti-Life Philosophy.

Our colonialistic, patriarchal society has ruthlessly dominated and subjugated countless innocent people over the course of hirstory. Gays and lesbians, minorities, women (especially women of color), Native Americans, and many others have been oppressed and held down for many decades.

It is about time that the mainstream members of society woke up and protected these groups, because, although they are strong, they do not have the sheer numbers they need to achieve full equality in this corrupt society.

Introduction.

"There is no snobbishness like that of professional equalitarians."

                                                                                                  Malcolm Muggeridge[2]

Various Neoliberal special interest groups have learned that the most certain way to achieve social progress is to get people to sympathize with them. The easiest and most direct way to do this is to assume a permanent victim status, and thereby demand special treatment under the guise of "civil rights."

This strategy is patterned after the original civil rights movement. However, whereas the civil rights movement had as its goal the full equality of Black people, our society has devolved to the point where any group with an anti-life agenda can succeed in achieving its goals merely by wrapping itself in the cloak of "civil rights."

The civil rights movement included a large class of genuine victims, but its individual members did not dwell on this fact; the anti-life movements are different in that they are by no stretch of the imagination actual victims, but they recognize the great value in being perceived as such.

Therefore, the Neoliberal movements manufacture and compile daunting lists of imaginary transgressions committed against their special interest groups, exaggerate actual offenses to act as centerpieces in their propaganda campaigns, and rewrite history to reflect or magnify this imaginary "victimhood."

The Message of Despair.

An Infested Society.

The central message of this bogus and self-defeating philosophy is that American society is unjustly oppressing a large number of certified "victim groups." The anti-life strategists insist that our society is infested with;

• classism ("oppression of the working classes");
• able-ism ("oppression of the handicapped");
• look-ism (described by the Smith College Office of Student Affairs as
   "construction of a standard for beauty/attractiveness");
• capitalism;
• Eurocentrism (a "preoccupation with Western culture");
• interventionism;
• colonialism
• sexism;
• racism;
• age-ism;
• heterosexism ("oppression of homosexuals");
• species-ism;
• size-ism;
• weight-ism;
• and an impressive swarm of other "isms."

The Progression to True Disability.

The great danger of this defeatist mindset is as obvious as it is inevitable. Quite simply, perception becomes reality if one is brainwashed for long enough.

If people actually come to believe that they are victims, and if their leaders tell them that there is absolutely nothing they can do to better their lot in life because the entire system is corrupt, eventually the group becomes permanently "victimized." They are born as victims, live as victims, die as victims, and cannot achieve anything meaningful on a personal or societal scale because they are convinced that they cannot possibly succeed.

This victimist propaganda tells Blacks who are gullible enough to listen that United States society is an inherently racist system in which they cannot possibly succeed, no matter how hard they try. Any Blacks who do succeed (such as four-star generals, Congressmen, or conservative Supreme Court justices like Clarence Thomas) are denounced by many Black leaders as "Uncle Toms" or "Oreos" (Black outside and White inside).

During the Thomas confirmation battle, Virginia Governor L. Douglas Wilder displayed his anti-Catholic bigotry and his blatant ignorance when he asked "The question is, how much allegiance is there to the Pope?," despite the fact that Thomas is Episcopalian. Movie producer and inveterate whiner Spike Lee labeled Thomas "a handkerchief-head, chicken-and-biscuit eating Uncle Tom."[3] And the ever-present and ever-obnoxious Neoleftist syndicated columnist Carl Rowan wrote that "If you gave Clarence Thomas a little flour on his face, you'd think you had David Duke talking."[4]

These self-starters are painted as traitors to their race and are ridiculed as the White man's ignorant tools. The victimist propaganda also warns young Blacks that, even if they do succeed on society's terms against all odds, they will be disenfranchised and shunned by their own people. By becoming middle or upper class, they will somehow have abandoned their less fortunate brethren and are somehow guilty for their lack of success.

The real reason the 'Black rejectionists' condemn successful Black conservatives is that these talented men and women do not need the victim status or those who push it. Successful Black people put the lie to those who would disable an entire race.

Of course, extreme left-wing radicals say that the only way to remedy this situation is to overthrow the entire system. This is why the Revolutionary Communist Party of the USA (RCP) supports pornography, homosexuality, abortion, and the "right to die" as self-serving philosophies that weaken the fabric of our society.

For further information on the techniques of subversion used by Communist organizations, see Chapter 95 of Volume III, "Lenin's Rules for Revolution." For more information on the strategy of infiltration and subversion, see Chapter 10.

Case Study: People Becoming Victims.

It is very interesting to compare the progress made by a group of people who are genuinely handicapped and coddled by the system as compared to an identical group that are fully integrated into society and are expected to behave like everyone else.

In a certain small community on Massachusetts State's Martha's Vineyard, about ten percent of the population was born deaf. Historian Nora Groce found that 80 percent of both nonhearers and hearers graduated from high school; 90 percent of the nonhearers and 92 percent of the hearers got married; and both groups of people had about the same number of children, income levels, and distribution of occupations.

Then Groce compared this situation with the Massachusetts mainland, considered to have the best services for the deaf in the entire country. Statewide, only 50 percent of nonhearers graduated from high school as compared to 75 percent of hearers; nonhearers married 50 percent of the time, compared to 90 percent for hearers; only 40 percent of nonhearers had children, while 80 percent of the hearers did; and non-hearers were clustered at the bottom of the occupation scale, making, on the average, only one-third the salaries that hearers did.

She summarized her findings thusly: On an island with no services for the nonhearing, the deaf lived on an equal footing with the hearing, while just thirty miles away, the nonhearing lived much poorer lives than the hearing, despite the availability of the most advanced services in the world.

In other words, as the author noted, "The one place in the United States where deafness was not a disability was a place with no services for deaf people."[5]

The New Social "Pecking Orders."

Introduction.

This aggressive pursuit of the exalted 'victim status' has led to the evolution of a set of bizarre, dominant Neoliberal social hierarchies that are exact inversions of the original unjust century-old social hierarchies they now condemn as "racist," "sexist," "intolerant," and "homophobic."

Neoliberals, however, fail to see that this set of new hierarchies is just as unfair and racist as the old set, and that it inevitably leads to the same abuses and double standards that the 'old' hierarchies did.

These "pecking orders" are based exclusively upon society's perceived degree of each group's historical victimization. In other words, the degree to which a group can "bend the rules" is directly proportional to the degree to which it claims that it has been victimized in the past.

Figure 9-1 depicts, in outline form, the four Neoliberal social hierarchies.

FIGURE 9-1
THE MAJOR NEOLIBERAL SOCIAL HIERARCHIES

I. ORGANIC OR "UNCHANGEABLE" IDENTITIES *
   A. Racial Identity
      1. Highest ranking: Blacks
      2. Intermediate ranking: Hispanics and Native Americans
      3. Lowest ranking: Whites and Asians
   B. Sexual Identity
      1. Highest ranking: Homosexual men
      2. Intermediate ranking: Lesbians and bisexual men
      3. Lowest ranking: Heterosexuals
II. ASSUMED OR "CHANGEABLE" IDENTITIES
   C. Religious Identity
      1. Highest ranking: Atheists, pagans, and agnostics
      2. High intermediate ranking: Liberal Jewish sects
      3. Low intermediate ranking: Liberal Christians
      4. Lowest ranking: Orthodox Catholics and Jews and Fundamentalists
   D. Political Identity
      1. Highest ranking: Neoliberals
      2. Intermediate ranking: Liberals, "centrists," and "moderates"
          (compromisers)
      3. Lowest ranking: Conservative

• NOTE: Experts in human sexuality generally agree that 'sexual orientation' is not inborn or genetic, but instead is a matter of election or personal preference. See Chapter 116 in Volume III, "Homosexual Orientation," for more information on this topic.

Who Can Attack Whom?

These hierarchies essentially dictate who can attack whom with impunity. In other words, we have evolved "pecking orders" where the weak "victims" (who actually wield the power) can attack the strong "oppressors" (who actually have little voice) with impunity. It all depends on the relative perceived degree of victimization of the attacker and the 'attackee.'

The following paragraphs discuss the implications of the four major Neoliberal social "pecking orders;"

• Racial;
• Sexual;
• Religious; and
• Political.

The Implications of Racial Identity.

If black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people? ... If your white great-great-grandfather killed my great-great-grandfather, and your white great-grandfather sold my great-grandfather, and your white grandfather raped my grandmother, and your father stole, cheated, lied, and robbed my father, what kind of fool would I have to be to say 'Come, my friend' to the white daughter and son?

                                                                               "Sister Souljah" (Lisa Williamson)[6]

A Typical Bogus "Victim:" Tawana Brawley.

Tawana Brawley is a classic product of the victim mentality. In mid-1988, this teenaged Black girl claimed that she was raped by a vicious gang of White punks.

According to the strange logic of the victim mentality, she therefore had "standing" to insist that the entire American justice system was racist because it refused to bring her assailants to justice.

Of course, the real reason the "system" "refused" to bring her assailants to justice was because the attackers simply did not exist. It turned out that Brawley was lying, and the alleged rape never happened.

However, this minor detail was irrelevant, because truth itself is irrelevant to the victim mentality. Brawley, the Rev. Al Sharpton, and their entourage of "groupies" continue to lie about the mythical incident, speaking indignantly at rallies and fundraisers and collecting wild applause and lots of cash.

The truth no longer matters to these "Black rejectionists." All that matters is the victim status, which is treasured above all. Brawley, Sharpton, and others know that if a person can be certified as a member of a "victim class," the world is his oyster.

Other groups have learned from these phony "civil rights" leaders. Pro-abortionists, pornographers, and homosexuals have succeeded in achieving goals beyond their wildest dreams by creating and then using their victim status as a club to advance their agendas. Euthanasiasts also use this strategy to paint the pitiful picture of suffering human "vegetables" trapped in an artificial Hell created by medical technology run amuck.

Even prostitutes are trying to certify themselves as a class of victims, although they have not (yet) enjoyed marked success. The whores have organized into unions which tend to be named after animals: Cast Off Your Old Tired Ethics (COYOTE); Johns and Call Girls United Against Repression (JACGUAR); and Hooking is Respectable Employment (HIRE).

Perhaps most incredibly, the organized child molesters like the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) are trying to cast themselves in the roles of victims. Much of this perverted group's time is spent complaining about the "excessive" jail terms given to their members who have been caught having sex with children.

Reverse Racism.

Under the 'old' racial hierarchy, a Black man who raped a White woman was either lynched or hung. Under the 'new' hierarchy, a gang of Black men can go 'wilding' in Central Park, beat a White woman almost to death with bricks and pipes, rape her repeatedly and then be defended by leading Black politicians.

When White cops beat up a Black man (Rodney King) and it is caught on videotape, the community (and the nation, for that matter) rises up in outrage. But, during the April 29-May 2, 1992 Los Angeles riots that killed 51 people, news cameras caught four young Black men dragging Reginald O. Denny from his truck and then beating him almost to death with bricks and iron bars. At least one of them was a member of the violent 8-Trey Gangster Crips street gang. When these four punks were charged, many people threatened another riot. Many Communists and Black leaders accused "the system" of the usual charge racism and pledged to stand by their new heroes, the "L.A. Four."[7]

White Howard Beach teenagers who beat up a Black man are labeled 'racist,' and such an incident induces an orgy of national self-criticism. If a gang of Black youths beat up a White, somehow the action is justified and the attackers are coddled and excused because they are "oppressed" or "underprivileged."

It is very significant that the "victim status" is not automatically conferred upon all racial minorities.

