There is no excuse for toleration of a psychopathology
The terms of mother's will were fairly simple: Rita, Robert, and Ramona
were each to receive 1/3rd of the estate, minus $3000 for Billy Rojas
to be used exclusively for dental care; it was stipulated that Billy should
not receive any of that amount in actual money, it must be paid directly
to a dentist. There was no explanation for this division of the estate,
not one word.
.
About the dental care provision, which is not worth dwelling on, just one
thing should be said. While I did not know it back then -how could I?-
there was a peculiar incident that took place about the time she finalized
her will in 2009. When this took place I was at a loss to explain the
reason
for her behavior, it merely seemed in character with her, some sort of
oddity for no apparent reason, Except that- thinking retrospectively-
there surely was a reason.
.
Another time I was visiting she had just returned from her dentist and had
received considerable teeth repairs. At one point she -smiled is not the
right word- showed off her new mouth, so to speak. Her teeth were
on display. With that went a peculiar sort of expression. It was as if
she was saying, subliminally, "see, I can afford extensive dental work,
and you can't, nyah." Since my interpretation on that day could well
have been far from the mark, it seemed best just to try and forget it and
chalk it off to mother's sometimes boorishness. In mid 2015 it all made
perfect sense, however. She was being spiteful in 2009 and, hence, from
that time onward everything she said had this subtext. None of her comments
to any other effect were sincere, they were all calculated, if not always
well calculated. If there were exceptions, occasional shows of genuine
motherly emotion, they were just that, temporary exceptions. She had
"sacrificed" me to try and appease Ramona -who was not about
to be appeased by anything mother might say at that point in life.
All of this should become clear in the paragraphs ahead.
.
.
The will was written in 2009. At that time mother's estate, inherited from
grandma free and clear, essentially the fruits of grandpa's work as
a contractor, builder, cabinet maker, and mobile home park proprietor,
was still largely intact. It took several years for it to be completely
gutted.
.
As a rough estimate for the positive value of the estate at that point,
a very conservative tally, would be something on the order of $150,000+
total value. The likelihood was that it was much higher, the house alone
was worth in excess of $250,000 even though there was a mortgage
hence not all of that total was clear.
.
In other words, it was mother's intention in 2009 that three of her
children
should receive $50,000 each, more-or-less, and there would also be
a "left over" award of $3000 for myself. Of course, this is not how
things worked out.
.
At the time of mother's death in 2015 the three children would be lucky
to receive as much as $3000. My once-upon-a-time pittance of an
inheritance might end up as the most that anyone would receive.
Mother had obliterated nearly all of her estate.
.
Given vagaries of the real estate market, should the house sell for more
than
anticipated, it was still possible that each of the three would still end
up
with $10,000 or so, but compared with the money Rita donated to
mother, and the years of sacrifice on mother's behalf on Robert's part,
their reward would be some kind of bad joke.
.
Incidentally, I had not expected very much. My feeling, and this was
expressed to Rita during one of her visits in about 2007, was that Robert
surely would inherit the house -which in my naive understanding at that
time- assumed that surely mother had purchased it outright with her
inheritance
money. I also assumed that she had been a smart money manager and that
the estate was self-sustaining. I could not have been more wrong.
.
In any case, my further presumption was that of the remaining value of the
estate
after the house, Rita, for her contributions to mother's life (I only knew
some
of that story at the time), would probably receive 2/3rds of what was left.
The balance would then be divided between Ramona and myself in some
fashion. This seemed to me to be the only fair distribution of mother's
wealth.
But mother was not interested in being fair. She had other ideas.
.
By 2012 or so, still not realizing that the estate was in shambles, my
assumption
was that my share of things would probably be similar to the inheritance
that
my good friend Barry received when his father died, around $5000. A lot
could be done with that amount of money. I saw what Barry had achieved,
stretching every dollar, possibly getting seven or eight thousand dollars
worth
of value from $5000. Surely it should be possible to do approximately
just as well, and that money could prove very useful in terms of my
computer needs, wardrobe (which is another joke), and the like. I do not have
many
debts but those could also be paid off, a few hundred dollars all told.
.
Even the actual $3000 amount, if it had been money, could be stretched.
By 2015 my plans were fairly well thought through and my needs were
simple. A few basics to keep my computer in working condition and
maybe a couple of software add-ons, a decent used car for around $2000,
and somewhere around $500 for moving expenses -since I do not
intend to stay in Oregon beyond some point in 2016. Maybe pay off
a couple of lesser debts in the process.
.
At first all I knew, since Robert was given the role of executor of the
estate,
was what he told me verbally about the terms of the will, that my share
was
$3000 for dental care -which, I reasoned, could be finessed easily
enough, get a couple of fillings and consider the obligation satisfied,
but that was before I read the actual document, months later, a few weeks
after Robert finally got around to distributing copies, which he had been
reluctant to give to anyone for reasons of his own. That was when it
became
clear that no possibility existed to do any such thing.
.
Indeed, before then, as Robert knows because we discussed it in person,
I had decided that my best course of action, given what I had finally
leaned about the actual condition of the estate, would be to settle for
$2000, give Robert $1000 in consideration for all of his help in the past,
and use the remaining money for a cheaper used car than I had originally
wanted, and for moving expenses, and leave it at that, except for maybe
a hundred dollars or so for a computer tune up.
.
The will would not allow any such thing. There was a deadline for me to
claim the $3000 to turn over to a dentist, and if unclaimed by then the
money would revert to the general fund of the estate to be given to the three
siblings.
Since none of the others, as far as I know, had plans to avail themselves
of
their 1/3rd shares, puny as those shares would be, this would in effect
mean
that Robert would be the beneficiary. I was OK with that and let the
deadline pass; mother was not going to dictate anything to me from her grave,
she could go to hell as far as I was concerned, which may be
where she ended up anyway.
.
It might be close, but it should be possible to take care of moving
expenses entirely on my own with a little time, which I have, and
can use for the purpose. Everything else can wait for better days.
.
It made me feel "clean" to have made that decision. I no longer felt any
sense of obligation to mother's memory. And as far as I was concerned
the $3000 Robert would receive from my action should take care
of any reasonable estimate for his assistance to me since the year 2000.
It was a major step toward total independence from the family -and
it was about time I did exactly that.
..
As for Ramona, several years before 2009 she walked out on mother
unceremoniously, never to reappear in her life again.
.
Ramona did occasionally communicate with mother in the first year or two
of her self-imposed "exile," there were small Christmas gifts, but that
was
about all. Otherwise, even though mother sometimes wrote Ramona letters.
there was silence in return.
..
The only exception of note took place about one year ago when
one of mother's pure-breed poodles needed veterinarian care;
mother could not afford the $ 700 or so for the surgery and
swallowed her pride and -through Robert- begged Ramona
for the money -which was given to her outright. Otherwise
Ramona was not a factor in the family.
.
What had happened to bring about this state of affairs? It was no mystery.
Ramona had made it clear at the time she concluded her final visit. She
regarded
mother's treatment of Robert to be immoral and completely unjustified.
This treatment included brow-beating, ceaseless criticisms, belittling,
demands for sometimes superfluous work in the house, and generally
bossing him around. All of which Robert complied with, usually grudgingly,
but compliance nonetheless. Toward mother, Robert was virtually spineless
despite occasional outbursts of anger and yelling at her. In the end,
he always obeyed.
.
About Robert, much more will be said later in this essay, but for now
what is most important to know is that he was mother's live-in servant
for 30 years of his life. From the time of daddy's death onward.
That is, he was an extreme case of a "mama's boy."
.
It wasn't that I was unaware of the situation, everyone who knew mother
and visited the house knew exactly what the situation was. I had tried
in the past, twice, to persuade Robert to choose a different course of
action
in his life but he was utterly defensive and never wanted to as much
as talk about it. This was his choice and that was that; no discussion
was permissible.
.
There was also the factor of my sincere gratitude to Robert for permitting
me
to live in his condo for those three years, and for his willingness to act
as
chauffeur on monthly shopping expeditions, something very important to me
since it made my survival far less a problem than it might have been.
.
Ramona's critique of mother was as accurate as anyone could ask for.
However, in e-mail correspondence with her that first year of her 'exile,'
I pointed out that Robert's acquiescence was what made everything
possible. Had Robert walked away, mother would have been barking
orders to the air with no-one to listen.
.
Ramona agreed; ""he needs to grow a pair," she replied. But she still
blamed mother for most of the situation, without question.
.
Mother knew this because Ramona told her to her face. She left no doubt
about it. Indeed, in effect mother even admitted it to me, that last time
I visited her in June 2015.
.
This took place during her harangue, at a point when I challenged her
interpretation of her current situation in life, her pretense that all
would be well whatever anyone might think, and that she had
everything under control and was set to assume command of her
destiny -and everyone else's destiny in the bargain. All that was
missing was reconciliation with Ramona, about whom
she was fixated. Hence, among other things, until the two
oldest died, four poodles, just like four kids, a matching set,
so to speak.
.
"You know why Ramona walked out back then, don't you" I said to mother.