After the United States absorbed more than three million Asian refugees and immigrants in the 1970s and early 1980s, the nation has observed a display of industriousness unparalleled in its history. Asian immigrants as a class worked diligently, succeeded tremendously, and were utterly ignored by the champions of minority rights.

Why?

Because the Asian immigrants didn't need Jesse Jackson, Benjamin Hooks, Al Sharpton, and all of the other pity-peddlers. The Asians took the real road to success and showed conclusively that the 'victim status' is merely an attempt to ascend in society on a raft of feelings instead of on real work.

Contortions for American Indians.

A few American Indians have bought into the Neoliberal nonsense that is so radically different from their heritage. By doing so, they have traded strength for weakness. They have added their pitiable bleating to the chorus of simpering "victims," thereby greatly dishonoring themselves by loudly demanding special treatment that, in many cases, borders on the ridiculous.

In all fairness, much of the noise on their behalf is generated by Neoliberals who seem to have nothing better to do with their time.

For example, the United States Department of the Interior has recently drawn up rules enforcing the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990, whereby anyone who sells Indian art not made by real Indians is guilty of a Federal crime punishable by five years in prison and a quarter-million dollar fine. The Wall Street Journal observed that "Mind you, authentic Indian art means art by authentic Indians, not art that authentically draws on Indian heritage. A cubist nude reclining in the Bois de Boulogne painted by a Navajo counts as Indian art; an impeccably Navajo blanket woven by a Frenchman doesn't."[8]

The mass media, of course, is breathlessly ready to not only report on, but to participate in, such acts of useless stupidity.

In their mad rush to avoid offense to anyone but White males and Christians, some of these media outlets and government agencies commit just plain dumb policies and then doggedly defend them in the face of ridicule.

The Oregonian [Portland, Oregon] and several other major-city newspapers have sports sections that do not use the team names "Indians," "Braves," "Chiefs," or "Redskins," considering them to be derogatory and discriminatory. Instead, for example, the papers clumsily refer to "The professional baseball team from Atlanta" in their writeups.

The silliness does not end there. Cristobal Colon was selected to be Grand Marshal of the 103rd Tournament of Roses Parade in Pasadena, California on January 1, 1992. American Indians objected strenuously, because Colon happens to be the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great- great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson of that alleged colonialist and purveyor of genocide, Christopher Columbus.

It did not matter to the Neoliberals that many of their own people were probably numbered among the tens of thousands of Columbus' descendants; all that mattered to them was making a show of force.

And these, remember, are the people who preach nonjudgmentalism and the policy of 'forgive and forget.'

And, of course, the politicos have gotten into the act with their neverending pandering for favor. Perhaps the most extreme example of silliness was provided by ultraliberal Washington State governor Mike Lowry who, after his January 1993 swearing-in ceremony, refused to refer to his Chief of Staff as such, because American Indians might be offended. Instead, proclaimed Lowry, this person would be officially referred to as his "Staff Director."

You Teach the Right Thing, Baby!

As described in Chapter 114 of Volume III, "Homeschooling," the Neoliberals have admitted many times that their agendas cannot advance unless they have complete control of the public school system. Therefore, any criticism of Neoliberal thought and especially of Neoliberal heroes that is offered in our schools must be vigilantly and ruthlessly crushed.

Karen J. Collins, a music teacher in a Washington, DC high school, found this out the hard way. She was displeased at being compelled to help celebrate Martin Luther King day because she had read some very uncomplimentary things about him.

Some students overheard her telling a fellow teacher (who happened to be Black) her opinion of King, and these students squealed on her. Collins was immediately fired from her job as a teacher and was forced to attend the school system's "re-education course in human-relations sensitivity" before she was allowed to be transferred to some other job that presented no opportunity for her to communicate her allegedly "radical and dangerous views" to her impressionable students.[9]

The Impact of Music.

Music is another arena in which the Neoliberal racial hierarchy operates quite efficiently. Music makes us feel romantic; it inspires patriotic fervor in us; it makes us feel happy or sad; and yet, some Neoliberals stupidly insist that it cannot compel unbalanced teenagers to think seriously about committing suicide or rape!

Try these excerpts from 2 Live Crew's 1990 album, "As Nasty As They Wanna Be;"

To have her walkin' funny we try to abuse it,
. . . 
it makes you puke ...

The album included the words "b_tch" and "f_ck" more than 200 times. Yet this sloppy, badly-played dirt was stridently defended by Neoliberals as "representative of Black culture."[10] The New York Times editorialized that "The history of music is the story of innovative, even outrageous styles that interacted, adapted, and became mainstream."

How true! When a gang of Black teenagers went "wilding" in Central Park in April 1989, they raped a jogger and beat her with clubs and bricks for the pure joy of it. Said one defendant, "It was something to do. It was fun."

The same people who complain about this kind of violence applaud and defend 2 Live Crew's 'rap music' as "provocative," "challenging," "controversial," "outrageous," and "explicit." Many of the group's anarchistic fellow 'artists' who had not even thought about the issue bleated their obligatory knee-jerk 'victimhood' slogans. Sinead O'Connor, for example, grumbled that "I have immense admiration for 2 Live Crew. I think that what they've been subjected to is disgraceful, utter racism."[11]

And then the Neoliberals scratch their collective head and wonder why 'wilding' happens...

Compare 2 Live Crew's lyrics to Andrew Dice Clay's semi-famous nursery-rhyme routine, spouted at almost all of his "performances;"[12]

. . . 

This obscene garbage is virtually identical in its content to the lyrics of 2 Live Crew shown above. Yet 2 Live Crew is defended and the "Diceman" is condemned. He has been declared persona non grata by several television shows and numerous media stars. Entire city councils have unanimously condemned him and urged ticketholders to turn in their tickets at their own expense. Yet these same city councils welcome 2 Live Crew. Why the difference in treatment?

The difference, of course, is that Andrew Dice Clay is White, and therefore not a member of a certified victim group.

"Slimy Jews" and Neoliberals.

Persons who possess a high rank in one social hierarchy can usually attack people of high standing in a different social hierarchy with a relative degree of impunity.

Leroi Jones (now Amiri Baraka) wrote in 1967 that;

We want poems like fists beating niggers out of Jocks of dagger poems in the slimy bellies of the owner-Jews; Look at the Liberal Spokesman for the Jews Clutch his throat and puke himself into eternity; Another bad poem cracking steel knuckles in a Jewlady's mouth.

If a White conservative had written such gibberish, he or she would be permanently banned from public discourse on any subject whatsoever.

So what was Jones (Baraka)'s punishment? He is now a full professor and Chairman of Afro-American Studies at the StonyBrook Campus of the prestigious State University of New York.

Jones (Baraka) is by no means the only Black Jew-baiter around. Prominent Black personality Steve Cokely made the atrocious allegation that "The AIDS epidemic is a result of doctors, especially Jewish ones, who inject AIDS into Blacks." He was backed up by Louis Farrakhan, who defended this statement by saying that Jews didn't like it because "the truth hurts."[13]

In another incident, City University of New York (CUNY) professor Leonard Jeffries said in an Albany speech that

There was a conspiracy planned and plotted and programmed out of Hollywood, with people named Greenberg and Weisberg and Triglani and whatnot. Russian Jewry had control over the movies, and their financial partners, the Mafia, put together a system of destruction for the Black people.[14]

Yakub's "White Devils." Susan Sontag has written that "The white race is the cancer of history." And Black Muslim Elijah Muhammad revealed with a flourish and trumpets that Whites are devils invented by a mad scientist named Yakub.[15]

Anyone (i.e., American Nazis) who utters such silliness directed against Blacks is instantly attacked by the formidable media machine and the full weight of the court system.

Hooks Steps On It.

After Bernard Goetz had gunned down four Black thugs who had threatened him on a New York subway, Benjamin Hooks of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) complained that "[New York] is the place where a white man riding on a subway became a folk hero after he gunned down four young Black men because he did not like the way they looked and acted."[16]

Hooks conveniently chose to omit a few minor but very pertinent details that Black jurors voted with White jurors to acquit Goetz; that all four of the youths that accosted him had criminal records, and that three of them were carrying sharpened screwdrivers, the weapon of choice for punks who want to avoid stiffer penalties associated with carrying handguns; that three of the four would subsequently commit serious crimes within a year of the Goetz incident; and that several polls showed that the majority of New York Blacks supported Goetz, not his assailants.

In 1979, the same Benjamin Hooks had teamed up with Julian Bond and Joseph Lowery, head of Martin Luther King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference, to head a delegation to Libya. While Muammar Gaddhafi's propaganda cameras ground away, they bestowed upon the mega-terrorist an award of appreciation that they claimed was from all American Blacks grandly entitled "The Decoration of Martin Luther King."[17]

Coddling Through "Race Norming."

The implications of racial identity may seem theoretical, but they have concrete meaning for thousands of people. Those seeking Federal and state jobs have frequently been turned down in favor of less-qualified applicants, and may want to know why this is so.

"Race norming" is one way that governments are trying to make up for their past "transgressions" against certified victim groups. Under this system, applicants are measured against other members of their own racial group, not against applicants as a whole. Therefore, a White or Asian-American person who achieves a raw score of 300 on a particular test would rank in the 47th percentile, and a Black or Hispanic who scores the identical 300 would be ranked in the 87th percentile.[18]

In other words, this hiring system (and many others) reward mediocrity, cause demotivation in self-starters, and contribute to overall inefficiency in the government. The color of one's skin has become much more important than qualifications or competence.

Isn't this the kind of abuse that "equal opportunity" was supposed to eradicate?

On Interracial Crimes.

One myth that is relentlessly milked by Neoliberals is that of a "tide of White-on-Black, racially-motivated crime." The impression that is being striven for here, of course, is that there are tens of thousands of Whites 'out there' whose latent racism frequently explodes into violent crime against Blacks. Simple robbery and assault, claim the Neolibs, are a varieties of true "hate crimes" if Whites commit them against Blacks. Black-on-White crime, of course, is just "disadvantaged minorities taking out their frustrations against an inherently racist system."

William Wilbanks, Florida International University Professor of Criminal Justice and author of the book The Myth of a Racist Criminal Justice System, exploded this fairy tale when he found that

There is interracial violence in America. In 1985, 629,000 interracial crimes where reported (where victims survived to identify the criminal); but nine out of ten were committed by Blacks against Whites. Where White criminals, 98 percent of the time, prey on other Whites — to rape, rob, and assault — Black criminals chose fellow Blacks as victims less than half the time. Black criminals seem to prefer attacking White people. While only 2 percent of the victims chosen by White criminals are Black, more than 50 percent of the victims targeted by Black criminals — to rape, rob and assault — are White.

An analysis of these statistics reveals some fascinating comparisons. The United States population is currently 13 percent Black and 75 percent White. If 90 percent of all interracial crime is committed by Blacks against Whites, this means that Blacks are (0.90/(0.13)/(0.10/0.75) = 52 times more likely to attack Whites than vice-versa.

The reason this statistic is never heard is that anyone who dares to mention it will instantly earn the brands "racist" and "bigot." This is why the impression given by the news media is that most "racially-motivated" crimes are of Whites against Blacks, and, indeed, all of the major racially-biased crimes reported on by the media and commented on by "civil rights leaders" are White-on-Black.

The Implications of Sexual Identity.

Gettin' Over.

Homosexuals can ruthlessly stereotype and ridicule 'straights,' and it is considered justifiable because, after all, heterosexuals are guilty of "AIDS genocide." But let a straight comedian like the Diceman make fun of homosexuals, and MTV bans him for life.