"She detested how you treated Robert."
.
There is a rule of kinesics, so-called body language, a field of study
that
includes the language of facial expressions, that most people, most of
the time, assume postures and expressions that are presentations
of themselves to everyone else, what they want others to think about them.
While the "public self" of such presentations may contain truth, it is not
-by any means- the whole story. To get that, you must be satisfied
with the equivalent of Freudian slips, fleeting expressions that are
completely out of character with the 'presentation self.' You need
to train yourself to catch these expressions, they really are fleeting,
less than a second on the clock, but when you see them there is
no question at all about what they imply.
.
Which, by the way, Robert knows about, He is a medical assistant
who provides care for very old people at end-of-life facilities,
old people's homes for nonagenarians or maybe people in their
late 80s but in failing health.
.
Robert explained that the elderly in his care -this applies to anyone
in his position- habitually lie. They invent stories that have the effect
of denying the realty of their condition. Or they resent being confined
in a rest home and want out; one way to make a case to family members
who could take them home is to invent horror stories about how they
are treated. These stories may be rationalized in various ways to make
them sound plausible, but they are lies nonetheless.
.
For this reason, care givers in such institutions may be educated to
the methods of detecting lies through facial expressions or other
body language. Hence when I told Robert about my experience
with mother that June day, 2015, he understood perfectly what
I was talking about.
.
Until that moment mother's expression was that of determination.
She was acting like an authority figure in command of the situation.
And she was trying very hard to sound convincing. But when I told
her -reminded her about- the real reason for Ramona's self chosen
exile, her expression, just for a moment, changed dramatically.
Her skin tone had been taut, it was stressed the way that a shop foreman
might look when chewing out his men, or maybe the way that a
strict nun in a Catholic school might insist that her charges should
follow the rules and not make trouble.
.
Suddenly, without warning, mother's facial expression relaxed completely,
she broke out into a wide smile. But most telling of all, she looked
sheepish.
I had caught her in a big lie.
.
The problem was that this was not at all what I expected. I thought there
would be defensive argument of some kind. But there wasn't. She simply,
after that brief moment, resumed her previous determined expression
-and immediately changed the subject. Because this was so unexpected
I had no follow-up. Now that the terms of her will are known it all
makes sense.
.
Mother, unable to face the truth, that Ramona rejected her because of
how she treated Robert, needed some other plausible story, a myth,
to explain it all, and justify herself. In short, to make a plausible myth
work, she needed a scapegoat, someone on whom to deflect her own
failings and make it seem as if she was blameless. And the perfect
subject was available, known to all, and "odd man out," anyway.
.
Me.
What the will said, mother's unsaid subtext, was not difficult to fathom.
It was this: The three children are equal, and this includes Ramona.
She may be homosexual but she is still equal. Billy is an uncompromising
critic of homosexuality, and his criticism is really directed at her, and
he deserves humiliation in retribution.
.
Fairness to Robert and Rita did not feature in mother's calculations.
Why should it when spitefulness was her primary motivation? Whether
my interpretation of mother's intentions is correct you will be able to
judge for yourself, soon enough.
.
It is no secret in the family that I am highly critical of homosexuality.
Actually, Robert is also critical and his feelings on the subject come
close
to my own, but you can say on this subject, he doesn't matter very much.
This is because his views are traditionalist Catholic. There is no "there,
there,"
just an internally consistent set of attitudes conditioned by his religious
background. He has no argument to make unless you, too, are a Catholic,
or perchance a Protestant with similar views already in place. Or, and
very relevant because my niece married into such a family, a Greek Orthodox
Christian; the Orthodox are approximately as adamantly opposed to
homosexuality as are Southern Baptists.
.
In any case, this is relevant because Ramona is homosexual.
I learned this directly from her in 1977 in a letter she wrote to me,
her assumption being that as another "liberal" surely I would "understand"
and if it came to it, at such time as she would tell mother, intervene
on her behalf. What Ramona did not know in 1977 was that no later
than the previous year my attitude toward homosexuality, which had
been one of neutral tolerance, had switched to opposition, and that
my opposition was getting stronger and more uncompromising
as time progressed. I did not tell her secret to mother or anyone else,
but that was as far as I was prepared to go. Her letter
made me want to vomit.
.
This is a subject that I have never wanted to discuss with anyone.
Nor had I any plans to do so until maybe 15 years ago. Still, I knew that
some day it would be necessary. The limit I gave myself as to when I could
no longer avoid this matter was mother's death. I just did not want a
complicated family situation to become even more complicated;
mother did not have the intellectual resources to handle everything,
argument with her was futile about nearly all issues anyway, and what
would be accomplished? Yet my silence could not go on forever.