Under this system, when a "straight" calls a homosexual a "queer" or "faggot," he is prosecuted because he has committed a Federally-classified "hate crime." However, when homosexuals attack St. Patrick's Cathedral, assault its parishioners, and desecrate the consecrated Host, they are, according to local politicians, merely "expressing justifiable outrage." And they are sentenced to a few hours of community service (that they naturally never perform) by a "judge" who compares them to Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

Advantage to the Sodomites.

Homosexual activists recognize the great power of their victim status. No longer is the battle cry "AIDS is our strength!" a mystery to normal people. As homosexual activists Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill have said,

Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers. In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector ... jaunty mustachioed musclemen would keep a very low profile in gay commercials and other public presentations, while sympathetic figures of nice young people, old people, and attractive women would be featured (it goes without saying that groups on the farthest margin of acceptability, such as NAMBLA [the North American Man-Boy Love Association], must play no part at all in such a campaign:

Suspected child-molesters will never look like victims.

Now, there are two different messages about the Gay Victim that are worth communicating. First, the mainstream should be told that gays are victims of fate, in the sense that most never had a choice to accept or reject their sexual preference. The message must read: "As far as gays can tell, they were born gay, just as you were born heterosexual or white or black or bright or athletic ... they are not morally blameworthy.

"Straight viewers must be able to identify with gays as victims ... To this end, the persons featured in the public campaign should be decent and upright, appealing and admirable by straight standards ... spokesmen for our cause must be R-type "straight gays" rather than Q-type "homosexuals on display" ...[1]

Notice the extraordinary similarity to the tactics used by the Neofeminist movement. Neatly tailored women attorneys are the storm troopers who have made all the pro-abortion gains in court. The Neofeminists complain that they are the victims of "misogyny," and that any person who opposes their agenda simply hates all women.

Under the 'old' sexual hierarchy, homosexual members of Congress remained rigidly 'closeted,' because the mere suspicion of sexual perversion led to censure and probable loss of office. Under the 'new' hierarchy, Congressman Gerry Studds can run a homosexual prostitution ring out of his home, and the Ethics Committee and his constituency both look the other way.

Imagine what would happen if Senator Jesse Helms merely visited a whorehouse; he would be thrown out of office the same day!

A Phony "Threefer:" Azalea Cooley.

In the Fall of 1992, Oregonians witnessed perhaps the most vicious political campaign ever waged in this country. The Oregon Citizens Alliance, a conservative group opposing special rights for homosexuals, placed a ballot measure before the people which would declare homosexuality "abnormal and perverse."

The reaction to this ballot measure was wholly predictable: Almost every political, religious, fraternal, and business organization in the State of Oregon condemned the measure as "hateful," "bigoted," "ignorant," "mean-spirited," and every other nasty adjective in the book. Vandalism, death threats, and slander were typical tactics used by those opposing the ballot measure.

One of the most powerful tools used by the homophiles was the allegation that "hate crimes" were on the increase as a direct result of Ballot Measure 9. The "No On Hate" Campaign claimed that the ballot measure had led to a 23% increase in hate crimes in the single year between 1991 and 1992.[19]

The most powerful spokesperson for the "No on Hate" Campaign emerged in the person of crippled Black lesbian Azalea Cooley, a "triple victim" in the eyes of the sodomites. Cooley made dozens of speeches before large crowds, displaying prominently a foam board listing all of the more than twenty "hate crimes" that had been directed towards her, including death threats, cross burnings, vandalism, and the like.

The day before the 1992 elections, a police surveillance team filmed Cooley stepping past her wheelchair, walking into her front yard, and setting up a cross for burning. Less than two weeks later, Cooley not only admitted to staging all of the hate crimes herself, but confessed that she was not really crippled after all. Her wheelchair was just a prop. She had shaved her head to make it look like her hair had all fallen out as a result of chemotherapy for alleged brain cancer. The seizures that conveniently gripped her whenever someone asked her questions that she did not like were faked.

She then clumsily (and ineffectively) attempted suicide in order to try to get even more sympathy and claimed that she was "just sick and looking for attention." Finally (apparently secure in the belief that Oregonians have IQs two points above broccoli) she strongly asserted that her activities had no political purpose whatsoever![19] Cooley had conveniently forgotten that she had blamed the more than 20 ersatz "hate crimes" directed at her on a "growing air of intolerance fueled partly by Measure 9."[20]

Even after these revelations, the homosexuals did not disavow Cooley's activities they expressed sympathy towards her instead and staged the usual outpouring of phony emotion so that they would look good to the public. Predictably, there was absolutely no condemnation from the press.

If an Oregon Citizens Alliance member had staged such hate crimes, not only wouldn't the press have cared, they would have probably called for a jail term if he had been caught in the process.

Rooney's "Blooper." 

For anti-lifers, the treasured victim status is much more than a ceremonial title. It is a formidable weapon that allows "victims" to use brute force in order to accomplish objectives by simply sidestepping the usual social "rules of play." In other words, "victims" see life as TEGWAR The Exciting Game Without Any Rules. And those people who are unfortunate enough to get in the way are simply crushed.

Radio personality Andy Rooney found out firsthand that the rights of free speech and association have been discarded in favor of politically correct (P.C.) views.

In 1990, Rooney had the audacity to suggest that homosex and cigarette smoking might be unhealthy. After outraged sodomites attacked him on every available public front, The Wall Street Journal noted its disapproval of this new brand of McCarthyism as it editorialized that "Certain offenses, those of racism and homophobia in particular, now have such status that it is necessary only to be accused of them to be found guilty or at least irremediably tainted ... Today, the universities and the academies are the main perpetrators of thought control and repression places where even small deviations from the established orthodoxies on women, homosexuality or race bring instant retribution and threats to job security."[21]

Naturally, if a Neoliberal favorite makes a truly racist statement, he is excused by his peers for having suffered "just an uncharacteristic slip of the tongue" or "a momentary lapse in judgment." In 1982, CBS correspondent Mike Wallace, who has relentlessly ridiculed conservative beliefs, commented on the difficulty Blacks and Hispanics had in understanding complex sales contracts. Wallace said that "You bet your _ss they [the contracts] are hard to read ... if you're reading them over watermelon and tacos."[22]

Not a murmur was heard from Neoliberal groups or from Wallace's fellow journalists after this grossly racist statement. Contrast this to the treatment that Rooney received, and the Neoliberal double-standard is highlighted once again.

Religious Beliefs Mean Nothing.

In a classic confrontation between an official "oppressor" and an official "victim class," Georgetown University, a Catholic college, was forced by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to grant privileges to a homosexual campus organization. Nan Hunter of the Lesbian and Gay Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union hailed the ruling as "a milestone."[23]

What this ruling means is that a special interest group may bring the power of the State to bear on a private, non-Federally funded religious college to accept a group whose very purpose is to advocate practices that are anathema to the religion of the college itself.

Movin' Out at the University of Wisconsin.

Ann Hacklander, Maureen Reed, and Cari Sprague were roommates at a Madison, Wisconsin apartment. When Sprague informed her roommates that she was homosexual, they gently asked her to leave. They did not throw her out; they did not threaten her; they merely asked her if she would mind finding somewhere else to live.

In retaliation for this "offense," Sprague immediately filed a grievance with the local Equal Opportunity Commission, which hauled Reed and Hacklander in and grilled them for two hours, reducing them to tears. Reed and Hacklander were threatened with legal action and were finally pressured into accepting a four-year agreement that forced them to; (1) pay Sprague $1,500 in unspecified "damages;" (2) write her an "acceptable" (i.e., suitably groveling) letter of apology; (3) attend "sensitivity training sessions" conducted by homosexuals, and (4) have the Commission monitor their housing arrangements for two years (presumably to force them to be exposed to other homosexual roommates).[24]

To put this in perspective, imagine what would have happened if two homosexual roommates had asked a "straight" to leave.

The answer, of course, is "absolutely nothing."

Eradicating 'Homophobia' the Neoliberal Way.

The University of Wisconsin is certainly not alone in its supersensitivity to alleged offenses against homosexuals. More than 70 percent of this country's colleges and universities now possess codes of conduct that ban behavior and speech based upon racism, sexism, and, many times, "homophobia."

The danger that these codes represent to the free discussion of ideas far outweighs their usefulness. This has already been demonstrated, because several colleges have severely punished students for merely wanting to debate the topic of homosexuality.

A student at the University of Michigan expressed his opinion that homosexuality was a disease and announced his intention to establish a counseling program to help homosexuals leave that lifestyle. He was dragged before a panel of university administrators, unanimously found guilty of "sexual harassment," and was dismissed from the university.

And a Yale student met the same fate after he merely posted a notice of a debate about whether or not the CIA's policy of discriminating against homosexuals was legitimate.[25]

Political science professor Jean Betheke Elshtain, while highlighting the dangers presented by codes against racism, also points out the difficulties associated with all punitive codes of this nature; "My hunch is that, over the long haul, the upshot of such endeavors [college speech codes] will not be a purified, racist-free, collective student consciousness, but a simmering backlog of resentment at being labeled as a racist, even if one has never committed a racist act or uttered a racist slur."[26]

As the American Civil Liberties Union commonly asserts, if unpopular ideas are banned today, the more popular ones will inevitably be banned in the future.

You Ain't Gonna Believe This One ...

Since homosexuals possess not the slightest vestige of self-control, they automatically push the limits of their "victim status" to the extreme with antics that would be hilariously funny if they were not so incredibly pitiable.

Even transvestites ("cross-dressers" in PC parlance), are going mainstream, riding the 'dresstails' of other homosexuals who have "got it made."

What must normal people think when hundreds of TVs descend upon their towns for major conventions such as the one held by "BE ALL" at the Pittsburgh Hotel Sheraton from June 6 to June 10, 1990, and by The Tiffany Club of New England at the exclusive Boatslip Beach Club of Provincetown, Massachusetts, from May 29 to June 4, 1990? These gatherings attract hundreds of TVs and feature workshops, manicurists, hairdressers, makeup artists, and clothiers specializing in making women's clothes that fit men's bodies. There are also "Big Sister" programs where experienced TVs help out new ones.[27]

'Mainstream' sodomite publications often discuss the unique difficulties experienced by transvestites, such as covering over five-o'clock shadow and (this is not a joke, although it should be) how the members of a transvestite water-skiing club can keep their wigs on and prevent them from sinking to the bottom of the river if they do come off!

What Happens When They Get Their Way.

What happens when "gay rights" laws pass? What happens when sodomites have free rein?

A few examples are described below.

• Local 706, Hair and Stylist Union, of North Hollywood, California, has a confirmed official policy of not admitting anyone to the union unless they are practicing homosexuals. Of course, no normal person would want to be part of a group of perverted hair teasers, but if they did take leave of their senses and apply, they would be rejected because they were not sex perverts. Attorneys confirmed that there would be no penalty for such reverse discrimination.[28]

• Anglican Bishop Alexander Muge was barred from preaching in a church in his own denomination in Walnut Creek, California, because he dared to mention a passage from Leviticus and had the audacity to preach against sodomy.[29]

• The Minneapolis Civil Rights Commission fined the Catholic Archdiocese of Minneapolis-St. Paul $35,000 for violating a municipal "gay rights" ordinance when it expelled the pro-sodomy group Dignity from its Campus Ministry Newman Center. $20,000 of this money went directly to Dignity and $15,000 to the city, a tidy little arrangement with not a little conflict of interest.[28]

The Escalated "War of the Sexes."

Naturally, one of the most basic "victim classes" is actually a slight majority females. And many of these women join exceptionally obnoxious organizations whose sole purpose seems to be demanding special treatment.

Chapter 129 of Volume III, "Neofeminism," describes some of the tactics that these far-left Feminazis use in their attempts to replace one 'sexist' system with one that is just as sexist. In their constant push to overthrow the "patriarchy," these women have redefined the word "shrill."

Keith Stimely, a frequently-obscene speaker who revels in lambasting both Neoliberal and conservative activists, paints a comical, vivid and accurate picture of the fevered and 'victimized' Neofeminist world;

You've seen the section in bookstores Women's Studies, a jumble of man-hating novels and essays; lesbian propaganda disguised as clinical research into straight sex lives; the hairy-legged tracts of the so-called "white witches;" coy celebrations of menstruation and other uterine mysteries; spurious archeology fabricating a golden, peaceful age of matriarchy; and, most alarmingly, violent screeds screaming for male gendercide. Very few males blunder into this "pedagogy of the oppressed." Fewer still actually ingest the suffocatingly righteous blithering.

Not that they're invited to. Women's Studies are the studies of women by women for women, a gender-exclusive club appropriating the wardrobe of third world-style rhetoric. This is the language of the victim, a screeching vocabulary of complaint and revolt against the despotic tyranny of men. Males, being despots, are not welcome to enter into dialogue with the Women's Studies club unless they check their testosterone at the door, guiltily accept the "bad guy" onus, and cluck their tongues against the miscreants of their own gender who stubbornly deny female superiority. These dejuiced males can be viewed to best advantage in college towns, their concave chests cuddling the bastard offspring of Birkenstock-clad mates who are busy passing out petitions for the removal of Penthouse from convenience stores ...[29]

The Implications of Religious Identity.

The Overall Imbalance.

The "victim status" as it now exists allows Neoliberals to attack or assault conservative Catholic, fundamentalist, and Jewish churches with impunity. However, counterattacks or even vigorous defense against such tactics are labeled "intolerant" and a "violation of the separation of church and state."

Therefore, anti-theists can aggressively attack Christians and Christianity through the media and the arts (i.e., the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence and a crucifix submerged in urine) under the guise of free speech. However, if Christians react and counterattack by attempting to defund the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), their actions are immediately condemned by the Neoliberal media.

Homosexuals and pro-abortionists, who have learned to manipulate the victim status and the media expertly, can literally get away with any kind of physical attack or slander against Catholics and fundamentalists in particular. Brief descriptions of a few examples of this unjust persecution follow.

Attack On a Cathedral.

Homosexuals and pro-abortionists belonging to the groups ACT-UP (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power) and WHAM (Women's Health Action Mobilization) stormed New York's St. Patrick's Cathedral on December 10, 1989, assaulted parishioners, screamed curses, and desecrated the consecrated Host by throwing It on the ground and stamping on It. Outside, hundreds of screaming sodomites burned Cardinal O'Connor in effigy and attacked passersby, all because the Cardinal had refused to toe their immoral "safe sex" line.[30]

After the invasion of St. Patrick's cathedral, ACT-UP issued a press statement saying that its cause was "important enough [to allow us] to invade any space, to disrupt any speech."

The organizers of the sacrilege the self-proclaimed "Safe Sex Six" were sentenced by Manhattan Criminal Court Judge Jo Ann Ferdinand to from 75 to 100 hours of community service. She refused to imprison or fine them, saying that she "admired their commitment," and compared them to Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, a comparison that Ray Kerrison of the New York Post found "... so utterly bizarre that is besmirches the memory of two genuine historic figures."[31]

In December of 1990, in defiance of a court order resulting from the attack one year earlier, sodomites broke into the Mass once again and made off with consecrated Hosts, which they gleefully displayed and desecrated outside.[32]

Religious Intolerance.

In 1989 and 1990, homosexuals waged a continuing war of vandalism and outright destruction against Catholic churches in Los Angeles. Sodomite attackers calling themselves "Greater Religious Responsibility" claimed responsibility for vicious attacks against Archbishop Roger Mahony, calling him a "murderer" for opposing their "safe sex" programs and for labeling the use of condoms "immoral."[33]

They attacked the Cathedral of St. Mary of the Assumption in Los Angeles, desecrating it with bloody-red hand prints and pornographic photographs of perverted sex acts plastered on the windows.[34] Additionally, ACT-UP posters were pasted everywhere.

At St. Catherine's, they nailed a ten-foot cross festooned with plastic penises and used condoms to the church door. They smeared the chancery with animal blood and entrails that appeared to be the products of Satanic sacrifices.

At the traditional Christmas Day 1990 Mass at St. Mary's in Washington, D.C., ACT-UP and other sodomite groups invaded the church, destroyed candle stands, assaulted parishioners, and noisily shouted and waved obscene placards.[35]

One of the favorite tactics of these violent sodomite groups is to invade ordination Masses, surround the newly-ordained priests, and pelt them with condoms.[32]

Homosexual author Michael Swift claims that sodomites are "masters of wit and ridicule."

Take for example the "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence," a self-described "order of gay male nuns" whose vows are to "expiate stigmatic guilt and promulgate universal joy."

These sodomites dress up as Catholic nuns, and "rebaptize" themselves with such names as Sister Homocycle Motorsexual; Sister Sleaze Du Jour; Sister Florence Nightmare, R.N.; Sister Boom Boom; Sister Mad, Power-Hungry B_tch; Sister Missionary Position; Sister Chanel 2001; Sister Sadie Sadie the Rabbi Lady; Sister Helen Damnation; Sister Opiate of the Masses; Sister Atrociata von Tasteless; Sister Exposia; and Sister Perpetually Pruretic Prostate.[36]

When Pope John Paul II visited San Francisco in 1987, the "Sisters" "canonized" Harvey Milk, the murdered homosexual city supervisor, and then conducted a parody of the Roman Catholic Mass. They handed out foil-wrapped condoms at "communion," and referred to them as "our holy savior," who was to "vouchsafe the safety of our sexual play." The enthusiastic "congregation" was then instructed to inflate the condoms with "the guilt and shame organized religion has foisted" on them, and then pop them.

The "ministries" of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence include "blessing" venereal disease clinics and assuring everyone that having VD is "nothing to be worried or ashamed about;" passing out buttons that say "YOU DESERVE A F_CK TODAY;" and distributing "Perpetually Indulgent Rainchecks" which promise, among other things, "a fabulous b___job," "prolonged t__work," "a scrumptious scat scene," and "a f_ck you won't forget."[36]

For anyone who is morbidly fascinated by the revolting practices of sodomites, a "scat scene" involves sodomites defecating on each other and then smearing the feces all over their bodies and rolling in it like dogs.

Oppose Us and Die!

In 1989, Dr. Chuck McIlhenny, pastor of San Francisco's First Orthodox Presbyterian Church, exercised his Constitutional rights of free speech and assembly and helped engineer the defeat of a domestic partnership law that would have forced the public to accept homosexual immorality by compelling everyone to treat two sodomites as a family.

McIlhenny and his family soon became the focus of intense and vicious sodomite hate. For three years, they received thousands of threatening and harassing phone calls 24 hours a day, and many callers swore to sodomize and then kill the McIlhenny's three daughters.[37]

His home and church were firebombed. In 1990, sodomite groups repeatedly vandalized the church and home with graffiti like "Dykes for Choice," and attacked the crisis pregnancy center housed in the church. Cowardly, skulking sodomites broke the church's windows so many times the parishioners boarded them up permanently.[37]

The Conclusion.

The "victim status" has allowed our society to devolve to the point where merely muttering "fag" in the presence of a drag queen is a Federal hate crime, but sodomite attacks upon churches as described above are not only tolerated but even encouraged by some government agencies.

Meanwhile, the full force of the Federal and state governments is arrayed against neo-Nazis who primarily march in the streets and hold mini-conventions. It is interesting to speculate as to what would happen to these neo-Nazi groups if they assembled their members by the thousand and began to physically attack Jewish synagogues.

This little exercise in logic leads one to question the now-obsolete slogan "equal justice for all."

The Implications of Political Identity.

One does not have to be an experienced political operator to recognize the great disadvantages under which conservative politicians labor. The fights over the Supreme Court nominations of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas highlighted this fact. The mass media also treat conservative politicians like Henry Hyde, William Dannemeyer, and Jesse Helms atrociously.

And, of course, those politicians who support the anti-life agenda can get away with actual murder. For example, in 1987, a waitress literally stumbled upon Senator Ted Kennedy (D.-olt) having sexual intercourse with a woman on the floor of a private dining room at La Brasserie, a popular Washington restaurant.[38]

Kennedy's staff, used to covering up for their boss, pressured the restaurant owner into threatening his staff with termination if they spoke a word about the incident to reporters. Kennedy naturally refused to discuss the incident just as he had refused to discuss his killing of Mary Jo Kopechne at Chappaquiddick.

And this was the same person who stated that Robert Bork was morally unfit to sit upon the United States Supreme Court! Kennedy claimed that "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens."[39]

Kennedy has fashioned a career out of being blatantly inconsistent and has been getting away with it, purely because he is a rich Neoliberal 'champion'. For instance, he is one of the Senate's strongest advocates of stringent gun control laws, but he became incoherently angry when one of his bodyguards was arrested inside a Senate office building for carrying two submachine guns, a pistol, and 146 rounds of ammunition.[40]

Bogus "Hate Crimes."

Introduction.

Anyone who has an atom of common sense realizes that the many classes of "victims" that are afflicting this country could not possibly be as oppressed as they claim. After all, how many people know real "haters" those who terrorize and assault people just because they are Black, Jewish, or homosexual?

True "hate crimes" are, in reality, extremely rare.

Hate Crime Statistics.

Perhaps the most common lament of the garden-variety homosexual revolves around the alleged "tidal wave" of "anti-gay" hate crimes that are occurring in this country.

The press obediently trumpets the claim that "hate crimes against gays" are increasing at the astronomical rate of 20 percent (30 percent, 50 percent, pick a number) each year, and this is supposed to galvanize progressive "straights" into taking action to protect their persecuted brethren.

If the media and progressives would take the time to check the figures, they would find that the reality surrounding "hate crimes" is far different than what the homopropagandists would like us to believe.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) statistics show that there were 4,558 documented hate crimes in 1991 nationwide. However, only 2,771 of the 16,100 law enforcement agencies participating in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports program reported such crimes. Therefore, the number of hate crimes actually committed in this country is probably closer to the number that would result if all law enforcement agencies reported, i.e., (16,100/2, 771) X 4,558 = 26,500.

Using the FBI's ratios, all hate crimes would be broken out by category as shown below.

NATIONAL BREAKDOWN OF HATE/BIAS CRIMES IN 1991

Type of Crime                                          Number

Anti-Black                                                 9,275 (35%)
Anti-White                                                 5,035 (19%)
Other anti-ethnic                                        2,120 (8%)
Religious bias                                             5,035 (19%)
Anti-homosexual                                        1,590 (6%)
Anti-heterosexual                                       795 (3%)
Other hate/bias crimes                                2,650 (10%)
Total Hate Crimes                                      26,500

Reference. "Hatred By the Numbers." The Oregonian, January 11, 1993, page B6.

There are several fascinating conclusions that can be drawn from these numbers, as shown below.

(1) Only Two Percent of Homosexuals Are Ever Victims of Hate Crimes. Sodomite propagandists claim that ten percent of the American population is homosexual. Accepting the homosexual claim that only one-quarter of all bias crimes against homosexuals are reported, this means that the probability of any particular homosexual becoming victimized by a reported or unreported bias crime in any one year is (1,590 X 4)/(25.5 million) = one in 4,000. The chances of a homosexual living his entire 75-year lifespan without being victimized by a bias crime are therefore 98 percent. In other words, only one in 50 homosexuals is ever a victim of a bias crime!