.
This is the time when that silence must be broken.
.
There are a number of reasons to make matters known and to discuss
them now besides the story of my family. Most pressing, at least in
my estimation, has been the need to deal with a common "argument"
in favor of toleration of homosexuality, simply, "I feel strongly about
this."
.
That kind of argument is no argument at all, of course. Powerful emotions
justify nothing -unless they are tied to survival needs or to reproductive
desires, which, of course, are a species need.
.
The question arises, why would someone use that (non-)argument? I do not
have an answer for all contingencies but there is one situation that is
obvious:
Suppose someone in your family was homosexual. What would you do?
Overwhelmingly there are two standard responses:
(1) Ignore, and
(2) Accept.
.
Given human nature, most people want to be accepting of everyone in their
family. We are conditioned to be accepting for all kinds of reasons, this
factor is sociobiological in character, but the crux of the matter is that
it exists and is a strong driver in human values and conduct.
.
Also, most people, on the subject of homosexuality -and this includes
most homosexuals themselves- are ridiculously uninformed. They have
no idea what in the hell they are talking about. As a consequence, they
gravitate to popular myths, in our culture this mostly means myths that are
generated and perpetuated by the mass media. Because of the pervasiveness
and economic power of the media, which includes the entertainment industry,
this means that the myths it promotes receive a sort of seal of approval
that makes it OK to accept these fables as if they were unarguable truths.
No need to study anything, which you don't want to do anyway,
just go along with current fictions.
.
Except that myths, in the sense the word is used here, are nothing but
lies.
And since when is belief in falsehood good in any way?
.
Two examples of what is being discussed here come to mind. Newt Gingrich
has a homosexual sister and his response to the issues this raises has been
to ignore the fact. He has said almost nothing on the subject, he certainly
has not spent any time at all researching it, and is content to regurgitate
standard views of the political Right when questions about homosexuality
come to the fore. The other example is that of Senator "Rob" Portman
of Ohio -which is about as pathetic as things get.
.
Until 2013 Portman had been a staunch opponent of homosexual causes
in the United States. He was a co-sponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act
of 1996, and in 1999, as a Wikipedia article says, he "voted for a measure
prohibiting same-sex couples in Washington, D.C., from adopting children."
But then came an unwelcome surprise: His son confessed to being a
homosexual in 2011. There was little change in Portman's public views
on the issue at first, but in March of 2013 he announced that he had
"a change of heart" and would henceforth support homosexual measures.
.
This kind of disgusting nonsense is commonplace, of course. After all,
it is preposterous to decide on an issue of national importance in the
belief
that all that is necessary is to realign your emotions for subjective
reasons.
That is also to say: No research is necessary, objectivity can be
dispensed with, and, while you are at it, throw out your religion, the Bible,
and
the heritage of American history. In fact this sort of thing happens all the
time.
Nothing excuses such irresponsibility, however, there is no legitimate
justification possible.
.
I happen to be a Radical Centrist, a particular kind of Independent voter.
Basic to "RC," as it is often referred to, is the necessity to do serious
research
about any and all political issues that are important to you. Otherwise all
you offer to discussions -or to yourself as a supposedly thinking person-
are uninformed opinions which have no intrinsic value. Opinions, so
understood, are essentially worthless.
.
This hardly means that such activities as opinion polling have no value,
the opposite is true, but that uninformed opinions are just that,
uninformed,
based on ignorance, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself
if that is the best you can do.
.
Research means actual research, not picking up talking points promoted by
the DNC or the RNC or any other political organization or special interest
group.
It is not research to read homosexual propaganda and think you now are
informed, nor is it research to read a Christian tract that consists of
moralizing statements about the sin of sodomy. Research means, in this
case,
hitting the books, reading psychoanalytic studies, reading articles in
scholarly journals on the subject, analyzing papers by experts, reviewing
findings on such matters as homosexual crime rates and the association of
homosexuality with substance abuse or with violence or other psychological
problems, and so forth.
.
That is research, not something else. It takes time, it takes effort, but
there
is no alternative if you want to be taken seriously in discussions of the
issue.
And if you are satisfied to simply bloviate among friends as if one opinion
is as good as another, you are not a Radical Centrist. Nor is Radical
Centrism
a sub-species of Libertarianism as some people seem to think. RC does not
-not at all- reduce to questions of individual freedom. That concept is
the
exact opposite of Radical Centrism. For us the questions are: "What is
objectively
right and good? What is really true? What is false? What is the best
course
of action to take?" Freedom may be a necessary condition for asking these
kinds of questions but it is far from sufficient.