(2) Anti-Religious Hate Crimes Are More Prevalent. The above figures show that there are more than three times as many hate crimes committed against people because of their religion than there are due to anti-homosexual bias. Many of these 'hate crimes' are committed by the sodomites themselves the most obvious example being repeated violent sodomite attacks on New York's St. Patricks Cathedral, as described later in this chapter.

(3) Homosexuals Commit More Hate Crimes. As shown above, six percent of bias crimes are committed against homosexuals, and three percent of bias crimes are committed against heterosexuals. Crimes by homosexuals against homosexuals and crimes by heterosexuals against heterosexuals are not officially classified as bias crimes. Accepting the homosexual claim that "ten percent of the American population is gay," this means that homosexuals are (3%/10%)/(6%/90%) = 4.5 times more likely to commit a hate crime against a normal person than vice-versa.

(4) Victim Ratios. The United States population in 1991 was about 255 million. 13.3 percent of our nation is Black, or about 34 million, and 75 percent of the population (about 192 million) is White.[41] The homosexual propagandists claim 10 percent, or 25.5 million.

This means that Black people are (0.35/34)/ (0.06/25.5) = 4.4 times more likely to be victims of hate crimes in any one year than are homosexuals.

Examples of Bogus Hate Crimes.

Laird Wilcox, in his Hoaxer Project Report, documents more than 100 cases of faked "hate crimes" committed by members of certified racial, sexual, and religious "victim groups."

A very few examples are listed below.

• According to the December 10, 1987 issue of the Los Angeles Times, veteran pro-abortion activist and sodomite Frank Mendiola called in numerous bomb threats to clinics, abortionists, and even his own home so that "... you people, the media, will come down with a harder line on those people who are harassing the clinics."[42]

Pro-aborts packed the courtroom in Mendiola's support. Many members of the "Committee for Reproductive Rights" appeared at his trial, and Sherna Gluck of the CRR said that "Clearly, the whole thing is very sad. I just feel very badly for him. He is a very fine person, and I guess the worst one can say is he is just confused. I'm sure it was [done] with the very best of intentions."[42]

Mendiola had been very much in demand at pro-abortion rallies, where he would read his letter written to President Reagan about how his sister "Rose Elizabeth" died from a botched illegal abortion. Mendiola sobbed about how "She bled to death on a kitchen table. Yes, Mr. President, on a kitchen table." This story was proven to be a complete lie when investigators discovered that Mendiola had no sisters!

Mendiola's bogus story helps to call into question all of the other pro-abortion propaganda stories of women who died of illegal abortions before the procedure was legalized. It is estimated that at least 95 percent of these "Silent No More" stories are complete fabrications, as proven in Chapter 59 of Volume II, "Maternal Deaths Due to Abortion."

• On the cover of its March 1985 ADL Bulletin, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith prominently featured a photograph entitled "Desecration of a Jewish home in Kings Point, NY." The photo, which showed a large Swastika on a door, was an obvious fake. Even looking at the magazine, it was clear that the Swastika had been scrawled on the photograph, not the door. This fact must have also been even more plain to the people who put the magazine together. The ADL compiles its own "hate crime" statistics by mailing questionnaires to its subscribers, an obvious attempt to take advantage of the gross overestimates that would be caused by self-selection. The ADL also has a very wide definition of what a "hate crime" is: Even pro-Palestinian graffiti is considered to fall in this category.[43]

• Terence Weaver of Kansas City was caught in the act of defacing an art museum with racist and anti-Semitic graffiti. Weaver was subsequently revealed to be an anti-racist who had talked openly of luring a large group of neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klansmen into a building and then blowing them up.[43]

• At Ohio Dominican College in Columbus, Ohio, White student Michael A. Smith was arrested for sending 13 threatening letters to Black students and faculty. Forensic investigators discovered that Janice D. Hamlet, a Black teacher at the school, had mailed the letters because something that Smith had written in a term paper had "outraged" her. She was charged with felony counts of ethnic intimidation, but was allowed to attend Kent State University to complete a Ph.D.[43]

• The New York offices of the radical sodomite group ACT-UP (AIDS Contracted Through Unspeakable Perversions) was vandalized and set on fire in 1990, and $90,000 in damage was caused. The arsonist merely set archives on fire while ignoring all of the valuables and computer equipment in the room. Fire Marshall Dan Brown said that "It doesn't make sense." There was no forced entry and the only people who had keys to the building were six ACT-UP members. Brown noted that the arsonist had carefully locked the door with a key on his way out.[43]

Interesting Points.

There are several characteristics that tend to indicate a faked "hate crime;"

• Strangely, most of these incidents seem to happen when important and relevant political action of some sort is in process: Initiative referendums or votes in the state legislatures, for instance.

• Most bogus hate crimes are perpetrated on college campuses, where sensitivity classes are often mandatory, and where awareness of the "victim status" is higher than anywhere else in fact, approaching the obsessive. In those neighborhoods where Whites and Blacks live together, or where there is a large Jewish population, racist and anti-Semitic graffiti and vandalism is much rarer.

• It is important to note that authentic racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-homosexual graffiti, vandalism, and hate crimes are recognized as being counterproductive by authentic racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-"gay rights" organizations. The result of such actions is invariably outrage and action by the community, including universal condemnation of all groups that may have perpetrated the acts. In fact, police experience has shown that most of those people who really hate Jews, Blacks, and sodomites will perpetrate their crimes as anonymously as possible, and will forego painting or otherwise leaving symbols and messages at the scenes of the crime.

• One curious aspect of almost all bogus "hate crimes" committed by Neoliberals is that there is no condemnation of the perpetrator; instead, he or she is acknowledged to be "even more of a victim," and anyone who dares criticize the hoaxer is immediately labeled "insensitive."

The Hierarchies: Conclusion.

People get depressed when they are blocked in some basic way. When they are unable to do something or say something that's on their minds. In your case, you Americans have become one of the most repressed, suppressed people on earth regarding what you can and cannot say, and this is depressing you, I believe.

                                                 French psychiatrist vacationing in the United States.[44]

The four 'old' social hierarchies were rotten and riddled with injustice. It was precisely these injustices that led men and women of good will to rise up and take positive action.

But some people never learn that a system inherently biased against certain classes of beliefs is exactly as unjust as a system that is biased against other beliefs. Now that we have completely inverted our societal "pecking orders," religious and conservative viewpoints are ridiculed, parodied, censored, and downgraded by the media, the 'intelligentsia,' and those who wish to be socially correct. We simply have the same old injustices all over again, but this time with reversed polarities.

And so, men and women of good will are inevitably rising up once again.

Using Victimhood As a Weapon At Colleges.

Stamping Out the "Isms." The anti-life philosophy teaches that the family is a hotbed of reactionary politics and capitalism that must be radically altered if it cannot be destroyed outright.

The Neofeminists often strenuously object when they are labeled "anti-family," but their quotes and documents show that they are deadly serious about eradicating the family so that they can step into the void and take control of children's lives. Some Neofeminist quotes attacking the family are shown in Figure 9-2. Many more are listed in Chapter 129 of Volume III, "Neofeminism."

FIGURE 9-2

NEOLIBERALS ATTACK THE FAMILY

The little nuclear family is a paradigm that just doesn't work. It doesn't work for white people or for black people. Why we are hanging on to it, I don't know.

                                   Novelist Toni Morrison, quoted in Time Magazine, May 22, 1989

Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women ... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore, it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men.

                                                             The Declaration of Feminism, November 1971

Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.

                                           Sheila Cronan, 1988 Houston NOW Conference for Women

It is still possible for weak, stupid, lazy, unambitious and otherwise lesser equipped individuals to remain and make their way within domestic work, both as housewives and as servants. As for the rest, prostitution is always available.

                                                        Nobel Prize winners Alva and Gunnar Myrdal.
                                                        Crisis in the Population Question
. 1930, page 249

In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them.

                                                         Dr. MaryJo Bane, Assistant Professor of Education
                                                         at Wellesley College, quoted in David Kupelian and
                                                         Mark Masters. "The New McCarthyism." New
                                                         Dimensions
Magazine, July 1990, page 22.

The family is the key institution for the determination and perpetuation of women's subordination, the place where oppression is most excruciatingly experienced ... Marriage, with its legal obligations, institutionalized male authority and compulsory heterosexuality, is incompatible with sexual freedom.

                                                           Mica Niva. "From Utopia to Scientific Feminism?"
                                                           Quoted in Lynne Segal. What is to Be Done
                                                           About the Family?
Penguin Books/Socialist
                                                           Society, 1983, pages 66 and 69.

A woman who stays at home, caring for children and the house, leads an extremely sterile existence. This kind of woman leads a parasitic existence that can aptly be described as "legalized prostitution" ... The time has not only come, it is past due, when marriage and motherhood as a life's goal should be cut out of the training of the female child ... The day has come when motherhood should be the lot and privilege of a select minority.

                                                           Robin Morgan (editor). Sisterhood is Powerful.
                                                           New York: Vintage Books, 1970, page 246.

Engels identified the family as the basic unit of capitalist society, and of female oppression. The family unit is a decadent, energy-absorbing, destructive, wasteful institution for everyone except the ruling class ... The modern individual family is founded on the open or concealed domestic slavery of the wife, and modern society is a mass composed of these individual families as its molecules. And within the family, he [the man] is the bourgeois and the wife represents the proletariat.

                                                             Robin Morgan (editor). Sisterhood is Powerful.
                                                             New York: Vintage Books, 1970, page 486.

Marriage makes you legally half a person, and what man wants to live with half a person? ... I can't mate in captivity.

                                                             Gloria Steinem, 1971 and 1984 Newsweek
                                                             Magazine interviews. Summarized in Douglas
                                                              Johnson. "Rep. Chris Smith Targeted By
                                                              Planned Parenthood, Steinem." National Right
                                                              to Life News
, April 10, 1986, page 6.

Despite their great successes (in particular, the Sexual Revolution), the anti-lifers have failed to destroy the American family, since no society of any size can long exist without the family unit.

Therefore, the anti-life (Neoliberal) activists have adopted a chillingly effective strategy: They have grabbed control of every institution of learning from preschools to medical schools.

The result has been obvious, even to the vast majority of Americans who languish in the Muddled Middle. Our schools simply do not teach the basics anymore. Instead, they preach the theology of revolution.

This is particularly true of our colleges and universities, which receive freshmen primarily from a middle-class background. These unfortunates are assumed to be infected with all manner of "isms." Therefore, it is the holy duty of the faculty to "raise their collective consciousness" with "diversity education" and "sensitivity training." Uniformity, conformity, and tolerance are rewarded above all. Those who dare display original thought or who adhere to a conservative doctrine of any type are relentlessly pressured by professors and peers to "reform."

Codifing the "Isms."

Many universities and colleges are now literally placing inoffensiveness on an equal footing with honor by writing "social honor codes" to enforce Politically Correct thought and action. A paragraph in the Princeton Alumni Weekly reveals that the University believes that being rid of "isms" is just as important as being honorable;

 ... the administration is considering the implementation of a social honor code to complement the existing academic honor code. Focusing on respect for individual rights, the proposed code would concentrate on specific violations of these rights, including incidents of sexism, racism, class discrimination, and homophobia. As with the academic honor code, students would be obligated to report any violations of the social honor code, and incoming freshmen would be required to sign the code before matriculating.[45]

The implications of such a "social honor code" are staggering in their scope. Not only must students promise to abide by the code, but they are also sworn to squeal on anyone who violates it. The Princeton honor code, by the way, demands dismissal of any student who violates it. So will the "social honor code." Naturally, this gross expansion of the original Honor Code drastically reduces its effectiveness and meaning.

Therefore, under a social honor code, a student would be dismissed from Princeton for;

• telling any joke considered 'racist,' 'sexist,' 'classist,' or 'homophobic' by the
   campus Thought Police, or
• irritating or offending in any way, even if inadvertently, any woman,
   minority, or sodomite. This would include "exclusionary practices," i.e.,
   leaving a person out of a conversation or not inviting them to a party with
   friends.

However, the same Princeton student would not be incur an Honor Code violation for;

• using, buying, or selling dangerous illegal drugs;
• engaging in perverted sex acts, including prostitution, sodomy and
   bestiality;
• manufacturing, selling, or possessing child pornography; or
• committing any kind of act against White males that would be considered
   unforgivable if the same act were committed against a member of a
   certified 'victim class.'

College and University Propaganda.

The University of Texas (Austin) requires only one course in English composition, freshman-level English 306. The class textbook, entitled "Racism and Sexism," is composed entirely of left-wing essays denouncing the incurably corrupt American "system" and bemoaning the fate of various self-appointed victim groups.

The book's editor, a female New Jersey sociologist, has students perform a "class analysis of shopping malls." She explains that "They go to a boutiquey mall and a mall for the masses. I have them count how many public toilets are in each, and bring back samples of the toilet paper. It makes class distinctions visible."[46]

Isn't is comforting to know that the principles of rigorous scientific investigation are still being taught at our institutions of higher "learning?"

And so, while our college students play touchy-feely with toilet paper, we scratch our heads and wonder why Japanese college students are light-years ahead of ours in terms of discipline and knowledge.

One-Way "Isms."

Among other "wisdom," the "Racism and Sexism" text states that, while all Whites are by definition racist in their thoughts and actions, minorities "... may discriminate against white people or even hate them," but are not capable of racism.

This kind of nonsense, not surprisingly, has infected influential Blacks who are always eager to grab headlines. Gus Savage, a Chicago Democrat, went so far as to say that "only whites can be racists."[47] This was the same Gus Savage who screamed at a reporter from the Washington Times "I don't talk to you White motherf_ckers. . . !"[14]

Lest anyone take offense at such incandescent profanity, remember that Neoliberals claim that this is not a racist statement.

Now imagine what would have happened if David Duke had shouted that same statement at a Black reporter!

In another incident, Molefi Asant, Chairperson of African-American studies at Temple University, recently stated that "Either you support multiculturalism in American education, or you support the maintenance of white supremacy."[48] In other words, "You non-People of Color out there had better support us and give in to all of our demands or you are all Nazis!"

This all-on or all-off mentality infects women's studies programs all over the country as well. Perhaps professors are influenced by the "Redstockings Manifesto" in Robin Morgan's Neofeminist anthology Sisterhood is Powerful, which is used as a text in many colleges and universities. This 'Manifesto' states that "All men have oppressed women ... The most slanderous evasion of all is that women can oppress men."[49]

Paula S. Rothenberg echoes this view in her anthology "Racism and Sexism: An Integrated Study." Rothenberg describes how the very foundation of sexism and racism is subordination, exercised only by Whites over Blacks and only by men over women. Therefore, reverse racism and reverse sexism by definition cannot exist!

Imagine what the response would be if a White professor adopted a parallel line of "reasoning," and began to teach that only Black men can be rapists, but that White men are incapable of such violence.

This view is not mere posturing; it is a form of blanket history revisionism by which Neofeminists attempt to perpetrate all kinds of atrocities while alleging that they (the Neofeminists) are simply not capable of such activities and therefore the atrocities must be the product of feverish and overworked 'right-wing' imaginations.

Putting Teeth in the Propaganda.

This brand of unthinking propaganda is enforced by "anti-harassment" codes and statutes, by which approved groups of victims can punish those who step out of line or do anything that they decide offends them. The offenders are often sentenced to "racial awareness seminars" or "anti-homophobic sensitivity training" that enforces the mode of approved thinking. If the offender continues to show a bad attitude, he or she can be ostracized from "proper company" or even dismissed from the university.

Emory University, Atlanta, is one of more than a hundred colleges and universities that have enacted "discriminatory harassment" statutes which ban "conduct, oral or written, graphic or physical, directed against any person or group."[50]

Consider the incredible breadth of this statute for a moment. Anyone who even attempts to present both sides of the moral issues surrounding homosexuality, for example, can officially be prosecuted by the campus Thought Police for "harassment." In other words, such institutions of higher learning (where the free exchange of ideas is allegedly treasured) have cordoned off vast areas of speech that they consider to be "inappropriate."

Some of the more ridiculous instances of such censorship are described below.

• Men are allowed to enroll in Kenyon College's course entitled "Biology of Feminine Sexuality," but are forbidden to speak.[51]

• The University of Michigan has rules against "failing to include someone in a conversation." The U of M also requires that everyone use certain terms in speech and writing: "Sexual preference" is forbidden "sexual orientation" is allowable. "Spouse" is not allowed, "life partner" is. Students and faculty must use the term "personhole cover" instead of "manhole cover."[51,52]

• The University of Connecticut has issued a proclamation prohibiting "inappropriately directed laughter" and "conspicuous exclusion of students from conversations."[48]

• Madison University's Student Senate attempted to ban Halloween parties because students, supposedly emboldened by the anonymity offered by wearing masks, might inflict "poking, pinching, rude comments" and the like on women.[48]

• The New York University Law School scheduled a mock court trial on a lesbian mother's custody rights. Homosexual students forced its cancellation, alleging that "Writing arguments [against the mother's case] is hurtful to a group of people and thus hurtful to all of us."[48]

• In the Spring of 1990, Mt. Holyoke College sponsored a "Lesbian/Bisexual Awareness Week." Conservative students highlighted the absurdity of this activity by holding their own "Heterosexual Awareness Week." They were attacked by, among others, University President Elizabeth Kennan, for violating the "spirit of community."[48]

• At the University of Pennsylvania, the Student Activities Council shut down the conservative publication The Red and Blue. Their excuse was that it had violated the Campus Harassment Policy by criticizing the lavish college funding for the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Alliance. The bogus charges were "failing to respect the personal integrity of others" and by "creating an intimidating and offensive academic, living, and work environment."[48]

Conclusion.

This, then, is a very important point: It is quite obvious that many of our colleges and universities are politically indoctrinating their students. If the students do not toe the line and parrot the accepted "party line," they will be subject to intense peer and faculty pressure. If they persist in their "unmutual" behavior, they may even be subject to civil or criminal prosecution.

This dangerous trend means not only death for free thought, but for imagination as well, in places where such qualities were at one time treasured.

And so, our college students now suffer censorship in the name of free speech, intolerance in the name of tolerance, and oppression in the name of freedom.

George Orwell would have been proud!

Studies in Contrasts: Case Study 1.

Let's be clear: the idea that radicals or liberals have some PC [politically correct] yardstick by which we judge one another and others is a gross fabrication ... We neither march monolithically to the beat of a single drummer nor seek to impose a singular political correctness on the world.

                                                                     Neoliberal writer Christopher Phelps.[53]

Introduction: Dartmouth College.

This chapter has provided some examples of how pervasive the Neoliberal double-standards and "victim mentality" are in this society. However, the dominance of such thinking is most evident at our colleges and universities.

The following paragraphs describe just a few of the more bizarre manifestations of the "victim mentality" at just one Eastern College Dartmouth and these incidents show how the dreaded Thought Police strangle free expression (and even free thought) in a systematic and ruthless manner.

The "Shantyville."

In 1986, Dartmouth College was one of several Eastern universities that saw Neoliberal students illegally erect "anti-apartheid shanties" in prominent areas. These "shanties" inevitably became popular party sites for Neoliberals, and trash rapidly accumulated around them.

After more than a month, ten conservative Dartmouth students became fed up with the eyesore and attempted to drag away the trash. They were immediately hauled before a college disciplinary committee, which threw three of them out of the college permanently.

During his trial before the Committee, one of the conservatives a Black had unbelievable abuse heaped on him. He was called "nigger," "Uncle Tom," "Fascist," "bigot," "Nazi," "Brownshirt," and "Klansman," among many other unprintable epithets.[54] There was never any doubt about the outcome of the "trial;" he was suspended from Dartmouth for a year.

The Leftist students, who illegally built the "shanties," defied written and spoken orders to disassemble the shanties; twice occupied the President's office and twice blocked all the entrances at the Administration building; aggressively defended shanties and were arrested by police; and assaulted both police and conservative students.

What was the reaction of the College to this pattern of illegal and violent activity? Dartmouth President David McLaughlin completely excused the actions of the Leftist students and refused to punish them at all, alleging in a letter of excuse to local police that "They did not realize the gravity of their offense."[55] The Lefties, overjoyed at receiving a carte blanche from the college president himself, continued to block access to campus buildings, including the library, and spray-painted anti-apartheid slogans all over the campus in broad daylight without the slightest fear of punishment.[54]

Violence With Teeth in It.

Other violent incidents have demonstrated the strength of the stranglehold the Neoliberals have at Dartmouth College.

Benjamin Hart was one of the founders of The Dartmouth Review, a conservative campus weekly that regularly pokes fun at university policy. In 1983, he was tackled by a Black university administrator as he was delivering newspapers. The administrator then bit him so hard on the chest that he broke off three teeth in the act.

The response of the Dartmouth faculty to this vicious assault was incredible. They voted 113 to 5 to censure The Dartmouth Review for provoking the attack! The toothy administrator, of course, got off scot-free.[55]

Sodomites and Academic Freedom.

It is exceedingly dangerous to one's academic career to dare to oppose the campus gay student associations (GSAs) in any way. Teresa Polenz of Dartmouth learned this lesson the hard way.

She attended an April 29, 1984 meeting of the Dartmouth GSA as a reporter for The Dartmouth Review in order to try to find out what the organization did with the tax-free $500 it received from the college every year. This money was extracted from tuition and Dartmouth alumni contributions, so the Review felt that accountability was in order.

A sodomite student, in a rare moment of honesty, revealed how the money was put to use: "We have parties. Wait until you see our parties."[56]

The day after the meeting, Dean Edward Shanahan of the school told Polenz if she were not in his office in 15 minutes, she would be suspended. Shanahan demanded that she sign a sworn affidavit stating that nothing that happened at the meeting would be published in the Review.

She refused, and so the college moved to put her on trial for "eavesdropping," even though she had openly attended the sodomite meeting. The college gave her no right to call or cross-examine witnesses and no right to a lawyer; and, even more incredibly, the prosecution was given the right to act as judge in the case! In other words, this was a Dartmouth sodomite Kangaroo Kourt. Administrators told her that suspension was a foregone conclusion.

The only thing that saved Polenz was a blistering assault by The Wall Street Journal on the Dartmouth "justice system."[57]

Remember that Neoliberal skulduggery can only be accomplished in privacy; shining the light of publicity on their activities makes them melt back into the decaying moral ooze from whence they came.

Studies in Contrasts: Case Study 2.

They give me a stick, they give me a gun,
they pay me 50 Gs to have some fun.
A full moon and a full gun
makes for a night of fun.

                                               Los Angeles Police Department computer messages.[56]

The LAPD at Work: Introduction.

It is interesting to observe and compare the reactions of various Neoliberal groups to the violent abuse of two separate groups, one of which is "Politically Correct," and one which is not.

A comparison of the wide range of reactions of the Los Angeles power structure to police brutality directed towards two different entities is particularly fascinating and revealing.

First: The Rescuers.

On March 25, 1989, hundreds of pro-lifers staged a series of massive rescue missions at Los Angeles area abortuaries.