.
To cite a Bible passage that sums it all up, I Corinthians 6: 12, "I am
free to
do anything," you say. Yes, but is everything for my good?" In other
words,
your purpose should be to identify the good and, once you have done that,
objectively to the best of your abilities, your responsibility is to
demand
the good from others, never to accept what is bad (dysfunctional,
corrupting, half baked, etc.) and to demand that bad things cease.
.
"Anything goes"? Like hell it does. Libertarians may believe in that
kind of crap, but anything does not go. It is our responsibility as
grown-up men and women to make damned sure the good prevails
and evil fails. It is as simple as that.
.
People choose all kinds of stupid things all the time, they may choose
paths
in life that ruin other lives even when immediate harm is not evident,
they may influence others to act irresponsibly, and you name it; we should
stop them
from doing any of these things. Libertarianism -which appears in many
forms
in society- is simplistic horse manure under pretense of a political
ideology.
And the self-centeredness and selfishness that libertarianism promotes,
either overtly or indirectly by the logic it embodies, is objectionable
and sickening. It is completely unacceptable.
.
All of which says, in the present context, that attempting to justify
homosexuality
as a question of free choice or "human rights" is indefensible. That kind
of
argument is pure nonsense. There is a necessary prior consideration, what
is objectively good vs. what is objectively dysfunctional, bad, or
pathological.
.
It does not matter whether a child or sibling is homosexual in deciding
the issue for yourself when what is objectively right or wrong is at
stake.
Or would you be accepting of a son or daughter, sister or brother, if he
or she asked you to "accept" his or her free choice to be a drug abuser?
You surely would not -even if the mass media said it was "normal" and
such people were members of a minority group deserving legal rights. Which,
of course, some elements of the media are already doing.
.
I have a number of reasons for being unalterably opposed to homosexuality.
Partly this is a result of what I have seen, directly, in places where
homosexuals are widely tolerated and feel free to make themselves
known for what they are to everyone in their vicinity -actions that
are repulsive, idiotic, and insane. This factor is major in my
calculations,
it is very important and is unrelated to Ramona. Partly this is a result
of
extensive research on the subject that I have carried out over the course
of 30 years, with two unpublished books to show for it, and a third,
while it also deals with American politics more generally, is mostly
about homosexuality, my still incomplete When the Truth is Found
to be Lies.
.
There is a third alternative to ignoring someone's homosexuality or
accepting it: Learning what it consists of, doing the necessary research,
and responding on the basis of hard won actual knowledge. Which is
a course that neither Newt Gingrich nor Rob Portman ever considered.
But not just them, needless to say, this is the pattern generally,
everywhere
in American society -and it stinks to high heaven.
.
Part of my motivation for studying homosexuality is the direct result
of Ramona's horrible decision 40 years ago to become a sexual
degenerate. And now, while I don't know everything possible on
the subject, I know a helluva lot, enough to be quite certain that
homosexuality is a sickness, a full blown psychopathology,
and should not be tolerated for one minute.
.
And you have strong feelings on the issue? Maybe you do, but so do I,
and my guess is that you don't know what you are talking about
while I do, and I am not about to shut up about it.
.
As much as she would listen, which never was very much, I have tried
repeatedly to tell Ramona what I know and to persuade her that her
commitment to homosexuality has been a horrible mistake. She is a smart
woman who runs a computer business. But as I have learned, she knows
next to nothing about the psychoanalytic literature on the subject of
homosexuality, has no empirical knowledge of homosexual social
behaviors and their strong associations with such things as incidences
of crime and substance abuse, and judges everything about the matter
on the basis of subjective experience in the hothouse environment
of the San Francisco area -where she also lives.
.
There really is no point in trying to reach her any more directly. Her res
ponse
is to try and laugh it off, or ridicule you as if homosexuals know
everything
and even the best researchers know nothing. Her attitudes are absurd and
self destructive -and entrenched. And by this stage of things she can
also go to hell. But what she would be unable to ignore would be
the success of one of my books, best seller status which I think
my work deserves, and which everyone would be talking about.
At that point I seriously doubt if she could continue in her hauteur
and persist in thinking that ignorance is bliss. Complete humiliation
might do her some real good.
.
I may make excuses for some people, for some length of time, for
personal reasons, but there are decided limits. Otherwise I make
no excuses for anyone.
.
I don't care who you are.
.
.
All of this discussion would be over mother's head if she was still alive.