The Los Angeles Police Department was exceptionally brutal when arresting these non-violent, non-resisting protestors. One wave of police (who had removed their nametags and badges to hinder positive identification) would move in and savagely beat rescuers, and then a second wave would go in and make arrests.

The pro-lifers were tightly bound and lifted by police who jammed their fingers up the rescuer's nostrils and into their eye sockets. Rescuers were dragged by their hair and ears, and mounted police horses "accidentally" and repeatedly stepped on them. Police stood on rescuer's backs and repeatedly slammed their faces into the concrete pavement.[58]

A total of 600 injuries including seven broken bones were reported out of a total of 1,100 arrests in two days.

When the Los Angeles police removed the rescuers to the booking areas, they sexually molested pro-life women and strip-searched them in a mocking, exaggerated, and sexually explicit manner.

The reaction of the city power structure to this massive brutality and abuse was deafening silence. The Mayor's office did not say a word. The American Civil Liberties Union was utterly silent. Congress turned its collective back.

When the Civil Rights Commission considered investigating police and pro-abortion violence against pro-lifers, Congressman Don Edwards (D.-Ca.) threatened to defund the Commission entirely.[59]

Next: The Black Man.

On March 3, 1991, several Los Angeles police stopped Rodney King, a Black man, for speeding, and then beat him with nightsticks. Unfortunately for the police, an observer with a camcorder taped the entire incident.

The reaction by the Los Angeles power structure to this incident was immediate and forceful, because the Black man was a member of a "victim class," whereas the pro-lifers were not.

Ten United States Congressmen denounced the police violence and demanded an in-depth investigation, citing a long list of violent incidents involving LA police but significantly not mentioning the brutality inflicted on more than 600 pro-life rescuers just two years before. These congressmen spluttered that it was "the most heinous, vicious, brutal police brutality case that has been recorded for all time."[60]

FBI Director William S. Sessions promised an "in-depth investigation." Congressman Don Edwards, head of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, scheduled extensive hearings within one week of the incident.

Remember that Edwards was the same man who had threatened to defund the Civil Rights Commission for merely scheduling hearings on the same kind of violence directed against pro-lifers.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which had been utterly silent when pro-lifers asked them for help two years previously, paid $35,000 for a full-page ad in the March 12 Los Angeles Times showing a cop wielding a baton with the headline, "WHO DO YOU CALL WHEN THE GANG WEARS BLUE UNIFORMS?" The ad demanded the immediate resignation of Police Chief Daryl Gates, and Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley echoed this demand.

For three months after Rodney King was beat up, the incident received enduring attention in the national media. However, of the major articles written on brutality committed by the Los Angeles Police, more than 500 mentioned the King incident and exactly two even mentioned the brutality directed against pro-lifers.

Of course, the rest is history. When a Simi County jury acquitted the four policemen responsible for the beating, the City of Los Angeles held its now-famous Rodney King Memorial Riot, which killed more than 50 people and caused more than a billion dollars in property damage.

Among others, California State Senator Diane Watson (a Democrat), said "I blame Reagan."[61]

Violence: For the Left Only.

Violence in the Old and New Hierarchies.

Under the 'old' hierarchy, slave owners could beat, abuse, maim, and kill their slaves with impunity. Sexual perverts became social pariahs and were often lynched. Wives were routinely beaten, but remained in abusive relationships because they simply had no effective recourse.

Under the 'new' hierarchy, homosexuals, minorities, "peace" activists, animal-rights groups, anti-apartheid organizations, and "women's rights" groups can advocate the most extreme violence and terrorism and actually be applauded for it. However, those labeled 'right-wing' may in no manner advocate even the mildest form of peaceful civil disobedience without being pilloried by the press.

The Barry and Carmichael Show.

For example, the Mayor of Washington, DC, Marion Barry, has called abortion clinic bombings "terrorist acts," and has compared the bombers to Adolf Hitler. This is curious in light of the fact that Barry, in the mid-1960s, headed the Washington, DC Chapter of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), whose national chairman was Stokely Carmichael.

Carmichael said that "[Martin Luther] King's death made it a lot easier for a lot of Negroes they know it's time to get guns now."[62] After King was shot, 595 arson fires were set in urban areas, and Carmichael said "That was light stuff compared with what is about to happen."[62]

Barry never denounced Carmichael or this violence, of course, because it was a Neoliberal, politically correct issue, which is always somehow "different" (just ask him). Therefore, Barry is saying that 595 arson fires, many randomly set, and many of which resulted in deaths or injuries, are justified, but the approximately 50 arson fires at abortion clinics since 1970, none of which have resulted in death or injury, are "terrorism."

The Sodomites and Blood Terrorism.

Homosexuals can agitate for extreme violence on a massive scale and not a peep of condemnation can be heard. For example, homosexual activist Robert Schwab stated that "If [AIDS] research money is not forthcoming at a certain level by a certain date, all gay males should give blood. Whatever action is required to get national attention is valid. If that includes blood terrorism, so be it." However, by comparison, mere silence or inattention by the public is, according to the sodomites, "genocide."

Beatings and Burnings.

Today, if a husband beats his wife, he must face the condemnation of women's groups, the media, the court system, and society in general. However, if a wife throws gasoline on her sleeping husband and burns him to death, she becomes the subject of a major motion picture starring Farrah Fawcett-Majors.

Of course, as described below, Neofeminists consider themselves literally incapable of abusing men in any way.

For more information regarding pro-abortion violence, see Chapter 19. For further information on sodomite violence, see Chapter 118 of Volume III, "Homosexual Tactics." And information on Communist genocide may be found in Chapters 93 and 96 of Volume III.

But Seriously, Now ...

Introduction.

Nothing is more comical that a deadly-earnest person making a total fool of him(her)self and being entirely unaware of the fact. This principle holds true for producers making awful B-grade horror flicks, and it certainly applies to grim-faced Neofeminists who think that they are striking colossal blows for women's rights.

Holes in the Ground ...

The Sacramento, California City Council is one of the very few in the country that is comprised mostly of women. So, like good Neofeminists, they set out to prove that, like men, they can successfully grapple with the toughest and most complex social issues of them all.

They were convinced that the good citizens of their fair city were grievously offended by those awful, sexist MANholes scattered everywhere. Therefore, they courageously sponsored the "Manhole Terminology Change Contest."

After reviewing such inspired entries as "Person-Access Chamber," they settled upon "maintenance hole," and decreed that all of Sacramento's official maps and documents would reflect this change. The cost of these changes was not specified, but those many Sacramento citizens grievously offended and injured by the ingrained sexism of the city maintenance department may now breathe much easier, realizing that their all-woman City Council knows their civil rights from a hole in the ground.

Ted and His Flying Johns.

What discussion of the dreaded self-appointed "word police" would be complete without input from Ted Turner, owner of Cable News Network (CNN)?

Turner has been (dis)honored as a "Humanist of the Year" by the American Humanist Association, and he alternates between periodic irrational tirades against pro-life "bozos" and sniveling sessions on the ugliness of censorship.

Displaying a regrettable lack of common sense, he banned the word "foreign" on CNN, requiring newscasters to say "international" instead. Syndicated columnist Lewis Grizzard asked, "Does Ted Turner have an airplane? I'm sure he does. What does it say in the restroom? Do not flush any international objects down the toilet?"[63]

Don't It Beet All!

The very ultimate in anti-discrimination laws is the "Colorado Act Concerning the Creation of a Cause of Action for the Disparagement of Perishable Agricultural Food Products" (this is for real, folks. Honest). The purpose of the CACCCADPAFP would have been to ban written or verbal "disparagement" of meats, dairy products, and produce grown in the State of Colorado.[64]

This measure was backed by national and local animal-rights groups who seem to have extended their areas of concern rather dramatically. The supporters of the CACCCADPAFP stated with straight faces that we human beings "have been oppressing vegetables for years."

Perhaps we are all guilty of "mammal-ism."

What next? If insulting vegetables oppresses them, eating them must be even worse! If humans can't eat animals or vegetables, what's left? Rock salt and vitamins?

But perhaps we been oppressing even salt, gravel, coal and tar for too long. Just think of the indignities that have been heaped upon sand by millions of cats in kitty-litter boxes for decades! Hopefully, someone will start a new group called People for the Ethical Treatment of Sand (PETS) to combat this atrocity.

Humor aside, this would not be an impossible scenario if certain strange beliefs gained ascendancy in our society. Catholic 'priest' Matthew Fox, head of the Institute for Creation Spirituality, addresses trees as "tree people" and considers stones to be "rock people." Fox, whose constant companion is the female witch Starhawk, embraces the "New Age" concept of 'theagenesis,' which holds that the earth itself is a living organism ('Gaia') that is evolving towards a divine state of godhood.

For more information on 'theagenesis' and other "New Age" beliefs, see Chapter 130 of Volume III.

Memorize These Books!

Army generals and experienced attorneys often wish out loud that their opponent(s) would write a book. Therefore, it was not much of a surprise when various groups of self-appointed word police finally compiled and issued dictionaries of "prohibited" words.

These include Rosalie Maggio's The Dictionary of Bias-Free Usage: A Guide to Nondiscriminatory Language (Oryx Press, 1991); Casey Miller and Kate Swift's The Handbook of Non-Sexist Writing (Harper/Collins, 1990), and Val Dumande's The Elements of Non-Sexist Usage: A Guide to Inclusive Spoken and Written Language (Prentice-Hall, 1991).

The reaction to these books was varied, but experienced writers and authors almost universally derided not only the books, but the idea behind them as well.

Christina Hoff Sommers, Clark University [Worcester, Massachusetts] professor of philosophy, identified the neo-Fascist thinking behind such volumes; "There's a kind of exotic hunt for bias in language. It's Orwellian. These people have given up on real politics, so it's been sublimated into these arcane intellectual games. But if you can change language, you can change the world. The next step in the colleges is that many professors will begin to enforce this. Papers will be returned if students don't use he-slash-she. They'll pass out lists of inclusive language."[65]

A few of these authors went far beyond merely hunting down "sexist" terms, and became almost obsessive in their desire to eradicate every vestige of male-oriented verbiage in the English language. For example, one "forbidden word" was "seminar", because it was allegedly derived from a male-oriented word "semen." The proposed replacement, believe it or not, was "ovular."[65]

The Multicultural Management Program of the University of Missouri School of Journalism issued a nasty-word book entitled The Dictionary of Cautionary Words in mid-1990. Part of the introduction to this book states that "Reporters and editors must be aware of the following words, many objectionable."[66]

The hundreds of words listed include some genuinely objectionable words. However, this small list is expanded a hundred-fold to include the words "airhead," "banana," "barracuda," "burly," "Charlie," "dear," "dizzy," "dutch treat," "feminine," "fried chicken," "gorgeous," "gyp," "housewife," "Ivan," "jock," "lazy," "pert," "petite," "rubbing noses," "senior citizens," "shiftless," "stunning," "ugh," "whitebread," and thousands of others.

Why are these words "objectionable?" According to the book,

• "'Burly' is an adjective too often associated with large Black man, implying
   ignorance, and considered offensive in this context."
• "'Dear' is a term of endearment objectionable to some."
• "'Fried chicken' is a loaded phrase when used carelessly and as a
   stereotype referring to the cuisine of Black people."
• "'Illegal alien' is often used to refer to Mexicans and Latin Americans
   believed to be in the United States without visas; the preferred term is
   undocumented worker."
• "'Senior citizens;' do not use for anyone under 65. Do not describe people
   as elderly, senile, matronly, or well-preserved. Do not use 'dirty old man,'
   'codger,' 'coot,' "geezer,' 'silver fox,' 'old-timers,' 'Pop,' 'old buzzard.'"
• "'Ugh' is a guttural word used to mimic American Indian speech. Highly
   offensive."