What mattered for her was family unity, which she made impossible
by her warped values, unwillingness to be honest about her life,
unwillingness to admit making mistakes, and unwillingness to
learn much of anything past the age of 70. She still went to school,
taking courses at a college in San Mateo, as late as the 1990s.
She could have cultivated her mind and used her free time,
which she had in abundance after buying that very nice house
in Eugene. Just about all of her time was her own. But that was not
how she used all those days and weeks and months -then years-
that were hers to take full advantage of.
.
She retreated into a world of her choosing with hopelessly constricted
horizons. What mattered the most to her was what one or another of her
neighbors
might say about her property, not what Angela Merkel might say to the
prime minister of Britain, nor what America's brightest pundits were saying
about serious problems in US politics. Mother's parochialism ruled her
mind
-as it always had, only now, at the end, it was much worse
and just about total.
.
And her conception of homosexuality was based on close to 100%
ignorance of the subject. That kind of outlook deserves no respect
at all. To pretend otherwise because of her relationship to me
would be a farce. But because of it, she created a myth that
went like this:
.
The whole reason for Ramona's estrangement was due to Billy's
unenlightened intransigence about homosexuality. There was no connection
at all to anything involving herself and her sick treatment of Robert.
It was all Billy's fault. Moreover, he deserves to become the scapegoat.
He opposes the savior, Barrack Hussein Obama, and he does not have
a lucrative career and, hence, cannot provide mother with money to support
her extravagant and grossly wasteful lifestyle. He deserves to be blamed
for all that has gone wrong in mother's relationship with Ramona.
Moreover,
when Ramona sees that mother has disinherited Billy she will finally give
her heart to mother. At least mother's soul would be at peace when that
day comes. OR -probably more plausibly- Ramona will be so overcome with
guilt
that she will suffer and finally understand all the grief she has caused
mother
these past several years.
.
To be sure, I cannot read minds; I have no way to be sure that mother
was thinking along these lines when she wrote her will. However, this
scenario makes sense, it squares with the known facts, and it takes into
account
what everyone knows about mother's values and way of thinking.
If anyone has a better explanation kindly share your insights.
.
This scenario was not meant to be discovered.. Which is why mother's will
was uncommunicative, she did not want to tip her hand in any way. She did
not anticipate that I would be able to discern her real agenda. Too bad
for her that I did.
.
There is no use in speculating about what mother might have thought had she
lived longer and, say, one of my books was published and ignited a
political
firestorm. She is dead and, in my honest opinion, it would have been
far better for all concerned if she had died several years ago. She is
gone,
in any event, and cannot listen. Even if that were possible it is safe bet
that she would not listen. Justification for her pathetic life was what she
was all about in her final years. When all is said she was an abysmal
failure.
.
This being the case, who can still benefit from my comments are other
family members who are still very much alive -plus all the people with
whom
I communicate nationally, roughly 50 people, just about all of whom
are professionals of one kind or another, and some of whom have
connections to still other professionals and to the media.
.
Not that the siblings will "get it." Their computer worlds are worlds made
up
of small circles of like-minded people who also move in limited spaces.
Or , more accurately, two have almost no networking universe, Robert and
Rita. For Robert the reason is that when it comes to electronics his motto
is: "if it isn't broken it should be;" he is a tinkerer who has messed up
each
computer he has owned and ended up, each time, with no computer. But even
when he is online his interests are narrow. Besides, until now, there has
not been
serious time to cultivate any kind of network, mother saw to that and he
let her
do so. For Rita she simply does not have the interest. There isn't any,
none, nada, zilch. Doubtless Ramona has her own network, or parallel business
and homosexual networks, but she is anything but a devotee of ideas; she
also has very limited horizons. In any case, none of the three can see any
visible
signs of success on my part, what is there to be concerned about?
.
It does not occur to them that whatever I write and distribute enters
cyberspace
and any number of private archives. At such time as I do break into the
news
all the material I have circulated becomes hot stuff. And what will happen
to their little worlds then? Thinking this way is inconceivable to each
of therm.
.
Regardless, homosexuality is a mental illness, there is no real question
about it.
The myth that the newly enlightened American Psychiatric Association proved
that homosexuality was normal in its actions in the 1970s is undiluted
hokum.
That was not what happened at all.
.
The full story is told in a number of publications but the best source to
turn to
is a 1995 book by Charles Socarides, Homosexuality, A Freedom Too Far.
Essentially homosexuals infiltrated the APA and, through a series of power
plays and secret maneuvers, took over administration of the organization
in 1972. After that they were able to rewrite the rules, the group's
objectives, and the DSM itself. What was still a majority of psychiatrists who
knew
damned well that homosexuality was a disorder consisted of political naifs
who were clueless about how to counter the homosexuals and, more
importantly, their allies in the organization.
.
In time the normal psychiatrists, or many of them, organized NARTH, the
National Organization for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, much
of whose literature I have read, most of which is first rate. NARTH
findings
are politically sensitive, to stay in business in California the group
needs to
be highly circumspect, but there isn't any question that a disease is still
a disease even when it is referred to as "dysfunctional" or "problematic"
or "neurotic" or other euphemisms.
.
But to homosexuals like Ramona, NARTH is nothing but a swear word
to use to try and discredit anyone who dares to criticize their pathology..
The issue isn't NARTH, however, I have discovered far better sources
of information, but all of this is discussed in my new still unfinished
book
that has been widely circulated already in its incomplete form, and
more on the subject well not be discussed here. Many people already
have access to the details of my research conclusions. And there is
more to come which will be made available when I finally set about
to complete the text.
.
At any rate, there is a common misunderstanding of what a mental illness
actually is. It does not consist of someone writhing in distress, falling
to the floor,
and frothing at the mouth. To be sure, that might well indicate a
psychopatholgy.
Mental institutions are filled with people who exhibit extreme symptoms,
but the more usual form a mental illness takes is far less conspicuous;
in many cases it may not have visible manifestations at all, at least not
to
untrained observers.
.
Rather, a mental illness is a serious malfunction in an otherwise "normal"
personality. The mentally ill, may be able to go to work, live an ordered
life, become educated, and all the rest, but there nonetheless are terrible
problems.
In the case of homosexuals the best analogy would seem to be to compare
them to con artists, "con men" in now obsolete jargon. They may seem so
nice, they seem trustworthy, they may be smart, in a word, they win your
confidence.
You only find out the sickening reality when it is too late.
.
Or we can refer to a conclusion of University of Montreal sexologist Claude
Crepault, that what is at issue is not normal aversion to homosexual
repulsiveness,
branded by homosexuals as "homophobia," but something very different.
The real problem is clinical heteophobia, unwillingness to respond
naturally
to the opposite sex. It is a morbid psychopathology not to be interested
in normal sexual relations, and it is about time that we repudiated all
pronouncements in the media to any other effect
.
.
To be sure, some homosexuals are pathological on the face of it. There
have
been studies of "leather bars," for example, where there is little doubt
that
what motivates patrons is one or another version of a sadistic behavior
syndrome, or where exhibitionism takes grotesque forms like parading
around
in pants that have no "seats," exposing buttocks and rectum to everyone in
sight.
In other cases, homosexuals are known for obsessive alcoholism, extreme
drug abuse, and even pleasure in activities where the risk of contacting
a dread disease like AIDS is not only high, it is as close to certain
(100%)
as it is possible to get. But to speak of those 'nice gentlemen' who happen
to have limp wrists, or may not have limp wrists at all........
.
Needless to say, they may not be men. They may wear dresses and be women
who don't look at all different than other members of their gender.
.
It is what you ordinarily don't see that is the problem. And the reason
you do not see such things is twofold, (1) they don't want you to witness
behavior that would make you sick the moment you witnessed it and
immediately knew that these people are out of their tree, or (2) because
you don't want to see it because you are psychologically invested
in an ideological interpretation of homosexuality as a civil rights issue
and nothing else can possibly be considered. This is especially likely
if you are on the political (moral relativist) Left but it is not limited
to that part of the political spectrum. Rightists may not want to see such
things because they are squeamish, or because they may live in a world of
religious illusion where everyone is a child of God and the Lord has a plan
for all of us, hence everyone deserves respect and Christians should not
be judgmental.
.
Like most Christians, let along most people at large, they may not even be
aware that in the 25 passages in which the Bible discusses sodomy, about
half of the verses in question found in each testament, this sort of behavior
is unequivocally condemned, relegating such individuals to hell. Which is
also true for Jesus who,
in Matthew 11, characterized the people of Chorazin and Bethsaida as even
worse that the perverts of Sodom itself. And true of either Left or Right,
you have better things to do, research takes time, and you can't be
bothered.
.
This being the case let me make it simple. I won't even bring up the
subject
of the abnormally high (off the charts) rates of child abuse perpetrated
by
homosexuals nor the fact that the single greatest predictor of adult
homosexuality
is being sexually abused in childhood -there is nothing genetic about it
even
though trauma to a pregnant woman can cause fetal damage that can
predispose a child to aberrant behavior, not necessarily homosexual in
character but that might have that result.
.