Naturally, the book doesn't list any adjectives that "non-victim" groups, such as Whites or Catholics, might find offensive. Words that do not appear in their book include "honky," "Whitey," "cracker," "religious fanatic," "dago," "wop," "mick," "mackerel-snapper," "Bible-thumper," "frog," "kraut," "hunky," and "Polack."

After visiting the senior citizen's home, the burly jocks jumped into their gorgeous Barracuda with their pert, petite housewives and, after a Dutch treat at the local Kentucky Fried Chicken, drove to a stunning overlook for some nose-rubbing.

Gad. How offensive can you get?


References: The Victim Status.

[1] Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill. "The Overhauling of Straight America." Guide Magazine, October and November 1987.

[2] Malcolm Muggeridge, quoted in Jonathon Green. The Cynic's Lexicon. New York: St. Martin's Press. 1984, 220 pages.

[3] "Rum, Romanism, and Doug Wilder." National Review, August 12, 1991, page 39. Also see "On the Record." National Review, August 12, 1991, page 10.

[4] Syndicated columnist Carl Rowan, quoted in "On the Record." National Review, August 26, 1991, page 8.

[5] John McKnight. "When Helping Hurts, Why 'Servanthood' is Bad." Messenger Magazine, January 1992, pages 10 to 13.

[6] "Sister Souljah" (Lisa Williamson). Quoted in "Under the Rainbow: Jesse Jackson Shelters a Repulsive Bully." World Magazine, July 4, 1992, page 14. Also quoted in "Quotes," World Magazine, June 20, 1992, page 5.

[7] Beth Mydans. "On the Streets the LA Four Are Seen as Victims." The Oregonian, September 11, 1992, page A4.

[8] As described in "PC Watch." World Magazine, November 7, 1992, page 5.

[9] "The Week." National Review, February 14, 1986, page 12.

[10] George F. Will. "America's Slide Into the Sewer." Newsweek, July 30, 1990, page 64.

[11] Sinead O'Connor, quoted in Rolling Stone, October 4, 1990, and in Mark Masters and David Kupelian. "Sneak Attack on America's Culture." New Dimensions Magazine, June 1991, pages 16 to 21.

[12] Angie Dabine. "Crapshoot on Broadway." Willamette Week [Portland, Oregon], February 21-27, 1991, page 18.

[13] Steve Cokely, quoted in the New York Times, July 26, 1988, article entitled "Black-Jewish Hostility." Also recounted in Milton Himmelfarb. "Jackson, the Jews, and the Democrats." National Review, November 7, 1988, page 42.

[14] "Dubious Achievement Awards of 1991!" Esquire Magazine, January 1992, pages 94 to 119.

[15] David Horowitz. "The Radical Left and the New Racism." New Dimensions Magazine, December 1990, pages 20 to 37. Also see "Farrakhan and His Religion: Waiting for 'The New Mecca.'" Insight, November 11, 1985, pages 7 to 25. A detailed expose on Louis Farrakhan and his empire.

[16] Benjamin Hooks of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) on Bernard Goetz. "The Week." National Review, July 31, 1987, page 12.

[17] "The Week." National Review, January 31, 1986, page 18.

[18] Virginia Employment Commission and the United States Department of Labor, Employment, and Training Administration. Validity Generalization Manual. Section A, "Job Family Scoring." Race norming is described in Robert G. Holland. "Big Brother's Test Scores." National Review, September 3, 1990, page 35.

[19] Rachel Zimmerman. "The Perfect Victim: Azalea Cooley." Willamette Week [Portland, Oregon], November 26-December 3, 1992, page 1.

[20] Phil Stanford. "And Now, For the Not-Too-Strange Case of Azalea Cooley." The Oregonian, January 12, 1993, page B1.

[21] "Echoes of the 50s in Rooney Witch Hunt." The Wall Street Journal, February 14, 1990.

[22] Mike Wallace of CBS, quoted in Joseph Farah. "How Homosexual Thought Police Muzzled Rooney." American Family Association Journal, March 1990, page 20.

[23] "The Week." National Review, February 19, 1988, page 14.

[24] William Cheshire. The Arizona Republic. Incident recounted in the Family Research Newsletter, Fall 1989, page 3.

[25] Paul Weyrich. "Politically Correct Fascism on Our Campuses." New Dimensions Magazine, June 1991, page 44.

[26] Political science professor Jean Betheke Elshtain. Quoted in Stephen Goode. "Efforts to Deal With Diversity Can Go Astray." Insight Magazine, September 10, 1990, pages 15 to 19.

[27] "New Sexual Victims: Cross Dressers." Family Research Newsletter, January- March 1991, page 5.

[28] "Faith and Homosexuality" and "Discriminate Against Homosexuals?" Family Research Newsletter, January-March 1991, pages 6 and 7.

[29] Keith Stimely. "Meet the Apocalypse Man: Quotations from Chairman Parfrey." PDXS Magazine (Portland, Oregon), March 2-15, 1992, pages 4 and 5.

[30] E. Michael Jones. "The Pope and the Condom Worshippers." Fidelity Magazine, October 1987, pages 32-44. Also see Just Out, January 1990, page 10.

[31] Henry V. King. "Cardinal O'Connor Calls On Catholics to Counter 'War Against the Family.'" The Wanderer, January 24, 1991, page 1.

[32] John Leo. "The Gay Tide of Catholic-Bashing." U.S. News and World Report, April 1, 1991, page 15. Also reprinted in the April 14, 1991 issue of Our Sunday Visitor, page 19.

[33] John Leo. "When Activism Becomes Gangsterism." U.S. News and World Report, February 5, 1990, page 18.

[34] "Mahony and the Times." National Catholic Register, February 11, 1990, page 4.

[35] "A Pall of Evil." From the Mail, The Wanderer, March 14, 1991, page 3.

[36] John Allec. "No More Guilt! A Tour of the Territory of Perpetual Indulgence." BodyPolitic ("A Magazine for Gay Liberation"), March 1982, pages 30 to 32.

[37] "The McIlhennys: Victims of Hate." Focus on the Family Citizen, August 20, 1990, pages 14 and 15.

[38] Washington Times, March 2, 1989.

[39] "The Prince of Hacks." National Review, July 31, 1987, page 15.

[40] "The Week." National Review, February 14, 1986, page 12.

[41] United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Reference Data Book and Guide to Sources, Statistical Abstract of the United States. 1990 (110th Edition). United States Government Printing Office.

[42] "Pro-Life Action League Helps Expose Pro-Abortion 'Bomber.'" The Advocate (publication of Advocates for Life Ministries), Portland, Oregon, May 1988, page 10. Also see Patt Morrison. "Zealot's Tale: Pro-Choice Activist Faces Sentencing in Bomb Threats to Stir Sympathy for Cause." Los Angeles Times, December 10, 1987, pages F1, F4, and F6.

[43] Laird Wilcox. THE HOAXER PROJECT REPORT: Racist and Anti-Semitic Graffiti, Harassment and Violence: An Essay on Hoaxes and Fabricated Incidents. December 1990. Available from Laird Wilcox, Editorial Research Service, Post Office Box 2047, Olathe, Kansas 66061. Telephone/FAX: (913) 829-0609.

[44] French psychiatrist vacationing in the United States, quoted by Benjamin J. Stein in "Antipathies," The American Spectator, December 1991, page 32.

[45] "Princeton's Social Honor Code." National Review, July 22, 1988, page 57.

[46] James Hitchcock. "Family is as Family Does." Human Life Review, Fall 1980, pages 52 to 70.

[47] "Short Endings." Fidelity Magazine, June 1990, page 22.

[48] Jerry Adler. "Taking Offense." Newsweek Magazine, December 24, 1990, pages 48 to 55.

[49] "Redstockings Manifesto." Sisterhood is Powerful (Robin Morgan, editor). New York: Vintage Books, 1970. Page 534.

[50] Paul Harvey. "Name of the Game is Intolerance." Conservative Chronicle, June 12, 1990, page 27.

[51] Messenger Magazine, January 1992, page 14.

[52] "The Week." National Review, December 8, 1989, page 10.

[53] Christopher Phelps. "New McCarthyism Or Old? The Intellectual Farce of 'Political Correctness.'" The Portland [Oregon] Alliance, July 1991, pages 6 and 7. Also see "Counter-Revolution." National Review, April 25, 1986, page 20.

[54] "The Shanty Wars Are About Much More." National Review, May 9, 1986, page 20. Also see "The Second Dartmouth Case." National Review, April 11, 1986, page 20.

[55] Leslie Hanscom. "Left-Wingers and Ivy Leaguers." Conservative Digest, April 1985, page 22.

[56] Christopher Commission findings as reported on Page 2A of the July 10, 1991 USA Today, "Messages Tell the Story."

[57] Peter Arnold. "A Victory for the First Amendment." Conservative Digest, February 1985, page 17.

[58] Stanley Interrante. "Operation Rescue Marked By Massive Arrests and Police Brutality." The Wanderer, April 13, 1989, pages 1 and 8.

[59] Free Congress Foundation. Family, Law and Democracy Report, November 1989, page 11.

[60] Patricia Edmonds, Knight-Ridder News Service. "Members of Congress Want Federal Probe of LA Police Brutality." The Oregonian, March 13, 1991, page A13.

[61] Debra J. Saunders. "Crime and Violence the Real Enemies." The Oregonian, May 6, 1992, page D9.

[62] Stokely Carmichael, quoted in "Mayor Barry and the Bombings." Cal Thomas and Wayne Stayskal. Liberals for Lunch. Westchester, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1986. Pages 61 and 62.

[63] "Filler Items." The Realist, January-February 1991, page 8.

[64] Chicago Tribune News Service. "Don't it Beet All: Vegetable Slander." The Oregonian, March 20, 1991. Page A14.

[65] Anthony Flint, The Boston Globe. "The Politics of Language." The Oregonian, March 18, 1992, pages D1 and D9.

[66] Mike Royko. "Attack of the Airheads." Readers Digest. October 1990, pages 91 and 92. "What's Wrong With Teaching Politeness? Plenty!" Twin Cities Christian, September 19, 1991, page 16A.


Further Reading and Resources: The Victim Status.

Stephen L. Carter. Reflections of an Affirmative Action Baby
1991, Basic Books, 286 pages. Reviewed by Arch Puddington on pages 43 and 44 of the December 1991 issue of The American Spectator. The first tenured Black professor at Yale Law School shows how favored treatment can erode the will and survival instincts of an entire race of people.

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. The Liberal Crack-Up
New York City: Simon & Schuster, 1984. 256 pages. Reviewed by Victor Gold on page 35 of the March 1985 issue of Conservative Digest. His thesis: "New Age Liberalism is no longer the sensible, tolerant, highly principled body of thought that liberalism was in decades past. Sometime in the 1960s or early 1970s, it cracked up into a riot of enthusiasms, usually contradictory, always extremist, often non compos mentis."

The Wilcox Collection of Contemporary Political Movements. 
This is the largest collection of extremist literature (both from the Right and the Left) in the world, occupying more than 2,000 feet of shelf space in the form of 10,000 books, pamphlets, and serial publications, 800 audiocassette tapes, and many other materials from approximately 8,000 organizations. This library is housed at the University of Kansas in Olathe, Kansas.


© American Life League BBS — 1-703-659-7111

This is a chapter of the Pro-Life Activist's Encyclopedia, published by American Life League.


Provided Courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210
www.ewtn.com