Instead, let me provide a little quiz for you to take. It is intended for
my
siblings most of all but it should have value for just about anyone.
The language is vernacular -so that there will be no mistake about what
is meant. Let's get real, shall we, and be honest about this for a change.
Here is the quiz-
.
Which of the following common homosexual behaviors
are NOT pathological
.
The behaviors in question do not involve all homosexuals all the time, and
in some cases only a minority is part of the picture. However, all male
homosexuals, unless there are very rare exceptions, participate in
some of these activities, at some time in there lives. In other words,
the quiz asks you to be specific and to identify those homosexual
activities you are willing to defend to other people as non-problematic,
as OK, as reasonably "normal."
.
1. Males who suck each other off. This may also include kissing
and fondling of body parts. Not a separate question, such relationships
generally also involve mutual masturbation sessions.
.
2. Males who use each other's rectums as substitutes for a vagina.
Indeed, if Rechy's book, The Sexual Outlaw, is to be believed, some
homosexuals fall in love with each other's assholes. In any case, while
estimates vary, homosexual rectal sex is participated in by a minimum
of 40% of the homosexual population, with some researchers
of the opinion that the real figure is much higher.
.
3. Males who derive pleasure from licking each others rectums, a practice
called "rimming." This may or may not include feces ingestion, shit
eating,
but there is no question that it sometimes does.
.
4. Urine as part of sex play, viz, pissing on each other, so called
"golden showers." This may or may not include drinking one another's piss,
but there is no question that it sometimes does.
.
5. Physical punishment as part of sexual experience, viz., bondage and
S/M, sado-masochism. One figure that I have seen, while it may well be
exaggerated, nonetheless gives a clear indication that there are huge
differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. As much as 90%
of bondage equipment sold in the United States, including whips
and chains, is purchased by homosexuals. FYI, homosexuals
who generally do the punishing are known as "tops;" those who
usually receive punishment are called "bottoms."
.
6. Mud rolling, so-called, which involves one or more homosexuals
defecating on the floor, with participants rolling in the available shit
for 'erotic' thrills.
.
7. Fetishism of various forms, which is near universal among homosexuals.
This includes homosexuals who collect shoes for sexual purposes, for
example,
and such exotica as homosexuals who use their assholes as receptacles
in which they insert all kinds of objects intended to arouse the ardor
of their homosexual partner. In some percentage of cases there are medical
reports of homosexuals who insert live animals up one another's assholes.
Needless to say, this sort of activity can result in bites and infections.
.
.
More questions would be possible but surely you get the idea. For a
comprehensive description of most homosexual activities see O.R. Adams
2001 book, As We Sodomize America. You may wish to skip most
of the last 300 pages or so of this 700 page opus, but the rest of the
text,
especially the first 200 pages, is an education into perversity like you
wouldn't believe; its all sickening beyond description. Adams is a
traditionalist Christian and I find some of his belief out of bounds
or ill-advised. However, he is also an experienced attorney and
there is no nonsense, not one word of it, in his descriptions of
homosexual behaviors.
.
Now you tell me which of the behaviors in the quiz you are willing to
defend in public as "normal" and unobjectionable. If you are unwilling
to defend these behaviors, whatever garbage to the contrary you have
hitherto fore accepted as true, then you know perfectly well that
homosexuality is a psychopathology. If so, say so, show some
backbone, and stop conceding anything at all to homosexuals.
.
About female homosexuality, their behavioral repertoire is more limited
but there are all kinds of parallels, including S/M. An entire issue of
Hypatia magazine was devoted to open-to-the-public beatings and
torture of women by other women at feminist festivals. I somehow
doubt that Ramona goes that far but there are other activities
that, as a female homosexual, she surely takes part in. Bad news
for her, I know what these are.
.
You do not need to guess that Ramona is a huge embarrassment to me.
The other siblings are actually half siblings, but in her case as far as I
am
concerned she shares 0% of biological background with me. She is
a disgrace to the family even worse, if that is possible, than mother.
.
Imagine Ramona using her tongue, pretending it is a prick, as she "fucks"
her partner. Or imagine Ramona wearing a dildo as she penetrates another
female with a fake penis. Imagine her cunt-lapping another female.
And maybe she also uses urine or feces as part of her sexual experience.
I have no idea, I don't need to know and don't want to know, but these
are very common female homosexual activities.
.
All of which are psychopathological and make me sick to even think about.
.
She isn't my sister; she is a mentally diseased person who I don't
even want to know.
.
.
--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[RC] Painful Truths Part # 3
BILROJ via Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community Thu, 31 Dec 2015 08:13:07 -0800
